reLAKSation 330. Callander McDowell
Time to learn?: Fishfarming Xpert has reported that EU trout farmers have not benefited from the imposition of anti-dumping duties on imported salmon. This is the findings of the Aquaculture Information Bureau (AIB), a partnership between Shetland Aquaculture, the Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers, SeaFish, Seafood Shetland and the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation, but notably not the European Salmon Producers Group. The AIB has found that the anti-dumping duty payable on all Norwegian rainbow trout has not increased prices or made life easier for EU trout farmers. They concluded that:
"the truth is the anti-dumping duty has not stabilised nor increased market prices. Whilst the EU’s anti-dumping duty may have made its own farmers believe the duty would bring them easy profits, the reality likely is that would have been better served profit wise if the had focused on product promotion vis-a-vis Norwegian trout instead.”
For us at Callander McDowell, this report appears to be clear vindication of our long standing belief that such trade measures are simply an excuse for poor marketing. We firmly believe that if farmers had invested all the time and effort used to pursue this case in more effective marketing, then they may be in a much better position today. AIB have said that there are many parallels between the trout case and those duties levied by the US against Vietnamese catfish and Asian and South American shrimp but the greatest parallel can be drawn with European salmon producers and the prolonged dumping complaint even though specific duties were not levied against Norwegian salmon imports.
The AIB report is further evidence that the continued trade measures imposed by the EU are simply a waste of time and should be suspended immediately. Unfortunately, politics have now overtaken the case leaving the initial rationale for seeking trade measures far behind.
As far as the salmon case is concerned, what is required is a clear reality check about the status of the Scottish and Irish salmon industries. The time has come for the whole industry, not the unrepresentative EUSPG, nor Peter Mandeslon, or even the Scottish Executive, to make it clear whether it wants the measures to continue or not. This is the only real way forward.
It’s time that everyone concerned learnt what is important and what is not. The AIB report makes it clear that trade measures are not.
Is the ‘Biggar’est the best?: The small Scottish town of Biggar may not be on everybody’s radar and could well have slipped into total obscurity if it were not for two things. The first is that it stands on the A702, a road which allows travellers from the North West of England to cross to Edinburgh without following the motorway all the way to Glasgow, and secondly, it is the location of this year’s winner of the national fish and chip competition.
Although representatives from Callander McDowell have travelled up and down the A702, we have never been tempted by the ‘delights’ of the Townhead Café as we have always preferred our fish and chips from the Anstruther fish and chip bar. Sadly, the judges did not consider this award winning chippie to merit this years’ prize.
According to fishupdate.com, entrants to this year’s competition were for the first time judged on their commitment to building a sustainable future for the industry. Points were given to shops according to their use of sustainable species and the measures they have in place to encourage customers to try something new. The Townhead Café apparently displays the source of the seafood they serve throughout the shop. Unfortunately, the Seafish press release, on which the Fishupdate.com article is based, doesn’t provide any detail as to exactly what measures this top chippie takes. Instead, we have turned to the Townhead Café’s website (www.townheadbiggar.com) for further information. Ignoring the delights of the menu such as ‘fried pizza’, ‘hamburger’ and ‘Spam fritters’, the choice of fish is as follows: Plain fish, Special fish, mini fish or fishcakes. Under the ‘something different’ section, there is lemon sole and smoked haddock.
It seems to us at Callander McDowell, that it would be extremely difficult to convey the sustainability of the fish used when the chippie doesn’t even mention the species of the fish used. As it happens, we read in one of the Scottish newspapers that the fish species used by Townhead Café is haddock which it obtains from sustainable sources in Shetland. Haddock is widely available in many Scottish chippies so cannot be described as a species used to persuade customers to try something new. It seems that like many within the seafood industry, the Townhead Café is jumping on the sustainable bandwagon but failing to provide real sustainable solutions.
Much of the problem is the widespread adoption of the term ‘sustainability’ without giving any real credence to what it means. We are sure that Shetland haddock fishermen are convinced of the sustainable credentials of their catch as much as those in Alaska whose fisheries have been awarded MSC certification. However, neither really means that the fish are truly sustainable – whatever that means. The more we learn about sustainable seafood the more that we are persuaded that the correct terminology should be ‘responsible’ not ‘sustainable’. The industry needs to take a responsible approach to fish and seafood, whether it is fisheries or aquaculture. Until, we recognise our responsibility, we will be giving nothing more than lip service to the issue of sustainability.
