reLAKSation 327. Callander McDowell
Expert opinion: According to the Anchorage Daily News, a meeting in Alaska was told by an expert that fish farms are here to stay. Professor James L Anderson, an economics specialist from the University of Rhode Island, told a Young Fishermens’ Summit that aquaculture will dominate the future world seafood industry but there will be increased opportunities for wild products in the upper end of the market.
However, it doesn’t need an expert to recognise that future fish supplies will be dominated by fish sourced from farming. It is already clear that wild catch fisheries are unable to meet the demand of a growing market for fish and seafood products. Although there is a hope that the collapse of wild catch fisheries can be averted by a move to certify them as sustainable, this may only delay the inevitable. As we, at Callander McDowell, have repeatedly argued, the only way to reduce the fishing pressure on wild catch stocks is to source fish from elsewhere. If this ‘elsewhere’ is just another fishery, then the problem is simply being transferred from one fishery to another. The only truly alternative source is from farming.
In every area of food production, man has moved from hunter gathering to farming. It is inevitable that this must also happen with fish, despite objections from environmentalists and die-hard fishermen. One of the reasons that the fish and seafood industry has been slow to recognise that aquaculture offers the best solution to safeguarding existing fish stocks is that the fisheries scientists who have sought a solution have only considered fisheries solutions. This is why all the emphasis has been put on the ‘sustainable’ solution and aquaculture has been totally ignored. Yet, whilst the fisheries scientists have maintained a blinkered vision, the market has not and has embraced farmed fish without question. The sooner the fisheries industry also takes aquaculture on board, the quicker that they will be able to adapt to the changing market demand, especially at the top end of the market.
Professor Anderson said that in 2005, the top ten species consumed in the US included shrimp, tuna, salmon, Alaskan Pollock, catfish, tilapia, crab, cod, clams and flatfish. He added that this data did not include information as to whether the fish and seafood was wild caught or came from aquaculture. However, it is clear that the majority of these species are now either being farmed or close to it. Species such as catfish and tilapia already all come from farmed sources and there is no reason why others could not and will not.
It is just commonsense that aquaculture will become the dominant source of fish in years to come, however if it takes the words of an expert, like Professor Anderson, to reinforce the point, then we would urge him to speak out even more.
Local challenge: Rural Affairs Secretary, Richard Lochhead, has pledged to increasingly consider where his food comes from and source more food from Scotland wherever practical. He told Fishfarming Xpert that Scotland has a fantastic range of seasonal quality food and there is a growing appetite among consumers to source more hone-grown produce. He said that he like to encourage everyone to take up the challenge and think Scottish produce first and so support Scottish farmers, fishermen and food industry.
Actually, most Scottish consumers would have some difficulty in trying not to put Scottish produce first. The supermarkets in Scotland have adopted a very positive approach to Scottish produce. In fact anyone from the rest of the UK entering a Scottish supermarket might be forgiven for thinking they have entered a rally for the Scottish National Party with pictures of the Scottish flag appearing throughout the stores along with a variety of messages about the promotion of Scottish food. For example, the following image shows that one supermarket chain declares that they are ‘Proud to be serving Scotland’ along with the requisite image of the flag.
This is very different to the same supermarkets elsewhere in Britain which appear not to be proud to serve their English customers! In addition, it would seem that wherever possible, food products are sourced as locally as possible, whereas produce found in their other UK stores is not necessarily sourced from England.
Although it seems that there is a real commitment to buying Scottish food, this apparent allegiance to Scottish food may not be all it seems. It would be expected that with salmon being farmed in Scotland, all the salmon for sale in Scottish stores would be of Scottish origin. However, this is not the case. There are several examples where salmon is being sold which is not of Scottish origin but the most interesting relates to a bag of salmon fillets. In English stores of this particular supermarket, the information provided on the bag tells shoppers that the salmon could either be of Scottish or Norwegian origin. The use of multi-origin labelling is a separate issue which don’t plan to discuss here. The bag is packed at an English processing plant which does obtain fish from both Scotland and Norway but the main point is that English shoppers could be buying salmon of Scottish origin.
