reLAKSation 292. Callander McDowell
Fraud!!: Following on from our comments in reLAKSation no 290 about consumers being duped into paying double for farmed fish when they think they are buying wild, the British Food Standards Agency have now published the results of their investigation. As we predicted, the worst offenders are independent fishmongers who were responsible for 43 out of 57 examples of incorrect labelling found by the FSA. The majority of the other infringements were found in the wholesale fish markets with only two examples from the supermarket sector.
Various reports of these infringements have been headlined as fraud but we at Callander McDowell are not convinced that there is any widespread attempt to deliberately mislead consumers. Instead, we believe that many of the infringements are the result of ignorance and poor policing as well as examples where simple reasoning has gone out of the window. For example, we have seen an instance where one store group produced a large banner stating ‘Scottish salmon – Farmed in Scotland and Norway’. Clearly, someone just had a mind block.
Part of the problem is that when the new labelling legislation was introduced, it was on the back of claims by the environmental lobby that consumers were being actively misled about the farmed salmon they were buying. All the emphasis was placed on checking the supermarkets as they were (wrongly) blamed for deceiving their customers. This meant that the independent sector was largely ignored both in terms of education as to the correct way to label fish and then of policing them. It is clear to anyone who has watched the independent sector that most fishmongers have kept labelling to a minimum, restricting information to the name and the price. Whilst there must be some fishmongers who have adhered to the legislation, there are many, including some lauded by our celebrity chefs that have failed to comply with the legislation. Seemingly, local Trading Standards Officers have never bothered to police the sector so enabling fishmongers to continue to label fish incorrectly.
We are not defending the independent sector, in fact this is an issue which we have raised well before the FSA took an interest, but we can understand that with rising costs, they would readily reuse labels rather than going to the expense of producing new ones as long as the label described the fish being sold. This is no excuse but until the authorities highlight these errors, fishmongers will continue to keep labelling to a minimum.
The Food Standards Agency investigation focused on sea bass and sea bream mainly because these species are both farmed as well as being available as wild. However, more interestingly, they also looked at salmon which offers a much greater scope for confusion and looking at the FSA results it seems that even they were confused. The continued rise of wild Pacific salmon has undoubtedly increased confusion amongst consumers who fail to understand that wild Alaskan salmon is not the wild version of the farmed salmon that they can buy but rather a different fish altogether just as cod and haddock are different fish. The problem is further compounded by the fact that there are five different Pacific species which are all different especially in their eating qualities. However, the push to offer a sustainable option has meant that Pacific salmon have flooded into the marketplace with the inevitable confusion. Certainly, it is only necessary to look at the FSA list of examples to be confused with different outlets labelling wild salmon in many different ways. It is impossible to know whether those fish simply labelled as wild salmon are Atlantics or Pacifics. The results of the FSA investigation don’t really shed any light on the confusion.
The FSA lists thirty four examples of which eleven originate from supermarkets and one from Harrods, which might be classed in the large retail group. The remainder are either wholesale or retail fishmongers. Of the thirty four samples, fourteen are described as wild Pacific salmon in one way or another. The others could be Atlantic or Pacific salmon with one exception which was described as ‘Wild salmon – Scotland.’
The FSA study found that twenty of the samples described as wild were in fact wild. Of these, six were actually Pacific species whilst another seven samples described as wild Pacific salmon were determined as being outside the database. How six such samples can be positively determined as wild whilst a further seven could not must in some way undermine the validity of these tests? It might be argued that six were from one species which is in the database and the other seven were from another species that are not. Unfortunately, two of the samples were taken from Tesco stores, one in East Sussex and the other in Gloucester. Both samples were described as Wild Alaskan Sockeye Salmon fillets and whilst one was determined as wild, the other was not in the database. Clearly, these products were identical yet the FSA test failed to identify them as such.
Of the remaining samples, two from independent fishmongers and labelled as ‘wild salmon’ were found to be not consistent with wild fish whilst four samples were found to be farmed. One comes from an independent fishmonger and was labelled as wild, whilst another was labelled as ‘salmon fillet’ so could well be farmed but just incorrectly labelled. The third sample came from Harrods and was labelled as wild salmon and the fourth from Sainsbury’s in Stroud. This fish was labelled as Wild Alaskan salmon fillet but was like the other three found to be farmed. Again, we are not defending Sainsbury’s but having made several hundred observations of Sainsbury’s stores we know that both the farmed Atlantic salmon and wild Alaskan salmon are clearly labelled. In addition, the wild salmon is usually kept separate in a rimmed tray. The fish also look very different. We suspect that this example is simply down to human error and that the assistant took the fish and keyed in the wrong code.
If the FSA are unable to correctly distinguish between wild Pacific and farmed Atlantic salmon, it is not surprising that everyone else is also confused.
We would repeat that we do not believe that this confusion is down to deliberate fraud although there is a clear financial reward from such deceit. We believe that in most cases it is simple ignorance. The solution is that there must be stronger monitoring by trading standards even at Harrods. Once there is improved awareness and compliance with the legislation, then there can be a crack down on any deliberate attempts to mislead.
Been there, done it: According to seafoodintelliegence.com, Sid Patten, Chief Executive of the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation, said that it is extremely important that consumers are given the correct information to allow them to make an informed purchase decision. His comments were in response to publication of the Food Standards Agency report that is discussed previously. However Mr Patten also added that just as importantly, Scotland’s salmon farmers are extremely proud of the fish they produce having invested hugely in product quality over many years and the SSPO would be delighted to work with the Food Standards Agency and retailers to emphasise the qualities of farmed fish, thus ensuring a fairer deal for consumers and producers alike.
