Wild catch fishing groups have adopted a formal policy opposing the use of the antibiotic florfenicol in Tasmanian waters, escalating a dispute with the salmon farming industry over chemical residues in wild-caught seafood.
The Tasmanian Rock Lobster Council (TRLC), Tasmanian Abalone Council Ltd. (TACL) and Tasmanian Commercial Divers Association (TCDA) say florfenicol and other therapeutants ‘must not be used’ in Tasmania’s marine environment, citing risks to export markets and the state’s ‘clean, green’ seafood reputation.
The policy follows a meeting on June 30, 2026 with Salmon Tasmania, where wild catch executives learned that Abbey Labs, the distributor of florfenicol, had lodged a minor use permit application with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA).
Florfenicol was first approved for emergency use last year to help salmon farmers combat an outbreak of the bacterium Piscirickettsia salmonis.
The APVMA suspended that emergency permit on March 4, 2026, after sampling by the National Residue and Environmental Testing program found the antibiotic was being taken up by wild catch species including rock lobster and abalone.
Salmon Tasmania has since confirmed it used more than five tonnes of florfenicol across nine salmon farm leases in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel during the 2025-26 summer treatment period.
Despite the treatment, around 9,000 tonnes of farmed salmon died from the disease outbreak over the same period.
While authorities say there is no risk to human health, the wild catch sector argues any detection creates a ‘zero-tolerance’ trade problem-most export markets have no approved residue limit for wild-caught species.
TRLC chief executive Jane McGann, TACL’s Julian Amos and TCDA’s Sue Grau represented the wild catch sector at the meeting.
In a position statement released this month, the three organisations said discussions with Salmon Tasmania had been held in good faith, but a ‘fundamental difference’ remained between the two sectors over how future use of the drug should be managed.
The groups raised particular concern that the new permit application proposes higher dosage rates, longer treatment periods and repeat treatments beyond what was used during the 2025-26 season, warning this could increase both the likelihood and spatial extent of residue detections in wild fisheries.
The statement said that if fishery closures were needed to manage contamination risk, a ‘comprehensive make good framework’ must apply, covering both individual compensation for affected fishers and processors, and broader industry-level recognition of economic and social impacts.
‘The wild catch sector views these two layers of compensation as non-negotiable if fishery closures are imposed on industry to facilitate the use of FFC,’ the statement said.
The peak bodies said escalating frustration among grassroots fishers and processors, who are seeking certainty over access to fishing grounds and market protections, had driven the decision to formalise the policy now.
Despite the firm stance, the groups said they remained committed to ‘constructive, transparent and evidence-based engagement’ with government, regulators and the aquaculture industry, and would continue to closely follow the permit application process.
