reLAKSation 317. Callander McDowell
Loaves and the fishes: The health message relating to omega-3 fatty acids may finally be getting through to consumers. The UK consumer magazine ‘Which’ polled 2045 of its members and found that 45% of respondents were more likely to buy a product claiming that it contained high levels of omega-3 than an equivalent product without it. This demand is reflected in the increasing range of products enriched with omega-3 that are found on the supermarket shelves. According to the Scotsman newspaper, ‘Which’ have found that some food companies are cashing in on the hype but not drawing attention to the fact that not all omega-3 fatty acids are the same. In addition, some of the claims are plainly wrong.
‘Which’ highlighted the case of Asda’s Healthy wholegrain bread whose label claimed that four slices of the bread contain 31.3g of omega-3. The supermarket later conceded that a printing error mean that the amount was wrong and should have read 1.26g of omega 3 derived from plant sources. When ‘Which’ tested the bread, they found that it only contained 0.009g of DHA and EPA omega 3 fatty acids per 100g. This meant that someone would need to eat just over 11 loaves a day to get their daily amount of DHA and EPA.
Bridge Aisbitt a nutritionist at the British Nutrition Foundation told the Scotsman that the best way to get a good amount of the correct omega-3 in the diet was to eat one portion of oily fish each week. Fish, such as salmon, are undoubtedly the best source of omega-3 fatty acids and whilst the various nutrition and food agencies recommend their consumption, consumers appear to prefer to buy general foods that have been enriched with (the wrong types of) omega-3 instead. Clearly, the fish industry is failing to get its message across.
The main theme of the latest seafood promotion in the UK was ‘two a week’ trying to persuade consumers that they should eat two portions of fish a week, one of which should be an oily fish (see our report ) However, research by Seafish has shown that this message has been taken on board by just over a quarter of the public. The reality is that many consumers do not like the idea of eating oily fish and avoid doing so. Hence their preference for other types of food enriched with omega-3 fatty acids. The problem is that our industry is so proud of the fish we produce we like to highlight them as fish whereas consumers are more interested in the omega 3 content and would rather consume in forms less like fish as possible. This is the divide we have to cross. If we want to persuade more consumers to eat oily fish, we need to present it in forms which are less like the fish and more like the food that consumers usually eat.
Birds Eye has recognised this in part with their omega-3 fish fingers. Unfortunately, they are using the ‘Recommended Daily Intake’ as the basis of their nutritional information hence three fish fingers contribute 20% of the daily intake of omega-3. However, RDI’s fall a long way short of the 3g recommended by the British Nutrition Foundation and it would be necessary to eat 115 fish fingers a week to obtain the recommended amount of omega-3. The reason why is because Birds Eye source of omage-3 is Alaskan Pollock, their preferred choice of ‘sustainable’fish. Clearly, sixteen fish fingers a day is better than eating 11 loaves of bread so this is a move in the right direction but not one yet far enough! We need to do more.
Three years: Intrafish report that salmon prices have fallen to a three year low to about NOK20/kg, a figure which also brings it below the MIP. The salmon industry should not be too surprised. Salmon prices have been too high for too long. This has been fuelled by growth in new markets but stagnation in others. Sustained growth can not continue without something stoking the fire. Consumers will not buy more salmon unless they are given encouragement to do so. Yet the farming industry is often reluctant to help provide this encouragement as it brings an added cost to production and thus affects the bottom line. The same can also be said of doing nothing as confirmed by the weakening price.
The effect of lower prices on sales was illustrated by Mark Grant of Tesco when he told IntraFish about a twenty to twenty five times uplift in sales of sea bass when put on half price promotion. A similar promotion for sea bream resulted in an eighteen times fold increase in sales which Mr Grant said shows that the public are willing to try it on price.
This week, British supermarket group Morrison’s have salmon on promotion with both loose and prepacked salmon fillet at £4.99/kg. Whole salmon is selling for £3.29/kg. Presumably, Morrison’s expect to see a major surge in sales. Our own observations suggest that Morrison’s salmon sales have been down recently if the amount of salmon on display is anything to go by.
