reLAKSation 214.
Knock
knock:
There was a huge furore in the press regarding the broadcast of the US TV
programme ‘ Boston Legal’ due to its anti-farming content. The story line
was that stars of the show become concerned that stocks of wild salmon are
threatened by local fish farming activity turning the story line into a real
life issue. Even anti-fish farming activist Don Staniford got into the act,
sending as many e-mails as he could around the world. However, since the
programme was broadcast, the story seems to have died a death, at least on the
international arena.
To offset any adverse publicity, Salmon of the Americas (SOTA) launched a national advertising campaign in some major US newspapers in which they promoted both the health benefits and environmental friendliness of farmed salmon. SOTA’s Alex Trent told IntraFish that they did not specifically reference the show because they wanted it to be a positive advert for the many consumers who didn’t actually watch the show. However, we at Callander McDowell, are not sure that the ads will be seen in a positive way, SOTA might hope.
The
advert, entitled ‘Good for you, Good for the Oceans’ includes four sub
headings. Three of these are: Omega –3:fatty acids for your health;
Co-existing with the wild; Fully fresh, Fully traceable. The messages that these
bring are fine. It is the fourth subject area which is of concern. This is
headed ‘No mercury worries with farmed salmon’ The text states that ‘
There are concerns about the mercury levels in some seafood, but not in salmon.
In fact, most tests done on salmon show no detectable levels.’ We believe that
the inclusion of this couple of sentences was a grave error of judgement and we
are not the only ones. Seafood.com says that this is a slippery slope that will
lead to various types of seafood producers bashing each other in the media with
the net result that all seafood will be hurt. They argue that if the campaign
had not mentioned mercury, it could have been an unqualified success. But by
trying to capitalise on the woes of the tuna industry and environmental scare
tactics, the campaign ends up not benefiting anyone. We very much agree.
Sadly,
it seems that there is an increasing tendency to try to promote one product, by
knocking another. Only recently, we discussed claims that farmed salmon was
healthier than organic salmon because it contained higher levels of omega 3
fatty acids. Now, Spanish salmon smokers have suggested that North American wild
salmon interests were behind last year’s Science article and that it was
commercially, not scientifically motivated. The smokers told IntraFish that the
article concluded that was that it
was safer to eat wild salmon from the US and Canada, whilst European salmon
could be dangerous for your health. Pedro Luis Mestanza, head of one of
Spain’s largest smokehouse says that both the Spanish media and consumers
realise that the whole thing concerned opposing commercial interests waging war
– “nothing more, nothing less”.
If
this is true, then it was a crazy strategy. In many consumers’ eyes, wild and
farmed salmon are just variations of the same thing. If the reputation of either
farmed or wild salmon is undermined, it will damage the image of all salmon. The
fish and seafood industry should concentrate on getting the message across that
all fish and seafood are good to eat rather than persuading consumer that one
species is better than another. If consumers eat more seafood then consumption
of individual species is bound to rise. Increased familiarity with all seafood
can only boost seafood consumption in general.
Whose
sustainability?: To
coincide with National Seafood Week, environmental group Greenpeace have
launched a major campaign in the UK aimed at persuading supermarkets to stock
only fish from sustainable sources. According to Greenpeace, seafood worth £1.8billion
is sold in the UK every year and 90% of it is sold through the supermarkets.
They say that the supermarket giants – Sainsbury’s Asda, Tesco, Morrisons
and Somerfield sell massive amounts of fish but do nothing to ensure that their
fish is sourced sustainably.
According
to IntraFish, supermarket chains, Marks & Spencers and Waitrose have escaped
the wrath of Greenpeace as having made the most headway with sustainable
sourcing. Their campaigns director, Oliver Knowles told IntraFish that Marks
& Spencers and Waitrose have the fullest policies with the most details.
Yet, in the Q&A section of their website, the answer to the question as to
where should consumers buy sustainable seafood, the Greenpeace response is
‘Marks & Spencers have invested considerable time and effort in improving
the fish they sell is caught or farmed. Not all fish sold from Marks &
Spencers is fully sustainable but it is certainly the best available from a UK
supermarket.’ We, at Callander McDowell must assume that Waitrose are
disappointed that their efforts have only been recognised by default, especially
as the top animal welfare group RSPCA have been crowned Food Retailer of the
Year in recognition of their commitment to sustainable fishing and animal
welfare.
The
Marine Conservation Society have also highlighted Waitrose as a supplier of
sustainable seafood as it sells the most species from their ‘Fish to
Eat’list. In total Waitrose sells 19 species that the MCS recommend as
compared to 16 in Marks & Spencers and 15 in Tesco. On this basis even a
supermarket such as Tesco which has been vilified by Greenpeace, can supply a
large number of fish from sustainable sources.
The
problem for supermarkets is that the species which are showing the most growth
in sales are those species which are high on the list of ‘Fish to Avoid’
list. A large percentage of the public, especially from the younger age groups,
shy away from eating fish. Species such as tuna, marlin, swordfish and monkfish
are more meaty than fishy in terms of eating quality and these are the exact
species that the younger consumers seem to prefer. Unfortunately, the MSC
appears unable to offer any suggestion as to alternative species that eat in the
same way. They suggest that consumers should try species like dab, coley, brill
and witch. Well, this just isn’t going to happen.
The
problem for consumers is that the various groups provide conflicting advice and
therefore it is extremely difficult to know exactly what to do. Both Greenpeace
and the MCS do agree that stocks of wild salmon are severely depleted and should
be avoided. However, Greenpeace argue that farmed salmon is not a good
alternative as they are fed on fishmeal made from wild caught fish. They also
uphold the myth that farming damages the environment and that the fish are
riddled with chemicals and antibiotics. By comparison, the MCS believe that it
is acceptable to eat farmed salmon as long as it is either produced under the
Freedom Food or organic label.
We, at Callander McDowell, would argue that we do not live in a museum. It is impossible for man to live on this planet without some impact. One of the reasons that fish stocks are so threatened is that we have been slow to look to farming for our supplies. In every other form of food gathering, man has turned from hunting to farming and so it should be with fish. Farmed salmon may eat fishmeal but so do many terrestrial farmed animals. The answer is not to stop eating farmed fish but to encourage the development of feeds that are not so dependent on fishmeal. However, this should apply even more to terrestrial farming where alternatives are more readily available. We just need to get our priorities right and ensure that we pursue the best idea of sustainability, not necessarily that imposed on us by pressure groups.