{"id":8487,"date":"2025-11-05T16:26:14","date_gmt":"2025-11-05T16:26:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/elpregonerodechile.com\/?p=8487"},"modified":"2025-11-05T16:26:14","modified_gmt":"2025-11-05T16:26:14","slug":"supreme-court-upholds-fine-against-salmones-blumar-for-providing-false-information-on-anti-parasitic-treatment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/elpregonerodechile.com\/?p=8487","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Upholds Fine Against Salmones Blumar for Providing False Information on Anti-Parasitic Treatment"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n<\/p>\n

\n\n
\n

Original article: Suprema confirma multa a Salmones Blumar por \u201cinformaci\u00f3n falsa\u201d en tratamiento antiparasitario<\/a><\/p>\n\n

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court<\/strong> accepted the appeal and, through a replacement ruling<\/strong>, confirmed the fine imposed by Sernapesca<\/strong> on Salmones Blumar S.A.<\/strong> for submitting \u00abfalse or unreliable information\u00bb regarding an anti-parasitic treatment<\/strong> at the Concheo 2<\/strong> facility in the Ays\u00e9n Region. This ruling overturns a previous decision by the Coyhaique Court that had annulled the penalty.<\/p>\n

What is Being Penalized?<\/span><\/h2>\n

According to the ruling, the company submitted a \u00abDaily Work Log\u00bb indicating that the bath<\/strong> with the anti-parasitic treatment was already underway on November 24, 2019, to extend the window<\/strong> required by the health program. Inspections revealed that the treatments were conducted later<\/strong>, rendering the document not truthful<\/strong>. This conduct violates Article 113 of the General Fishing and Aquaculture Law<\/strong> and related regulations regarding caligus<\/a><\/strong> (sea lice).<\/p>\n

The Rule is Clear: \u00abWindow in Progress\u00bb or No Extension<\/h2>\n

The Sernapesca Instruction<\/a><\/strong> for the extension of treatment windows<\/strong> requires that the salmon farming center already be treating<\/strong> to qualify for the extension. This condition\u2014\u00bbwindow in progress\u00bb\u2014was what Blumar attempted to support with a document later disproven by inspection.<\/p>\n

It is important to note that treatment windows coordinate the use of anti-parasitics<\/strong> to manage caligus infestations. These chemicals and procedures have potential impacts on the marine environment, making traceability<\/strong> and accuracy<\/strong> of information indispensable. The court\u2019s affirmation of the fine reinforces the standard of public control<\/strong> in an industry with a history of socio-environmental conflict in regions such as Los R\u00edos, Ays\u00e9n, Los Lagos, and Magallanes.<\/p>\n

\"\"
The fine against Blumar remains in effect following confirmation of false reporting regarding an anti-parasitic treatment.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Furthermore, specialized media such as Diario Constitucional<\/a> report that the reinstated penalty amounts to 500 UTM<\/strong> (approximately $34 million<\/strong>) related to the case at the Concheo 2<\/strong> facility. Beyond the financial aspect, the significant issue is the precedent<\/strong>: providing unreliable data to enforce a \u00abwindow\u00bb not only violates health regulations but also undermines the social license<\/strong> of an industry heavily reliant on chemicals in fragile ecosystems.<\/p>\n

From a common good<\/strong> and territory<\/strong> perspective, this case confirms what communities, artisanal fishing unions, and socio-environmental organizations have been saying for years: without strict oversight<\/strong> and effective sanctions, salmon farming will continue to push regulatory limits to sustain its model. The fine against Salmones Blumar<\/strong> is not an \u00abisolated incident\u00bb but a reminder that the south is not a sacrifice zone<\/strong> and that the State must raise the standard<\/strong> for ecosystem protection.<\/p>\n

Review the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling here:<\/span><\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n