Fortunately for the organisers of the national fish and chip competition, their task next year will be made much easier with the imminent opening of Toms Place, the green fish and chip shop owned by Michelin star chef Tom Aitkens. This chippy has received extensive coverage about its green credentials even though it is still to open. Tom is keen to push the essential rightness of the fish he uses which is why he told the Observer Food Monthly that haddock is unlikely to be available (unless the Townhead Café could point him in the direction of sustainable stocks). Instead the menu will include gurnard and megrim sole although the unadventurous will still be able to buy cod - £12.50 (chips extra) or Pollock - £11.50. Tom Aitkens has already being listed amongst the 40 top eco-foodies in Britain, so the next winner of the national fish and chip shop of the year must be a foregone conclusion!
Wrong question?: Michelin starred chef Tom Aitkens joined several of his colleagues at the launch party for a new scheme to urge chefs to use only sustainable fish and seafood on their menus and for food writers to stop using unsustainably caught fish in their recipes. According to Fishupdate.com, the party at the old Billingsgate fish market was organised by Greenpeace who want to raise awareness of their call for the creation of more marine reserves to help fish stocks recover. They would like to see 40% of the world’s oceans to become protected as marine reserves. Currently, 0.006% of English territorial waters are designed as ‘no fishing’ areas to protect damaged stocks. Of course, Greenpeace cannot say how demand for fish would be met if they did manage to affect such extensive closures.
The obvious answer would be to source fish through farming but Greenpeace like other environmental groups are just as anti-farming as they are against current fishing practices. This week saw the publication of their report about aquaculture in which they deduced that farming is not the answer to over-fishing and must change dramatically in order to become sustainable.
According to seafoodintelligence.com, the report concludes with a list of recommendations which begin by saying that for any aquaculture system to be sustainable, it must not lead to natural systems being subject to degradation caused by:
1. An increase in concentrations of naturally occurring substances.
2. An increase in concentrations of substances produced by society such as persistent chemical or carbon dioxide or
3. Physical disturbance.
Unfortunately for Greenpeace, these recommendations apply to almost everything that man does and therefore they are simply unrealistic. Under these recommendations, aquaculture will never be sustainable, but neither will modern society.
Greenpeace raise a number of other issues which they believe shows that aquaculture will never be sustainable but we will only consider one of them here. This is the depletion of wild fish caught for feed. There seems to be some discrepancy about how much fishmeal is used in aquaculture. Greenpeace suggests that in 2003, 53% of all fishmeal is now used in aquaculture and the figure is increasing. Greenpeace argue that it makes little sense to use fishmeal to rear fish for human consumption, but what does Greenpeace think that natural populations of these fish eat in the wild – other fish. This is part of the natural food chain which man is now trying to harness as a source of food.
However, whilst the use of fishmeal in aquaculture may appear high, it also means that 47% of fishmeal consumption is not used for rearing farmed fish. This is fed to terrestrial animals because it is an excellent source of digestible protein but whilst these animals may grow well on feeds made from fishmeal, it is not part of the natural diet. The Fishmeal Information Service has estimated that fishmeal consumption in 2003 is as follows:
Ruminants 1%
Pigs 29%
Poultry 27%
Other 9%
Fish 33% (less than the Greenpeace estimate)
Surely, if Greenpeace are really concerned about the depletion of fish stocks, then their first target must be to put a stop to the use fishmeal in terrestrial farming, Yet, little effort has been made to draw attention this widespread practice and instead, their efforts are directed towards the aquaculture simply because it is an easy target.
Now it seems that the WWF may be about to hand buyers who count on sustainability certification another headache so reports Seafood news.com. Just a week after the stinky fish fiasco, the WWF appears to be making statements that distort the current state of aquaculture standards, and lay the groundwork for an ideological war over aquaculture that would be damaging to seafood buyers. We have yet to see what the WWF have said but it comes as no surprise since they have always made it clear that aquaculture is not acceptable.
In common with the WWF, Greenpeace made it clear that fish farming is not the answer but then they haven’t been asking the right questions.