reLAKSation 295. Callander McDowell
Under fire: British supermarkets, Sainsbury’s and Tesco’s have been under fire again this week for poor hygiene. Two undercover reporters from the BBC Whistleblower programme worked on the deli counter in one Sainsbury’s store and the fish and meat counter in Tesco store. What they found was a catalogue of errors including falsification of temperature readings from refrigerators, cross contamination of utensils and a blatant disregard for use by dates. What was clear was that both stores had strict hygiene control measures in place but neither store made sure that these measures were followed.
Both supermarket chains responded to the documentary by saying that these were isolated incidents and that the relevant staff had been sent for retraining. However, what was clear from the documentary was that the only reason that staff disregarded the rules was that store management did not appear to be making even rudimentary checks that the rules were being followed. It would take just one unannounced visit to the counter each day to look at the temperature logs to ensure that the necessary data was being properly recorded at the right time intervals. Management were equally to blame for the deficiencies as the staff that took the short cuts.
What should be of more concern to the fish industry was how an untrained reporter managed to get a job on the fish counter without any knowledge of fish identification or preparation. Such staff are the front line interface between our production and the consumer. The service and information that these staff provide could influence the buying decisions of many consumers for years to come. The seafood industry’s future is ultimately dependent on the actions of these staff. Following the FSA investigation into mislabelled fish, Sid Patten from the Scottish Salmon Producers Organsiation recently suggested that fish should be better labelled including the addition of quality marks. However, it doesn’t matter how many quality labels the fish carries, if, when it reaches the retailer, staff aren’t knowledgeable about the correct way to handle the fish and the fish then reaches the customer in a poor condition.
However, it is not just those stores without trained fishmongers that get it wrong. Morrison’s, another British supermarket, won the Seafood Retailer of the Year award that recognises the variety and quality of the fish they sell and the excellent knowledge of their trained fishmongers. Morrison’s also won the best seafood product award in Seafish’s Seafood Awards 2007 with their wild, tagged, line caught Cornish sea bass. When we first saw these fish on a Morrison’s fresh fish counter during one of our routine surveys, we had to look twice since the fish looked extremely poor. They had obviously been on that fish counter for some time and looked it. It didn’t make any difference how many awards these fish had received, they only looked fit for the bin. The eyes were sunken and dull; the gills almost brown and the skin had a slightly bloody sheen in places. Any right minded customer would have given these fish a wide berth especially at £12.99/kg as compared to the farmed sea bass at £8.99/kg which looked in ideal condition.
Whilst Morrison’s say that their trained fishmongers are keen to share their knowledge, this knowledge can be lacking. Just this week, we overheard a trained Morrison’s fishmonger explaining to a customer that organic salmon were let out to roam like organic chicken before being collected up to be harvested!
Any retailer is as good as its staff. Supermarkets may have some shortcomings but clearly they need to invest in their staff as well as their products and services, otherwise, there is likely to be more stories like that from the BBC’s Whistleblower programme which could have an adverse affect on the whole seafood industry as well as the retailers.
Putting your foot down: Many fish processing companies are coming under increasing pressure to reduce their carbon footprint after the Sunday Times revealed that fish and seafood products are being sent halfway around the world before ending up on the supermarket shelf. According to fishupdate.com, the global voyages of much of the fish consumed in the UK has been an open secret within the industry for many years but is only now being highlighted by the national press and green groups, as the carbon footprint debate heats up. Most of the reports appearing in the press focus on the way that prawns are being sent from Scotland to China and Thailand for shelling before being shipped back to the UK for further processing and sale but it is not just prawns as the Sunday Times also highlights how Scottish haddock is being sent to Poland before returning to the UK for sale.
The UK’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs commissioned a study in 2005 which estimated that international food transport for the UK market produces more than 19 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and costs more than £9 billion in environmental, economic and social terms. Of course, this study refers to all UK food, not just fish. Companies like Dawnfresh and Young’s insist that whilst it may seem bizarre to send fish and seafood around the world for processing, they are forced to do so in order to remain competitive.
However, not all fish movements are down to the cost of processing. The Scottish salmon industry has focused much of its market aspirations towards export markets even though there is a healthy demand for salmon at home. As a result, Norwegian salmon is imported into the UK to meet the shortfall in demand resulting from the export of Scottish produced salmon overseas. Norwegian fish are not the only salmon to be imported into the UK. Increasing volumes of Pacific salmon are finding their way into the UK market for two very differing reasons.
The first is the increasing promotion of Marine Stewardship Council certified salmon from Alaska. These fish are seen by those, who claim to be aware, as the sustainable way of eating salmon based on the advice of the environmental lobby who claim that salmon farming is damaging to the environment. Yet, shipping fish from Alaska to Europe is not without costs since clearly, it produces a significant carbon footprint.
The second reason that more Pacific salmon is being imported into the UK and Europe is that the less desirable species such as Pink and Chum salmon are extremely cheap. They are thus attractive for use in further processing and this is exactly what is happening. As farmed salmon prices have increased, Atlantic salmon is no longer considered a viable proposition for added value unless the finished product can be sold at high cost. It is increasingly being replaced by Pink and Chum salmon in recipe dishes but these dishes are no longer being manufactured in UK. Instead, the processing is being carried out in China and Thailand. One such example is salmon & vegetable kebabs with a lemon & black pepper glaze. The finished product including the vegetables are being shipped halfway around the world and sold for just £6/kg.
Whilst not all such products are promoted as being made with MSC approved fish, many are. This means that the MSC are encouraging consumers to eat fish which may come from sustainable fisheries but are shipped ridiculous distances around the world.
The Observer Food Monthly offers a different perspective. They say that there are plenty of fish stocks around our coast which are overly abundant and these are the fish that we should be eating even though they may not be certified as sustainable. Pollack, saithe and herring are available and relatively low cost, yet British consumers are reluctant to consider eating them. Supermarket chains like Wal-Mart owned Asda say that they will not sell North Sea cod because it is threatened but instead of promoting alternative species they give pride of place on their fish counters to Pacific cod, which is MSC approved, even though it is shipped frozen halfway round the world. The message appears to be let’s save our fish stocks, but disregard how much damage we cause to our planet!
No credit at all: Kyst.no report that the European Commission’s decision to instigate a review into the salmon dumping case now is motivated by the hope that their credibility will remain intact if they suffer a likely defeat at the WTO.
There is no way of knowing whether the WTO case will favour Norway or the European Commission. Equally, there is no way of knowing the outcome of the EU’s review. What is clear is that the case has changed from the time of its inception. Initially, the case focused on a few whinging salmon farmers who believed that trade measures rather than an active market-led strategy would secure their future viability, to one which involves political horse trading between member states. The question of dumping was always largely irrelevant. Unfortunately, for all the international salmon industry and not just producers in Norway, the EU’s interpretation of dumping rules will always produce evidence of dumping and therefore Norway was judged to be guilty even when they were not.
Whatever the outcome of the review, the WTO case must proceed in the hope that the issue of salmon dumping can be closed once and for all. As we have repeated many times previously, when considered against a background of a growing shortfall in fish supply, how can any fish farming industry be found guilty of dumping?