reLAKSation 171.
February
(the 31st perhaps): The UK Secretary for
State for Trade & Industry, Patricia Hewitt, has written to each of the
EU’s member states to seek support for further measures to safeguard the
Scottish salmon industry. According to Seafoodintelligence.com, the Scottish
industry say that it is unable to compete against subsidised Norwegian salmon,
which is allegedly flooding the European market. The British Government hope
that an extension of EU trade measures could be in place by February.
The
British Government were encouraged to seek safeguard measures by their
counterparts in the Scottish Executive who have been actively lobbied by the
European Salmon Producers Group. Mr Lewis MacDonald, Scottish Minister for
Aquaculture told the Scottish Parliament that the European Commission is
convinced of the case that we have made of there being unfair trade and is
committed to aiding our industry to counter that threat. He continued that he is
pleased to report that there is a good prospect of achieving a workable solution
based on definitive proposals from the Commission’s Trade department.
According to Fishupdate.com, Mr MacDonald suggested that these proposals will
include a Commission investigation of Norwegian production costs, in which
members of the Scottish Executive will be involved.
We,
at Callander McDowell, are mystified by this suggestion. Would it not be better
if members of the Scottish Executive first investigate the production cost
structure of the Scottish industry. The Scottish industry has always maintained
that their production costs are much higher than those in Norway and therefore
they are unable to compete against lower cost salmon imports. Unfortunately, the
Scottish industry has so far been unable to provide any data in support of their
claims as no production cost data has been published for the Scottish industry
for well over a decade. By comparison, the Norwegian industry conduct an annual
survey of their production costs and publish the resulting data.
In
1995, representatives of the Scottish industry were told by the British House of
Commons, Scottish Affairs Committee that before they submit any further
submissions to Brussels, they should conduct such a production cost survey. The
Scottish industry ignored this advice and submitted their dumping complaint in
1996 anyway and have done so again this year.
The
Scottish Executive had hoped to conduct a production cost survey as part of the
Strategic Framework. The original document recommended that such a study should
be completed by November 2003, but as yet it has not even been started. The
latest update of the Framework document proposes that completion will be by June
2005. The reason for the delay was that commercial bids to undertake the study
varied widely. Why this should postpone the study, only the Scottish Executive
knows?
However,
whilst the Executive appear unable to agree on a full study of the Scottish
production costs, they were quite ready to undertake a separate survey of the
independent salmon growers represented by the European Salmon producers Group in
order to access the extent of the injury caused by Norwegian imports. They
received data from companies representing 23% of Scottish production and
calculated that in the first five months of 2003, losses amounted to -£7,011.85.
It is interesting that whilst the Scottish Executive undertook a survey of 23%
of the industry, they did not extend it to the remaining 77%. It must also be
assumed that as they still intend to conduct a full survey under the auspices of
the Strategic Framework, the data they have already received is not
representative of the costs incurred by the Scottish industry at all.
It
is difficult to understand the reluctance to produce accurate cost of production
data for the Scottish industry, that is until details of the last survey are
considered. Back in 1992/3, the Scottish Agricultural College undertook a
comparative cost survey between Scottish and Norwegian farms. Rather
surprisingly, the Scottish farms were found to have a cost advantage over those
in Norway. This produced a major outburst from industry representatives who had
contributed to the cost of the survey and then found it did not support their
belief that Scottish producers were disadvantaged. Ever since then, the Scottish
industry has been reluctant to participate in any survey of production costs.
Of
course, the cost structure of the Scottish industry has changed since the early
1990’s with extra costs incurred by imposed regulations. Fisupdate.com report
that Alistair Carmichael, MP for the Northern Isles told the Trade and Industry
Secretary in the House of Commons that the obvious way to help salmon farmers
immediately would remove the burden of the Crown Estate levy. He said that the
Crown Estate rents clearly affect the competitiveness of the industry. These are
charges which go straight to the treasury and are over and above other taxes
that the industry has to pay. There is nothing to stop the Government dealing
with this now.
There
is a belief that Scottish and Norwegian farmers should operate on a level
playing field, but this is impossible. Every country works in different ways and
this contributes to a differing cost structure. However, we at Callander
McDowell, agree with Mr Carmichael that the UK and Scottish Governments should
address the cost issues which they can affect rather than rushing to seek help
from Europe, especially as only 23% of the Scottish industry appear to want such
help!
Taste
the quality: Seafoodintelligence.com
published details of a special
Eurobarometer survey of EU citizens perception of food production, which
included a full section on food quality. The survey asked people to select three
from 10 characteristics that they believed made a food a quality product. The
most dominant characteristics were that food should have a good taste (44%) and
that it should look appetising (37%). Other notable factors include that the
food be produced under strict hygiene conditions (32%); carries a quality label
(28%); comes from a specific country (16%) and is more expensive than average
(3%).
