reLAKSation 226. Callander McDowell
Up
and down: According
to IntraFish, the UK's Daily Mail reported this week that sales of Scottish
farmed salmon soared to their highest level ever, rising by 10% to feature in
more than 650 million meals last year. Brian Simpson of the soon to be defunct
Scottish Quality Salmon said that 'an increasing number of children and parents'
eating salmon more often was behind the sales surge.
To
us, at Callander McDowell, this growth in consumption is of no surprise. We have
always argued that if the salmon industry supplies the right type of product
that consumers actually want, at a price they are willing to pay, then
consumption should continue to grow unabated. Certainly, IntraFish report that
producers expect a further 25% increase in 2006 and we would hope that this can
be achieved.
Yet
at the same time, these figures are puzzling. For two years, the EUSPG have been
forecasting a collapse in Scottish production. Whilst the belated official
production figures have shown that this has not happened, they do predict a 14%
fall in Scottish output. If Scotland has produced less fish during 2005, it is
difficult to comprehend how sales have soared by 10%. If the sales referred to
value, then this would be more understandable since prices have been higher
during 2005, but the report refers directly to meal consumption, so this means
volume.
There
are two possible explanations to explain this discrepancy. The first is that
fewer salmon are being exported and instead are being sold on the home market.
The industry target was that about 50% of salmon should be exported but if
exports were down, home consumption could certainly increase. Our observations
of the French market would suggest that this is certainly a possibility. In our
latest visit to French supermarkets, fresh Scottish salmon was not that evident.
The French market is one of the major targets for Scottish exports.
The
second explanation is that whilst consumption of salmon has increased, consumers
are not differentiating between Scottish and imported salmon. For many years,
the Scottish industry has been unable to satisfy their home market, which is why
imports have become so important to the UK market. It would make sense for
Scottish producers to target their home market first, but the reality is that
British consumers are unwilling to pay the premium price that some Scottish
producers expect. This is why British retailers look overseas for value for
money products to meet this demand and why Scottish producers have targeted the
French market. French consumers have been willing to pay more for Label Rouge
salmon. However, it seems that more and more French consumers are now following
their British counterparts and turning to value for money salmon instead.
IntraFish
report that the industry has yet to release official figures so it is difficult
to make a proper assessment of these figures. Scottish Quality Salmon usually
issue a press release but the figures have not come from this source. Perhaps
any press release, if there is one, has been delayed by the changes in
administration as the new SSPO becomes established? There does appear to be some
confusion since in a separate article, the new SSPO told IntraFish that more
than 910,000 consumers are eating fresh farmed salmon compared with a year ago.
This contrasts with the claim by SQS that parents and children are eating salmon
more often, ie that it is existing
consumers that are eating more salmon!
Politics
or poison: The latest developments in the Russian salmon saga have seen
the US environmental group 'Pure Salmon Campaign' write to the Norwegian
Fisheries Minister to ask if there has been a cover-up by the Norwegian
authorities. The letter was published by seafoodintelligence.com. In this they
ask some basic questions about how much feed was contaminated, how many
companies were involved and in what countries?
The
Pure Salmon Campaign were reacting to claims by Dr Claudette Bethune who works
at the National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research who expressed
concern that no official warning had been issued as to potential contamination.
Perhaps if the Pure Salmon Campaign had monitored the news thoroughly rather
than belatedly jumping on to the bandwagon following this story, then they would
have known that news of possible contamination was in the public arena back in
May, when the feed company concerned had announced that they had put aside NOK
55 million to cover the costs of tracing, recovering and destroying feed, which
had been contaminated by cadium originating from a feed premix. That would have
been the right time for the Pure Salmon Campaign to pose the question as to
whether fish could be contaminated or not.
Instead,
they have only been stirred into action by an ongoing political game of cat and
mouse between Russia and Norway. These latest problems arose when a Russian
fishing vessel was caught in Norwegian waters. Two Norwegian inspectors boarded
the vessel to talk to the captain who decided to immediately set sail for
Russian waters together with his two visitors. The inspectors were returned to
Norway when the fishing boat reached port.
It
was shortly after this clash, that Russia imposed restrictions on the import of
fresh Norwegian salmon over concerns about contamination. However, if the
restrictions resulted from real concerns about cadmium, rather than political
manoeuvring, then surely Russia would have banned the import of all Norwegian
salmon and not just fresh fish. Instead, exports of frozen salmon continued
uninterrupted.
This
dispute comes at a bad time for Norway. The EU are still working towards the
permanent imposition of trade measures and it now seems likely that the US will
not remove their long standing import restrictions. It's crazy that the salmon
industry, the only industry that can supply fish of a predictable quality, price
and availability is being subjected to continually political wrangling rather
than the demands of the marketplace.
As
to the question of the cadmium, it is surely up to the industry to ensure that
the necessary monitoring is in place to satisfy any consumer concerns, just as
it should be for any potential contaminant. Surely, no farmer would want to
supply any salmon that compromises consumer safety.
Healthy
Eating: The environmental groups such as the 'Pure Salmon Campaign' are
more than happy to scare off consumers from eating farmed salmon with their full
page newspaper advertisements. Their recent advert starts with 'eating certain
fish can be very good for you. But what's happening now at ocean based salmon
farms is enough to make you sick.' And so it goes on..
The
salmon representative organisations, such as Salmon of the Americas, are quick
to refute such claims. They too often resort to newspaper advertisements to
state their case.
However,
whilst the industry and the pressure groups argue the facts, the reality is that
it is the retailers who often do most to persuade consumers that salmon is not
only good to eat, but it is the healthy option.
Marks
& Spencer have been running a major advertising campaign over Christmas
featuring the best of their festive offerings. Now the holiday season is over
they have turned their attention to healthy eating. Their latest glossy advert
features one of their latest salmon dishes as well as other healthy eating food.
Part of the 'Cook' range of dishes, salmon fillet with soy, honey and ginger is
just one of several dishes to include salmon. The advert shows the sauce being
spooned over the salmon fillet and is enough to make the mouth water.
The
salmon industry often uses images of salmon farms and whole salmon to counter
the claims made by the environmental groups. This is not really what consumers
want to see and can deter them from buying salmon just as much as the
environmental campaigns. It is easy to forget what the consumer is really
interested in is the edible food. Marks & Spencer's advert is a clear
illustration of what is important and what is not.