reLAKSation 293. Callander McDowell
Quality counts?: In the last issue of reLAKSation we mentioned that Sid Patten of the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation had said that his organisation would be delighted to work with the Food Standards Agency and retailers to emphasise the qualities of Scottish farmed salmon. We are not sure what this actually means but we must presume that Mr Patten is calling for the introduction of a special label to help consumers distinguish Scottish quality salmon. Perhaps if Mr Patten were to look at his organisation’s website he might see that such a label already exists – the Tartan Quality Mark. The website states that the TQM “is a recognised symbol assuring retailers and consumers that the salmon is Scottish and that the production process has been rigorously and independently inspected at every stage”. However as we pointed out in the last reLAKSation, consumers failed to respond to the TQM and whilst the SSPO are still happy to mention the mark in their website, it has totally disappeared from the British retail sector. This is because consumers were unwilling to pay extra for the reassurance that the TQM was supposed to impart.
Mr Patten is not alone in trying to promote the idea of quality marks. The European Commission has been keen to embrace the idea as a way of promoting the European aquaculture industry. At a meeting in Finland nearly a year ago, the European Commission said that the industry should be encouraged to use quality and origin marks to help differentiate the EU product. Unfortunately, what they have failed to realise is as Scottish salmon farmers have discovered, it is not enough to tell consumers that the fish are a quality product; consumers have to be able to differentiate the quality too.
Now, the European Commission wants to solicit both producers’ and consumers’ opinions on the range of quality labels used on aquaculture products. According to IntraFish, the Commission are therefore conducting an eco-label survey through the medium of the internet. They hope to develop EU wide standards organic aquaculture within two years and have discussed the possibility of launching an official eco-label as well.
We, at Callander McDowell wonder about the motivation behind this latest EU venture or whether it is simply a case of jumping on the proverbial bandwagon? This is because the European Commission seems to have a very poor knowledge about the certification procedures and quality labels used in the European aquaculture industry. The survey begins by asking respondents which labels are known and what they stand for. Yet most of the labels that the European Commission list in the survey appear to have very little to do with the aquaculture industry. It almost seems that those responsible for the survey sat around in a brain storming session and came up with any name that might have something to do with certification or quality irrespective of its application or role. The survey’s next question asks if you are in front of a display of aquaculture products bearing quality symbols, which will influence your choice most (excluding price and presentation). This suggests that the Commission sees these labels being used in the retail sector as a marketing tool. If this is the case, then it is worth considering which labels the Commission sees as being relevant to the aquaculture industry.
The various labels highlighted in the survey are grouped together in what presumably are similar classifications, the first of which appear to be ‘Fair Trade’. The idea of fair trade is to help the world’s poorest farmers obtain a fair price for their produce so they have a better future. Typical products are coffee, cocoa, tea, cotton and bananas. The survey lists three names:
Max Havelaar – the name of the Fair Trade organisation in Europe. Max Havelaar launched the first Fair Trade guarantee in 1988 on coffee from Mexico. It does not include any fish products whether wild caught or farmed.
Fair Trade – Fair Trade Labelling Organisations (FLO) operate in fifteen European countries. – They do not include any fish products whether wild caught or farmed.
Oxfam – a charity that responds to international emergencies such as that in Darfur with the aim of saving lives. It does not certify any foods but sells Fair Trade products in its charity shops to raise funds.
The second group of labels appear to relate to work practices. These include:
ISO9001 – an internationally recognised standard for a company’s internal quality management and has little to do with extolling the company’s products in the marketplace.
HACCP – is a systematic preventive approach to food safety used by the food industry to identify potential food safety hazards and thus prevent their occurrence. This is not a promotional tool.
British Retail Consortium - is an organisation which represents all British retailers whether large or small. They do have a set of standards but these are intended to help members defend against any potential prosecution by enforcement authorities.
The third group consists of just ‘Red Label’ or as it is better known ‘Label Rouge’ which is a quality label used in the French retail sector. It was established in 1965 and now covers over 45,000 different products across the food sector. It does include fish; the most well known being Scottish salmon.
The fourth group is the European Commission’s own PGI or Protected Geographical Indication. This is intended to protect the good name of foods with a well established geographic association. The best known is Parma ham which can only be called as such if it is produced in Parma in Italy. Many lesser know foods have attained PGI but there is very little benefit as there would be little advantage in trying to copy these. Scottish salmon producers have been awarded PGI, as have a couple of other fish producers, but have not obtained any benefit from doing so since other producers do not try to pass their fish off as Scottish since there is no financial benefit from doing so. The label is never seen in the retail sector.
The fifth group also consists of just one label, also instigated by the Commission. This is the Guaranteed Traditional Speciality (GTS) which highlights foods that do not have a geographic association. Currently, no fish products have been awarded GTS status.
The next group are organic certifications such as Bio, AB, Krav and Naturland. These are used for farmed fish and do appear in the retail sector. This is because organic fish products need to be certified to prove their organic status and justify the extra cost which consumers have to pay.