Most supermarkets have had salmon on promotion throughout the recent high prices but the promotions have not been all they seen. Half price promotions have been often based on a selling price which is higher than can be found anywhere in the retail sector, even beyond that charged by the top of the range supermarkets. This encourages consumers to buy because of the massive discounts but equally, it does not seem that consumers have been fooled because kilo prices remain high. We have even seen examples where the discounted price of a promotional pack is higher than that charged by the store for their standard packs of salmon.
It is not that there is a promotion per se that is key but whether the promotion resonates with the consumer. This week FIS.com reports that the Norwegian Seafood Export Council has allocated a 26% increase to their salmon and trout marketing budget for 2008. This will be used in 14 different markets where marketing activities will include advertising campaigns and in store promotions. We, at Callander McDowell have not come across a NSEC promotion for some time so we don’t know how effective they are. We have seen the odd leaflet in a French supermarket, presumably the remnant of a past campaign. The real measure is whether these campaigns boost sales and as NSEC is not a commercial company, it is difficult to ascertain whether it is the best value for money. Certainly, the joint EU campaign that NSEC mediated did not really do much for the salmon industry.
Perhaps, rather than a planned year long marketing scheme, the salmon industry might benefit from a more responsive approach. With currently prices in a downward trajectory, the industry might benefit from an immediate campaign to stimulate demand. 2008 maybe too late to prevent a price collapse.
From time to time, the salmon industry regularly talks about the possibility of marketing. Perhaps the time has come to stop the talk and actually do it instead?
Dwelling in the doldrums: According to fishupdate.com, Scottish MEP Struan Stevenson recently told a major conference in Brussels that fish farming in Europe and especially Scotland is in the doldrums, languishing behind international competitors and haemorrhaging jobs to countries outside the EU. Mr Stevenson said that at a time when demand for healthy fish and seafood is showing rapid growth and when marine fish stocks are increasingly threatened, the opportunities for aquaculture produce should be manifold. Instead, the aquaculture industry is being tied up with red tape which is stifling innovation and technological development, let alone production. Mr Stevenson told the conference that European fish farmers have to deal with 10 separate EU agencies and over 400 European directives, not to mention planning and environmental constraints in each member state before they can reel in a single fish. He added that they also need more flexibility in licensing of medicines and in planning and siting of new fish farms. He highlighted the Scottish salmon as one industry that has suffered badly from this unnecessary bureaucracy.
Mr Stevenson is right the Scottish industry is subjected to far too much red tape especially when it comes to planning and environmental issues. We, at Callander McDowell, have argued previously that the Strategic Framework was moulded by too many self interest groups that managed to get their voice heard to the detriment of the fish farming industry. As Mr Stevenson points out, there is a major opportunity to supply fish and seafood to an ever growing market, but self interest groups are more interested in wrapping the Highlands and Islands up in cotton wool and protecting it so they can utilise it for their own devices. Just a couple of weeks ago, someone wrote to the Scotsman letters page to complain that salmon cages were unsightly and should be removed. He should think himself lucky that he only has to look at a few salmon cages. One of our own people grew up in Teesside where the largest chemical and steel complex abuts right up to the beach alongside the Seal Sands nature reserve. It’s a matter of getting the balance right. Unfortunately, where salmon farming is concerned the balance isn’t in favour of salmon farming.
And it’s not just planning and siting of new farms, existing farms are subjected to all too consuming controls. Sadly, the excessive controls placed on the industry by Scottish Environmental Protection Agency produce even more problems that cause SEPA to enforce even tighter regimes. Farm sizes are limited as are their location. Yet some flexibility would enable farmers to put more effective management controls in place which could lessen the loading on the environment than the existing controls produce. There seems to be more concern in SEPA about the waste of salmon farms than there is about agricultural run off and other wastes. SEPA seem to forget that fish live in the sea naturally and deposit their waste into the water column. Yet when it comes to salmon farms, SEPA would rather see the fish waste deposited elsewhere. There appears to be little common sense in place.
Aquaculture is the only real solution to sustainable fish supply, yet aquaculture policy appears to be more dictated by those who want to look over sea lochs with an uninterrupted view than concerns about how we produce our fish. It is time that a new strategy was put in place; one that supports the aquaculture industry instead of placing obstacles in whichever direction it turns. Mr Stevenson is a former President of the EU Fisheries Committee in the European Parliament. Perhaps it is time that he encouraged his colleagues in Scotland to fight these issues too.