reLAKSation 152.
Clear
as night: According to a report in Intrafish, a new study by Leatherhead
Food International suggests that 41% of British consumers want to see more and
clearer information on the labels of the foods they buy.
We at Callander McDowell find this hard to believe since another study,
reported by supermarket chain Tesco, indicated that only about 10% of their
customers bother to look at the labels at all.
One
reason for this discrepancy could be the way that this research was carried out.
A lot of market research relies on information gathered from random interviews
in which the questions are often loaded so that the respondent must give an
answer, irrespective of whether they have a view on the matter or not. The
respondent is helped by the fact that the answers are usually provided in the
form of multiple choice fixed replies. Thus
if asked the question, whether
improved labelling on foods helpful in making a buying choice, the response is
likely to be yes even if the respondent has never bothered to previously read a
food label.
The
salmon industry has previously used a similar approach to market research which
is why the Scottish industry has been able to claim that up to 76% of consumers
prefer to buy salmon which has been farmed in Scotland. Yet when faced with
making a choice in store from fish labelled with farmed in Scotland, or farmed
in Norway, the same consumers are just as likely to choose either one. In much
the same way, 72% of salmon consumers have said that they are willing to pay a
premium in order to buy Scottish fish. However, it is clear from the way that
every supermarket prices its salmon identically, irrespective of its origin,
that most consumers just buy the salmon which represents the best value for
money. This shows that what most consumers say and what they do can be two very
different things.
Whatever
findings this research shows does not diminish the fact that food labelling can
be extremely confusing. The most confusing labelling is that which suggest a food
offers healthy eating, when it is clearly does not.
Examples include low fat foods which imply that the food is helpful in
weight loss when the food is actually full of sugar and lots of extra calories.
This is the type of labelling which does require clarification and for which
urgent action is required. By comparison, labels on fresh salmon products are
usually clear, even if sometimes the print size is very small. However, that is
what comes from having to cram a great deal of information on what can be an
extremely small label. Despite the small size, it is incumbent on the
manufacturers and suppliers to make sure that the labelling is correct, even if
the consumer then chooses not to read it.
Can't take no for an answer: The banner headline in Seafood News declares that a Minister has said no to salmon safeguards.
The
article states that the UK minister responsible for fisheries and aquaculture
has said that the situation has changed since the EU last intervened and that
the limited powers of safeguard action should now end. A representative from the
Scottish industry said that this was a bitter blow to Scottish salmon farmers
and the 6000 jobs dependent on the industry. He went on to say that the
Norwegian industry still had not learnt its lesson as the low prices were
continuing to bankrupt the EU and
Norwegian industries alike.
In
the continuing battle between Scottish producers and the EU for the immediate
imposition of safeguards, what makes this article of more than passing interest
is that it was published in Volume 3 No 6 of Seafood News, dated June 1992.
It
is somewhat hard to believe that twelve years on from publication of this
article, the salmon industry cannot lift its head and look beyond the same
protectionist policies it has pursued since prices first collapsed in 1989. The
salmon industry will never progress unless it is prepared to move on and produce
what the consumer wants.
Intrafish
have just reported on a new British survey of the retail seafood market from
research company Research and Markets, which forecasts continuing expansion
building on growth of 4.5% over the last year. This means that there will be
increased demand for fish and seafood products. Unless producers concentrate on
the market instead of Brussels, they could well miss out on this opportunity for
increased consumer demand.
Clearly,
the Scottish industry have also still to learn the lesson that trade action will
not resolve their problems. Sooner or later no will have to mean no.
Global
trade for a global market: Last week the 147
member countries of the World Trade Organisation reached agreement on a
framework for liberalising global trade. This means that by 2006 seafood could
be traded freely around the world. According to IntraFish this is only a couple
of years later than originally scheduled, despite earlier breakdowns in
negotiations in Seattle and Cancun.
Among
other things, the World Trade Organisation will draw up regulations as to how
trade disputes will be resolved. Hopefully, this liberalisation of trade will
bring an end to the recurring trade disputes which have dogged the salmon
industry over the last decade. A global marketplace should mean that claims of
over-production can be consigned to the waste bin forever. Salmon growth is
temperature dependent, which means that there is only a limited number of
countries suited for salmon production. Each production area will have a
limitation on the volume capable of being grown, which means that world salmon
production has a finite limit. With most available coastlines already being used
for salmon production there is unlikely to be any sudden rapid growth in output.
Thus, the salmon industry should look to using the anticipated liberalisation in
trade to develop the global marketplace for salmon rather than seek further
disputes against those countries which by their size and available coastline
will always be able to produce the largest quantities of salmon volume.
Trade
liberalisation is a major step forward in world trade, let us hope that the
salmon industry do not use it as an excuse to step backwards.