The seventh group covers retail quality schemes such as the Filière Qualitié used by Carrefour in France. In fact this is the only scheme to which the Commission refer although some others do exist. Carrefour’s scheme does include fish such as Norwegian salmon but the scheme is fraught with problems. When some fish have been give quality marks, it is natural for their customers to assume that the other fish offered by the store may not be of the same quality. It is more usual for consumers to simply put their trust in the name of the retailer itself.
The next group is the most difficult to interpret. It contains the name of Loch Duart Salmon, a salmon farming company in the north of Scotland. Loch Duart has won many awards for their salmon but currently the name remains the name of the farm and not of either a certification scheme or a quality mark. Loch Duart salmon is not sold as such in the retail sector but the name is used more commonly as that of the supplier in a number of restaurants.
The final group is assumed to be of certification bodies. It contains the names of:
Marine Stewardship Council - the certification body for wild fisheries that has said that it will have nothing to do with the aquaculture industry.
Krav – already covered as a certifier of organic produce in Sweden.
Seafish Responsible Scheme – a scheme for ensuring British fishing vessels fish responsibly.
What is surprising about the names listed in this survey is how little connection most have with aquaculture and at the same time, how many established names have been omitted. Although the Tartan Quality Mark is no longer visible in UK stores, it is well known as a quality label within the industry and relevant authorities. The Soil Association are also well known for the development of aquaculture standards for aquaculture yet have not been included. Finally, the Commission has failed to include any welfare standards such as the Freedom Food label which actually does appear on supermarket shelves.
From the information supplied in this survey, the Commission appears to know little about certification bodies and quality labels. If it intends to introduce its own eco label it must first have a much better understanding of what the market uses and needs. Clearly, the quality of its own work still leaves a lot to be desired!
Too many?: Last month, IntraFish reported from a conference on the globalisation of seafood. They said that the one thing on which all agreed was that there was a need to staunch the proliferation of certifications and standards. Poul Jensen of the Danish Seafood Association said that there are far too many labels out there. Roger Bing of Darden Restaurants said that standards and labels have the potential to be incredibly useful tools for communicating with customers but all they are doing is confusing them.
Organic certification for fish in the UK is enough on its own to confuse those consumers who bother to read the labels let alone the inclusion of other labels too. Organic salmon sold in the UK has been identified with certification under UK2, UK4, UK5 and UK15 labels. Each is from a different certifier using different standards. This means that what one certifier may not consider organic could be permitted by a different certifier leaving the consumers ignorant of any differences.
There has been undoubtedly a spate of new labels appearing in recent years as the industry tries to get to grips with the new demand for sustainable products. How many of these labels will survive is unclear for most producers will expect something in return for their investment in meeting the criteria that the labels will demand. That something may be just the ability to remain a supplier to the large supermarket chains that now seem to be setting the goalposts for sustainability. However, this may not be enough and some might anticipate a higher return on their investment with consumers expected to pay a higher price for fish with the requisite labelling.
IntraFish report that it is becoming increasingly clear that consumers are not willing to pay more for MSC certified fish. We, at Callander McDowell, are not surprised. The problem is MSC fish are just the same as none certified fish; they just have a piece of paper confirming that they are from a sustainable source. Consumers are willing to pay more when there is a discernable difference as with organic fish. Consumers know what they are paying extra for (although some of us may be a little confused!!) In the case of organic Scottish salmon, consumers can see an actual difference due to the lower uptake of pigment.
Although we have looked closely at the prices of MSC certified fish, we are as yet unable to ascertain whether prices are higher or not. The difficulty is that MSC approved species are not sold alongside the same fish without certification. In addition, many MSC fish species are sold as added value products so that any higher price is more likely to be attributed to the added value of the finished product.
We have referred more than once to the fact that Scottish producers failed to convince consumers to pay a higher price for fish of a Scottish origin even when they were given extra reassurance through the use of the Tartan Quality Mark. Consumers are just as likely to reject other labels unless they clearly understand the benefits conferred both in terms of the sustainability issue as well as the effect on their pockets!
Fraud again: In response to the claims by the British Food Standards Agency that some farmed fish is being sold as wild, IntraFish report that the French Retail Board - Ofimer has said that stringent labelling rules mean that the practice of selling farmed fish as wild is largely unheard of in France.
Philippe Paquotte, economic trends monitoring director of Ofimer said that the majority of farmed salmon is sold in hypermarkets and is always indicated on the label. He also added that during a recent visit to the UK, he was surprised by the lack of information show by retailers including Tesco.
We, at Callander McDowell, would disagree with M. Paquotte. The reason why farmed and wild salmon is not confused in France is that French retailers do not sell ‘fresh’ wild salmon on their fish counters therefore there is nothing to confuse. We would also take issue as to how stringent the labelling used in French supermarkets really is. We survey fish counters in both French and UK supermarkets and would argue that the information given in both is exactly the same. This includes the name of the fish, the method of production and the origin. If M. Paquotte found that the labelling in British supermarkets is lax then he should look again at the French stores because bits of information are often omitted. We do not believe that this is deliberate but simply down to efforts of the staff on any particular day. Whilst this is not acceptable we would guess that even M. Paquotte has an off day occasionally?