reLAKSation 339. Callander McDowell
April Fool!: We had look twice at a recent IntraFish article to make sure that the date of publication wasn’t April 1st. Trond S. Paulsen, one of the primary lawyers involved in fighting the salmon dumping case has predicted that the MIP will be withdrawn by July 21st. If this proves to be true and the EU trade measures are finally despatched to the waste-bin where they belong, then Mr Paulsen will not be able to take any satisfaction that it is the result of his efforts. The European Commission has played the Norwegian salmon industry like a puppet on the end of a string and have been hanging onto these measures for as long as they believe is reasonably possible.
Mr Paulsen hopes that as a result of this review, the measures will be lifted by the end of July but the simple fact is that there should have never been a need for a review because if the case had been properly defended, the MIP should have never been imposed. Not only should there have never been an MIP, but there should have never been an investigation. The original complaint should have been rejected from the outset. Unfortunately, the lawyers failed to recognise the inherent flaws in the submissions. Perhaps, their attention was directed to other matters.
The reality was that the salmon industry never needed to resort to the legal system to resolve this complaint. It could have been sorted with one or two short meetings but then, where salmon dumping complaints have been concerned there has been a tendency to ignore the simple solutions
What came before must now be considered a lost opportunity and having failed to resolve matters either during the investigation or at the WTO, it looks like all eyes are focussed on the current review. However, the review as it is, is nothing but a farce. It has taken nearly a year to undertake and as Mr Paulsen crows, has involved many man –hours of work in checking data, much of it very detailed. Yet, it is clear through many market reports that during 2006 salmon prices were extraordinarily high meaning that the likelihood of any salmon company selling fish at below the cost of production was absolutely nil. The review is nothing short of an abuse of European tax-payers money especially as the outcome is a forgone conclusion. If by any chance the EU investigators do come up with proof of some irregularities, then it is just further evidence that the European investigation system is flawed.
The whole dumping complaint has yet again been proved to be from start to finish nothing but a joke. Would it have been more believable if the story had been published on April 1st?
Organic questions: IntraFish TV recently considered the booming interest in organic fish although most consumer interest appears directed at those species which are fed pigment to influence the colour of the flesh. This may be due to the intervention by industry critics who make use of emotive terms such as ‘dyes’ which have other more widely used connotations.
Most consumers select to buy organic food because they believe that it tastes better; it is nutritionally better and that it is safer. Now a couple of studies bring some of these aspirations into doubt.
The BBC TV programme ‘Countryfile’ conducted an experiment into the taste of chicken from different production regimes. These ranged from the cheapest intensively farmed chicken costing £2.36 a bird to an organic bird costing £7.66. The difference in production was 39 days for the intensive bird, 49 days for the Freedom Food corn fed bird, 56 days for a free range bird to 70 days for the organic.
Countryfile engaged the services of top chef Theo Randall who once worked with Jamie Oliver. He correctly identified each bird prior to cooking simply by their look, although this wasn’t too difficult as the corn fed bird was yellow in colour (from the food) and the battery chicken was plump compared to the more wiry organic and free range birds.
Finally, each chicken was cooked in the exact same way without any added flavouring and then served in a blind tasting of staff and students from Bristol University Veterinary School and Theo Randall. All participants in the tasting were unanimous in their choice deciding that one particular chicken sample stood out from the rest and that was the cheap battery chicken. They said that it was much more succulent than the organic, which was the chicken they had expected to favour. The reason for this succulence is that the battery chicken’s muscle doesn’t do any work as the chicken moves very little. By comparison, organic and free range birds exercise and the muscle becomes much denser and less succulent.
It is often said that organic salmon tastes much better than traditionally farmed fish. This is attributed to the lower oil levels in organic salmon feed, however, if the taste of these fish is preferred, there is no reason why traditional salmon can not be fed a similar regime.
The second piece of work appeared in an article in the Sunday Observer newspaper which reported that the Food Standards Agency had reviewed all the available evidence on nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods and have concluded that there is no health reason that merits a change to organic food. In fact, the FSA actually advise that the extra money used to buy organic food is used instead to provide more fruit and vegetables in our diet. They FSA also conclude that organic foods are not any safer than their traditional counterparts.
It would therefore seem that the choice to eat organic food is more of a lifestyle choice rather than any specific taste, nutrition or safety issue, although some would argue that organic food guarantees a much higher welfare standard but that is a very different issue.
Changing tastes?: According to FishfarmingXpert, SeaFish have reported that new farmed species, introduced as an alternative to cod, performed very well on the British retail market in 2007. SeaFish say that both Pangasius and Tilapia were virtually unknown in the UK last year but both have made a big entrance in the supermarket seafood aisles with Pangasius sales of £2.1m and Tilapia sales of £3.1m. One of the reasons SeaFish attribute to why these species have appealed to consumers is that they have a price advantage over traditional species. Unfortunately, this is not exactly true. For example Tesco are selling Tilapia filets at £13.59/kg whereas cod fillets retail for just £8.98/kg.
SeaFish say that Tesco has also been selling Pangasius on their fish counter since last October, which they have. Unlike Tilapia, Pangasius is selling below the cost of cod at just £6.49/kg but we believe that this low price alone is not sufficient incentive to boost sales of this fish. UK fish consumers are very traditional and are wary of new species which is possibly why this week Tesco have put Pangasius on promotion cutting the cost by a third. Other presentations have also been on promotion.
Sales of Tilapia may have risen by 65% this year, but overall sales are still tiny compared to traditional species. Last year salmon sales were worth £600 m and sales of cod £375 m. Whether the new demand for these species has come from concerns about the state of cod stock is uncertain. The level of sales could also result from interest from ethnic groups who have previously bought novel species from specialist fishmongers but now find them available in their local supermarket.
Whether these new species will become an established part of the UK retail market is still unclear but if current sales are a response to threatened cod stocks, the latest news that cod fisheries are well on the way to recovery may well undermine interest in these alternative species.