reLAKSation 319. Callander McDowell
Countdown: British TV has this week aired a commercial from supermarket Lidl advertising a frozen 700g side of wild salmon coated with a choice of Italian or French herbs for just £3.99. This equates to £5.70/kg (€8.12/kg, NOK63.22/kg). Lidl are known as a discounter so their salmon products might be expected to be priced lower than anywhere else but even Tesco are offering a salmon side similar to that found in Lidl for just £6.00 or £8.57/kg.
We, at Callander McDowell, have been asked many times why we are so against the imposed Minimum Import Price. The most obvious reason is provided by Lidl supermarkets. The artificially high price of farmed salmon brought about by the MIP has become a deterrent to using salmon for further processing so the supermarkets have sought a lower priced alternative instead. Their choice is wild Pacific salmon. Of course, the Pacific salmon used in added value processing as a substitute for farmed Atlantic salmon is not the highly prized Chinook salmon, nor Sockeye or Coho. Equally it is unlikely to be Pink salmon unless the product is expected to be aimed about the bargain basement level. For this type of product such as the one sold in Lidl, then the fish of choice is Chum salmon also known as Keta salmon. The Canadian seafood company Gold Sea describe Chum salmon as having a milder, more delicate flavour but for consumers used to eating Atlantic salmon, Chum salmon offers no comparison. From the taste alone, it is clear why it is a much cheaper alternative.
Fortunately for the supermarkets, the fact that these Pacific salmon do not taste as good as Atlantic salmon is compensated by its so-called sustainable credentials. Pacific salmon is heralded as the only sustainable choice as endorsed by Marine Stewardship Council certification and therefore its increasing use in added value salmon products, once made from farmed salmon, is now fully justified. Supermarkets can feel good about selling such inferior fish and consumers can feel good about eating it and European salmon farmers can also feel good, having helped encourage this conversion to sustainable salmon.
However, this substitution of farmed salmon in many retail products is only a consequence of the MIP and not reason for its imposition. We have discussed many times previously our feelings about the EU Norway trade dispute. We don’t believe that dumping has ever occurred nor do we believe that the industry has ever over-produced salmon – how can it when farmed fish are the only solution to the decline in wild catch fisheries? Instead we believe that the real problem is under-marketing. Whilst growing market demand for fish and seafood is more than justification for the continued expansion of salmon farming, producers still need to tell potential consumers that they have the type of products that they want. It has been suggested to us that this is the retailers’ responsibility and not that of farmers, but the reality is that it is the producers’ salmon and ultimately their responsibility.
Loch Duart Salmon is one Scottish salmon farming company that have recognised the need to market itself and has done so successfully. This week, the fishsite.com reported that US chefs have been singing the praises of Loch Duart’s salmon. In an article in the Mercury News, Chef Allessandro Cartumini from Quattro restaurant said that he loves Loch Duart salmon. ‘It cooks well and stays moist and it’s got a really clean flavour’. He also said that he ‘likes the way that they are raising the fish and its one of the things that you can feel good about’.
Whilst Loch Duart’s ‘story’ may make good reading in the US, the reality is that the are plenty of other salmon farms in Scotland that produce salmon that are equally as good as that from Loch Duart, if not even better and are produced in an equally similar environmental manner. The real difference is that these other farms are not passing on this message to the market and which is why Loch Duart receives all the accolades and rightly so. Perhaps if the independent salmon producers had been directing all their efforts towards marketing themselves rather than towards trying to penalise the Norwegian industry, they may have found themselves in a totally different position now instead of being reliant on the MIP to protect themselves?
According to IntraFish, the WTO is expected to publish the findings of their investigation next week. Insiders are predicting that the WTO will back Norway with 22 of the 47 points in their favour. By comparison, the European Commission gains support for just 10 of their arguments with the other 15 remaining unresolved.
It is likely that one of the contentious issues relates to the cost of production since any claims of dumping revolve around whether the fish were sold below cost. The problem is that different parties have such a different view of the cost of producing that comparison can be extremely difficult. Whilst, the Norwegian industry is subjected to an annual cost analysis, their Scottish counterparts have resisted a comparable study. Despite this reluctance, the Strategic Framework included an action plan to compare production costs in the main competitor countries. This project was delayed for three year due to petty wrangling. The last update indicated that the first stage would be completed by summer 2006 but nothing has been forthcoming since.
However, it would seem that this cost analysis is now being progressed. In a report to the Ministerial Working Group of February this year, the Executive reported that the first stage had been signed off and the more detailed second stage was due to be finished by the end of this year. What this means is that the first stage results have been held back for at least nine months and seemingly won’t be released until after the WTO have published their decision. In a previous reLAKSation, we had suggested that the initial findings of this study had not been published because they indicated that the Scottish industry was not so disadvantaged as had been suggested and that production costs in Norway and Scotland were actually very similar. The minutes of the Ministerial Working Group would suggest that this is true since Sid Patten of the SSPO had questioned the accuracy of the comparison. He then told the MWG that whilst the salmon industry was keen to support the second stage investigation it must focus on the indirect costs which affect the industry.