Whilst
this survey considered food in general, there are a few clear message for salmon
farmers. The first is that consumers appear unwilling to pay more for a quality
product. Consumers clearly expect their food to be of the highest possible
quality for the price they pay. They certainly do not believe that they should
be paying a premium to ensure that the food is a quality product.
The
second is that most consumers consider taste and the eating characteristics to
be the major indicator of quality. This means that it should look good, taste
good and be good to eat. It is therefore not enough that the food is produced
under the most stringent controls, it must eat well. Consumers would expect
nothing less.
Finally,
only a quarter of respondents believe that a quality label is an indicator of
quality. Perhaps, this is the reason why the Tartan Quality Mark has not managed
to retain a presence in the retail sector. More worryingly for Scottish Quality
Salmon, who have seen the widespread disappearance of the TQM from the
supermarket shelves, their latest attempt to endorse Scottish salmon as a
premium quality product may have also backfired. Earlier this year, SQS applied
for Protected Geographical Indication for Scottish Farmed Salmon so that only
salmon farmed in Scotland can be labelled as such.
The
Eurobarometer survey found that 8% of European citizens were aware of PGI and
understood what it meant, whilst 86% did not. It is therefore extremely doubtful
whether Scottish salmon’s new status will enhance its position in the
marketplace.
What
is evident is that if consumers buy salmon and find it tasty and good to eat,
then they will come back for more, as long as they don’t have to dig deeper
into their pockets to pay for it.
Whore
not?: According to TV chef Clarissa Dickson
Wright, celebrity chef, Jamie Oliver is a whore. A known critic of farmed
salmon, she told the Times newspaper that Mr
Oliver is guilty of double standards and that she would never endorse a product
that she would not use herself. She argues that if she were to endorse
something, it would be something she believes in.
Ms
Dickson Wright’s outburst has been prompted by the latest advertising from
British supermarket, Sainsburys. Mr Oliver appears on the advert promoting the
new Taste the Difference birch and juniper smoked salmon.
Despite endorsing smoked salmon made from farmed fish, Jamie Oliver refuses to serve it in his London restaurant, Fifteen. However, one of his colleagues said that whilst Mr Oliver wouldn’t normally go near farmed fish, he thought that this was a better product and a step in the right direction and that’s why he agreed to participate in the advert.
We, at Callander McDowell, perceive that the problem is that there is a lot of snobbery involved in the world of celebrity chefs. They only want the to serve the high quality food produced under the most stringent welfare and environmental standards. Only the best is good enough. Whilst, the general public would no doubt like to aspire to the same ideals, they are not so easy to incorporate into daily life. Yet, whilst Jamie Oliver is being accused of hypocrisy, other celebrity chefs are equally not so perfect.
Celebrity chef , Antony Worall Thompson is quoted on the Salmon Farm Monitor website as saying “Until the farmed salmon industry gets its act together and proves to me and the rest of the world that it is environmentally friendly, non-toxic and a pleasure to eat – it won’t be gracing my plate, my family’s plate or indeed my customer’s plate.” Yet, and some other celebrity chefs have been seen to cook farmed salmon without any hesitation on TV. The daily BBC2 programme Ready Steady Cook gets chefs to cook ingredients brought in by the public. These often include farmed salmon and these chefs appear happy to use it without hesitation.
The truth is that the lure of the pay packet is often sufficient incentive to convince many of these celebrity chefs to bend their own rules. Why should Jamie Oliver be any different?
Clarissa Dickson Wright was not the only person to complain about the advert. The Advertising Standards Agency received five official complaints from viewers who were concerned about the validity of the claims. These mainly focussed on whather farmed salmon is healthy or not.
The complaints come from the usual sources such as Bruce Sandison of the Farmed Salmon Protest Group who said that Jamie Oliver was ill-advised to use his position to promote a product which is basically fat and unhealthy. Of course, Mr Sandison is not in the slightest bit interested whether farmed salmon is fat and unhealthy or not. He, like many other sport fishermen, simply blame salmon farming for his inability to catch fish. He claims that salmon farming has damaged wild stocks despite the fact that wild stocks have diminished, even in many English rivers, located hundred of miles from the nearest salmon farm.
Mr Sandison is keen to damage the reputation of all farmed salmon. His latest campaign is to persuade restauranteurs that they should state whether the salmon on their menus is farmed or not. One of the respondents to his restaurant survey suggests that most consumers now expect their food including salmon to be farmed and it is only necessary to state if it is not, benefiting from extra margin at the same time. The reality is that consumers would not expect menus to read Farmed chicken stuffed with farmed sage and farmed onion wrapped in bacon from farmed pigs, served with farmed potatoes, farmed sugar snap peas and farmed carrots!
Salmon farming has meant that salmon has now become an everyday meal choice. This is something which the industry should celebrate. Perhaps, everyday food no longer fits in with the celebrity ideal. It certainly doesn’t fit in with those of the field sport fraternity.