reLAKSation 3.
Competition Commission Enquiry:- The report on the now rejected merger between Nutreco and Hydro Seafoods GSP is a weighty tome containing a great deal of opinion and discussion. However, any reader braving this report has to wade through many pages before reaching anything of real interest. Towards the end of the document is a section of the "views of other interested parties" including submissions from five of the large multiple retail store groups. Yet, it is not their views of the merger, which are of interest, but much more importantly, their opinion of the salmon they buy. These are summarised as:
Asda - bought only Scottish salmon until December 1999, when a proposed pre-Christmas price rise induced them to change to an open sourcing policy. They currently purchase salmon from both Scotland and Norway in roughly equal proportions with the exception of salmon for their Scottish stores, which is exclusively Scottish. Asda believed that their customers perceived Scottish salmon as being of a higher quality than other salmon, however in Asda's own view, there is no difference between Scottish and Norwegian salmon in size, colour and texture. Blind tastings by staff and consumer panels failed to detect any differences.
Marks & Spencers - only buy salmon from Scotland as they prefer to buy domestically where possible. Their tastings had shown Scottish salmon to be of a better quality. Asked about the importance of Scottish salmon to the consumer, M & S said that their market research was inconclusive because the consumers' response was ambivalent. Although country of origin appeared to have a fairly low priority, their image of Scotland was very positive.
Safeway - currently source salmon from Scotland although in the past, they had sourced from Norway. They believe that there is no distinguishable difference between Scottish and other salmon. Safeways' customers perceived Scottish salmon as being of superior quality, but this could not guarantee a retail price premium.
J Sainsbury - said that they sourced mainly from Scotland with some supplies from Norway. Although its customers seemed to perceive that Scottish salmon was better than Norwegian , Sainsburys believed that there was no difference between the two.
Somerfield - said that their customers were primarily price focused and even though its salmon was not labelled with a country of origin, customers had not raised it as an issue for the past eighteen months. Somerfield thought it likely that Scottish salmon was perceived a caught from the wild rather than raised on farms. Somerfield sourced the bulk (95%) of its salmon from Scotland with the remainder from Norway.
At the risk of upsetting producers in Scotland, it is clear that British consumers have always expressed a preference for Scottish salmon. This is not surprising, since Scottish salmon is locally produced and is the one with which they are most familiar. Many consumers remain blissfully unaware that most salmon is farmed, let alone that the worlds largest producer is Norway. It is therefore natural that they favour Scottish salmon, if they are asked the question.Despite such perceptions, it certainly seems that some of the major retailers are unable to tell much difference between home produced and imported salmon and the only reason that they buy domestically is because the price and quality are right. The reality is that most salmon consumers have little concern about the origin of the salmon they buy. Instead, the overriding factor determining whether customers buy salmon or not seems to be that the salmon represents real value for money.
To the slaughter: - The recent BBC TV investigation of salmon farming has heralded an avalanche of unwanted publicity about salmon farming. The most surprising was an article in the Guardian newspaper, which appeared in the wake of the Parliamentary vote on fox hunting. The paper suggested that public concern for the welfare of foxes might be misplaced and that instead attention should be focused, for example, on the fate of millions of chickens which make their last journey shackled up side down. The paper evaluated the suffering experienced by a range of animals and in the light of recent publicity, this includes farmed salmon.
This evaluation assessed four different areas of concern: living conditions, health and diet, stress prior to death and suffering during slaughter and after a brief discussion, awarded scores out of 10 for each. The scores were then totalled to make what the paper described as, uncomfortable reading. The scores for the four sections and totals are summarised:
Pigs - 6. 5. 2. 1. Total 14.
Farmed salmon - 5. 5. 3. 1. Total 14.
Cow, beefsteak - 6. 4. 7. 1. Total 18.
Hunted fox - 0. 2. 7. 8. Total 17.
Farmed deer - 2. 2. 5. 1. Total 10.
Broiler chicken - 9. 9. 9. 1. Total 28.
Free range chicken 7. 6. 8. 1. Total 22.
Whilst the scores for farmed salmon are relatively low, the fact that salmon farming has again been highlighted as an area of concern must be worrying, especially the comparison with fox hunting. The fact is that the authors could find little to complain about other than the fish are estimated to swim for about 14,000 miles before they are harvested.
It is unlikely that such bad publicity will adversely affect sales unless salmon farming continues to be highlighted as a news story. Perhaps, what the industry really needs is a positive news story to counter this negative publicity.