What this is taken to mean is that the Scottish industry is subjected to extra regulations and regulatory costs unique to Scotland, which competitor nations do not have to adhere to. This puts the Scottish industry at a disadvantage in the global marketplace especially when compared to Norway but this does not mean that the Scottish industry should seek to penalise Norway for their disadvantageous position. Instead they should address these local regulatory issues so that they level the playing field. Yet, whilst seeking this level playing field, Scottish producers do hold an ace card which is the reputation of Scottish salmon in the marketplace. However, they can only use this card if they market themselves accordingly to persuade consumers that Scottish salmon is actually something for which it is worth paying more. Otherwise consumers will just see yet another piece of salmon on the fish counter slab. The added problem is that this piece of salmon might now be MSC certified wild Pacific salmon.
Just words: According to Seafoodintelligence.com, the UK’s first MSC certified sustainable sandwich went on sale last week. The sandwich chain Pret a Manger launched the ‘Really Wild Salmon’ sandwich made from MSC eco labelled salmon from certified sustainable Alaskan salmon fisheries.
Rupert Howes, Chief Executive of the MSC said that more and more consumers are asking for MSC labelling on their seafood and this proof of the ‘Really Wild Salmon’ sandwich’s sustainability will provide the reassurance they are looking for. Mr Howes further endorsed this sandwich saying that he planned to eat one for his lunch that very day.
We, at Callander McDowell wondered what sandwich Mr Howes had eaten for his lunch the previous day since clearly if this was the first sustainable salmon sandwich then all the other salmon sandwiches sold in the UK must be made from unsustainable salmon. We are not going to get involved in the wild v farming sustainability issue here but are more interested in the fact that virtually all the major retailers as well as many sandwich shops sell salmon sandwiches made from the same Pacific salmon as used in the Pret sandwich. Seemingly, Mr Howes appears to be suggesting that these sandwiches cannot be viewed as being sustainable and that only sandwiches which have been endorsed by the MSC can.
UK consumers have been eating sustainable Pacific salmon for years, long before salmon farming had even conceived. Every year, the UK imports about 24,000 tonnes of Pacific salmon in tins and some of this is made into sandwiches and sold to UK consumers on a daily basis. This salmon can be considered to be even more sustainable than the frozen or fresh salmon shipped to UK because its contribution to greenhouse gases is much less. The MSC appear to have hijacked the issue sustainability implying that only MSC certified fish are truly sustainable.
This week, TV chef Hugh Fearnley-Whitingstall began a new three part TV series focusing on the issue of sustainable fish. The first hour long programme looked at alternatives to our traditional fish species and never once mentioned the Marine Stewardship Council or eco certified fish. Instead, Mr Fearnley-Whitingstall simply recommended that consumers ask their fishmongers for these alternative species. Instead of cod, the programme looked at Pouting, (local) Pollack, Garfish, Black Sea bream, Grey mullet and Mackerel. Of these, the MSC is only able to offer certified Mackerel. Does this mean that as they are not certified, these other species are not sustainable? Since most are not commercially fished, it is unlikely that anyone will even bother to go to the expense of certifying fisheries for these species. Does that make them unsustainable? It’s no wonder that many consumers are confused by the sustainability message. They are not alone.
…and it’s not just the public who are confused. The Scotsman reported that celebrity chef is under fire for recommending on TV that the public avoid cod and buy skate instead as there are plenty in the sea. In response, ‘furious’ marine environmentalists insisted that common skate was ‘critically endangered’ and that that Gordon Ramsey’s remarks could spark a rush for the fish.
Richard Harrington of the Marine Conservation Society said that it would be good if Gordon Ramsey would clarify his statement publicly as eating skate on a large scale would not be a good recommendation. Mr Harrington added that Mr Ramsey might have got mixed up with plaice, flounder or another kind of flat fish.
Yet worryingly, it seems that it is Mr Harrington that has got mixed up. He dismissed claims by fishing industry leaders that fish labelled as skate is often ray which is not endangered but they are perfectly correct. Right or wrong, the current labelling regulations allow for skate and all rays to be categorised as skate. It was only recently that the environmental lobby made the same mistake accusing supermarkets of selling skate when they were actually selling sustainable rays. The supermarkets have now opted to label these fish as ‘Ray wings’ which helps avoid some of the confusion.
The Marine Conservation Society has deemed that all rays should not be included in the recommended list because they believe that it is difficult to identify specific species, even those which are sustainable. A spokesman from Greenpeace added that celebrity chefs and opinion formers should be really clued up before they speak out publicly about this. Clearly, this concern should equally apply to the MCS as their communications director, Mr Harrington, has obviously not reached a satisfactory standard of being clued up yet.
How can the Marine Conservation Society be effective arbitrators of what the public can and cannot eat when they don’t know the difference between skate and a ray? At the same time, there is also scope to tighten up the labelling legislation so that individual species of fish are labelled by the correct name. This would certainly apply to the five species of Pacific salmon which allows all to be confusingly labelled as ‘Alaskan salmon’ and endorsed as such by the Marine Stewardship Council.