By comparison, customers of their Scottish stores can buy salmon fillets that have been packed at a Scottish processing plant. This would be expected to be a good sign, yet the salmon fillets sold in Scottish stores are actually from Chile! It would seem that Mr Lochhead is going to have a hard task on his hands if he wants Scottish consumers to buy locally produced food.
Interestingly, another supermarket chain declared its intention last year to only source its farmed salmon from Scotland, whether the fish is to be sold in Scottish or English stores. Yet, despite setting a target, this supermarket has so far failed to restrict its salmon sales to Scottish fish. This is not because of its commitment but simply, that there are not currently enough salmon being produced in Scotland to meet the supermarkets’ needs.
One reason is that the salmon industry is still intent on expanding its export market. A year ago, the industry said that it expected exports in 2006 to show a marginal increase on the 2005 figure of 57,246 tonnes. We would imagine that this might increase further in 2007 if farmers continue to promote their fish as a high quality Scottish product to over 60 different countries. As a result of the export market and growing demand for salmon, the UK has imported increased volumes of salmon from Norway (and Chile).
This clearly leaves the industry in a dilemma. Should it be promoting salmon to its local market first or should it be trying to meet the demand for exports. The answer is simple, it must service both but it can only do so if it produces more salmon and is willing to compete in the global marketplace.
Premium nonsense: This week and next, the British public are being inundated with a series of TV programmes campaigning on a variety of food issues. Channel 4’s Great Food Fight. The aim is to raise awareness and encourage debate about food production, animal welfare and healthy eating. We may return to these issues at another time but we would like to continue the theme of premium foods which we discussed in the last issue of reLAKSation (326).
The Consumer’s Association, Which, did not stop at premium ranges of fresh food when they conducted their recent investigation, they also looked at premium ready meals. The same theme was also taken up in the Great Food Fight programme – ‘The Truth About Your Food’. This programme tried to compare premium/ healthy eating ready meals against standard and value products. They did this by putting two families on different diets based on these two types of ready meals.
Their conclusion was that consumers are being misled but they only came to this conclusion because they too made too many assumptions. The main one is that premium food equates to healthy food but this view is misplaced. It is more likely to expect that premium dishes would be much more sumptuous than the standard fare irrespective of the nutritional content and not unsurprisingly, this is what the programme showed. Thus ready meals intended for the premium ranges contain the best ingredients such as using butter when the standard version would contain margarine etc. This doesn’t mean that the premium range is healthier and why should it be?
The difference between premium and standard ranges can be illustrated using Tesco’s ‘Finest’ creamy fish pie and their standard fish pie, which both contain salmon. The name of the premium dish immediate shows its aspirations to its premium content with its creamy connotation. The difference between the two can also be illustrated by the price. The premium product works out at £7.47/kg whilst the standard is £5.44/kg. The creamy fish pie contains 9% double cream and 6% cheddar cheese whilst the standard version has only 4% cream (not double cream) and 4.5% cheddar cheese. Even without looking at any other ingredients, it is obvious that the premium dish will have more calories and fat and not surprisingly, it does with 570kcal as compared to 460 for the standard product. Fat levels are 9.1% as compared with 5.1%. Consumers indulging in premium ready meals would not expect it to be a healthy option yet clearly the programme makers hoped it would be.
As well as premium meals, they also looked at healthy versions, which they compared against standard and value versions. Similar versions of these dishes are hard to find so we are unable to compare them here but the programme makers were surprised to find that the calorific content of the healthy dishes were often higher (just) than the standard versions. They claimed that this showed that the healthy versions were not actually the healthy option for consumers to eat but again their view was misplaced. These dishes are healthy eating not diet versions so whilst the calorific contents were similar, fat, sugar and salt content were all much lower. Reduced levels of these nutrients are all important in healthy eating.
These examples show how data can be manipulated to suit the message that the ‘critics’ were trying to impart. Like them or loathe them, ready meals play an important part in the eating patterns for many consumers. They may not be ideal but then no-one has ever suggested that ready meals should be the sole source of food for consumers. Instead, they should be eaten as part of a balanced diet.
Ready meals have played an important part in bringing salmon to a wider cross section of the public, especially those who might not eat fresh fish. Despite a renewed interest in food, ready meals will undoubtedly continue to be an important part of the supermarket shopping despite attempts to undermine their value to the modern lifestyle.