We, at Callander McDowell, wonder if Mr Patten has missed the point of the legislation which is simply to ensure that correct production method and origin of fish is described. Whilst sophisticated testing by the FSA may go someway towards differentiating farmed fish from wild, even they cannot determine the actual origin of the fish. All they can do is hope that the origin is described on labels in accordance with the prescribed manner. Thus Scottish salmon should really be described as ‘Farmed in the UK’ since Scotland is not an identifiable member of the EU.
Whilst the labelling legislation covers production method and origin, it does not include quality. This is not surprising since quality is a subjective measure which is different to different people. Mr Patten says that Scottish farmers are extremely proud of the fish they produce. We are of no doubt that Norwegian and Chilean farmers are just as proud. Whilst he says that Scottish farmers have invested hugely in product quality over many years, the simple fact is that most consumers would be unable to identify one piece of salmon from any other. In reLAKSation 258 we asked our readers to identify the origin of four different salmon fillets. Not surprisingly, no-one came up the right answer since all looked pretty much the same. This is exactly how consumers see the fish too.
The Scottish industry has tried to play the quality card for many years without a great deal of success. Their failure to generate a price premium led to the repeated dumping complaints. Mr Patten says that the industry has invested in quality over many years yet this is not reflected in the price paid in the retail sector. The Ernst & Young report last year said that consumers are prepared to pay a premium for Scottish salmon but do not, and cannot, cite even one single example where such a premium is achieved. We acknowledge that some Scottish farms do get a premium at farm gate but this may have more to do with the advantages of local supply rather than any discernable quality differences.
Mr Patten will not remember as it was long before his time, but the Scottish industry did once have its own quality label, the Tartan Quality Mark, which was supposed to be attached to all packs of Scottish salmon enabling consumers to see that the salmon they were buying was of a ascribed quality. However, the TQM has long disappeared from the retail sector in the UK. The reason why is simple. Consumers were unwilling to pay more for salmon carrying the mark since they could not ascertain what added quality the extra cost bought them and as farmers had to pay to operate the scheme, incorporating the mark actually cost them money. Over time, it became apparent that the TQM scheme lost farmers more money than they gained.
In a slight deviation from the main theme we would like to return to the question of correct labelling. We still have an example in which Tartan Quality Mark Scottish salmon was given a label that described the fish as’ Farmed in Norway’ Clearly no-one is perfect!
Besides the TQM, the Scottish industry has also invested in the Label Rouge quality mark for fish destined to be sold in France. Although Label Rouge accreditation was awarded over ten years, sales of Label Rouge Scottish salmon have hardly exceeded five thousand tonnes a year, a mere drop in the ocean of Scottish production. This is a clear indication that even discerning French consumers are largely unwilling to pay extra for what is deemed to be quality salmon. Our own observations of the French retail sector would indicate that most Label Rouge salmon is becoming even less desirable since consumers are unable to find any significant difference between Label Rouge and other salmon.
Mr Patten hopes that the industry can work with the FSA and retailers to promote quality Scottish salmon. What Mr Patten doesn’t realise is that the industry has already been there and done it.
Old news!: According to fishupdate.com, frozen food company Findus has announced that it has launched Norwegian farmed cod in the freezer cabinets in both Tesco and Sainsbury supermarkets.
We, at Callander McDowell have found this news rather surprising since we were first aware of this farmed cod on February 26th over two months ago, when we recorded its presence in the freezer cabinet of our local Sainsbury’s store and subsequently notified customers of our relevant survey later that day. Since then, we have continually observed Findus farmed cod in many Sainsbury’s stores and based on our observations of pack availability it appears to be selling well. Frozen food is much easier to monitor than chilled products since they have a much longer shelf life and unsold product does not have to be removed from the shelves on a regular basis.
Findus are not the only company to delay notification of the launch of new products. Several companies appear to take a similar tack. We often see products long before their arrival is publicised in the industry press. Perhaps, companies want to be sure of its success before making any public announcement. Certainly our experience is that many products arrive on the shelves and due to a lack of customer interest, are quickly removed never to be seen again.
Vidar Engen, commercial director of Findus said that it was time to take a proactive stance on bringing a sustainable farmed cod to market since the seas cannot keep up with the demands that we make on them. However, this is not the first sustainable cod to reach market. There can be few within the industry, who are not aware of the success of sustainable cod sold under the ‘No Catch’ brand.
At the recent Aquaculture Today conference in Edinburgh, No Catch MD Karol Rzepkowski was asked why his packs of No Catch cod did not make more of the fact they are farmed. Although, plenty of their other publicity material does discuss the farmed origin of the fish, the packs, which are the main interface with the customers, demotes the farmed origin to almost the bottom line of the back where it says in small print that the fish are ‘Organically farmed and packed in Shetland. UK’.
By comparison, the Findus product clearly declares its farmed credentials on every surface of the pack in bold letters. There is no doubt that this is a farmed product.
All credit must be given to Findus for those who promote sustainability of fish and seafood often discount farmed product as being sustainable. The reality is that in terms of sustainability farmed product must always win since for ever farmed fish consumed, one less wild fish must be caught from the sea.