reLAKSation 343. Callander McDowell
Actions speak..: According to Seafoodintelligence.com, Scottish Minister for aquaculture, Michael Russell, told an international audience at the Brussels Seafood Exposition that he backed salmon farming in Scotland as an important contributor to the Scottish Government’s aim of sustainable economic growth. He added that he was supportive of inward investment from Norway as a way of attaining this goal.
Could it be that Mr Russell has finally admitted that salmon farming is a single unified industry in Scotland and that the focus should be that the salmon are produced in Scotland and not the origin of the funds to finance it? After all, inward investment has been welcomed from all sorts of industries without questioning the motivation. In fact, the Scottish Government has even established an agency dedicated to helping attract inward investment from around the world. Against such a background, it seems odd that Mr Russell has singled out Norway and welcomed it as a source of investment.
Perhaps, Mr Russell felt he needed to reiterate his support for Norwegian investment, given that the last time he spoke about salmon farming last November, he argued that the Norwegian industry had been engaged in unfair competition and thus it was essential to retain the anti-dumping measures against them. IntraFish have recently reported that Mr Russell’s department has just despatched a comprehensive document to the European Commission claiming that there is a danger that Norway will start dumping salmon again. This action doesn’t really seem to reflect Mr Russell’s words of support to the Brussels audience. But then, neither does the way the Scottish Government has approached the salmon industry in the past.
It’s worth taking a look at the way the Scottish Government has recently tried to help the pig sector and then contrast it with that for salmon. Richard Lochhead, Mr Russell’s boss at the Department of Rural Affairs has just announced the formation of a ‘short-term’ task force to look at the problems of the pig sector. He told ‘The Scotsman’ that he formed the task force as a matter or urgency because he was acutely aware of the problems facing pig farming. He wants to consider what practical solutions can be put in place to deliver any solutions required. The task force will consider a whole range of solutions including many raised from within the industry. Currently pig prices are lower than the cost of production and farmers are under intense pressure.
Yet when some salmon producers complained that they too faced low prices, allegedly under the cost of production, the Scottish Governments’ response was not to form an industry task force, nor to even seek possible solutions from the industry but rather to take the unusual action of initiating a major European safeguard investigation, the likes of which had never been seen for any foodstuff, let alone a niche market product such as salmon. They did this without consulting the industry, especially those with links to Norway. These farming companies were excluded from any part of the process as they were not considered to be part of a Scottish industry.
Now, Mr Russell wants to be seen to be supportive of the whole industry, Norwegian owned companies included, yet behind the scenes his department is still working to exclude the Norwegian-owned majority. This is hardly a demonstration of support. If Mr Russell really wants to be seen to be supportive of the Scottish industry, he really needs to lay the foundations for new investment and the confidence that it would bring. To do this he needs to bring an end, once and for all, of the feeling of distrust between salmon producing nations. Therefore his first port of call should be Brussels where he needs to inform Peter Mandelson that the salmon trade war is now over and that the MIP should be immediately withdrawn. He has no other choice otherwise his words of support must be considered meaningless. After all it will be his actions that will speak louder than any words…
Country of origin: We, at Callander McDowell, have always argued that the dumping complaint has never really been about dumping but about the perceived image of Scottish salmon in the market place. Consumers have been unable to identify any discernable difference between imported and Scottish salmon and as a result have been less willing to pay the higher price that the Scottish industry believe is merited. This failure to generate a price premium for Scottish salmon (with one or two exceptions) is what has primarily motivated the accusations of dumping against Norway.
There has always been a belief that salmon from Scotland is a premium product. The now defunct Scottish Salmon Board said that over 70% of consumers preferred to buy salmon from Scotland as well as paying more for it. However consumers found that they could buy also salmon from Norway and Chile and it tasted just as good.
The latest research into food habits appears to confirm that country of origin is not that important to most consumers. The influential Grocer magazine commissioned Harris Interactive to conduct a survey into what consumers are thinking when they fill their shopping trolleys with meat and fish, especially in relation to the battle between price and conscience.
Much of the survey focuses on questions that are more relevant to the meat industry and whilst they may provide some indication of the public mood, they are too many to consider here. Instead, we will just concentrate on those questions about fish. The most telling of these is ‘Which of the following factors mostly affects your purchasing decision when buying fish? The choices and responses are as follows:
Price 72%
Taste 58%
Country of origin 30%
Production process 22%
Organic 14%
Appearance 1%
Other 3%
I never buy fish 1%
None/Not sure/Not answered 0%
The most surprising of these is actually that the appearance of the fish is rated so low. We can only think that most people’s experience of buying fish is that it always looks good therefore this is not an issue for them.
Least surprising is that most purchases are clearly dictated by price. Salmon farmers may like high prices but they can act as an obstacle to purchase and if we want to encourage more people to eat salmon, then the price has to be at a level that encourages, not deters consumption. Finally, the survey shows that less than a third of consumers are swayed by country of origin and probably even less will consider to be an issue if the origin is not what they expect.
The origin of the food consumers eat is explored further in the next question. How important is it that the fish is of British origin? The question actually included meat where origin seems to be more of an issue yet the responses show that British origin is not the ‘be all and end all’. In fact only a third continues to consider origin to be a factor requiring consideration.
Extremely important 6%
Very important 10%
Important 20%
Somewhat important 42%
Not at all important 23%
The next question examines consumers’ consciences by asking whether they look out for sustainability logos when buying fish.
Yes 27%
No 31%
Not aware of what a sustainability logo is 38%
Not sure 5%
This cannot be good news for the MSC with less than a third of consumers even bothering to look for their label. Sustainability is clearly not an issue for most consumers.
Finally, the survey asked consumers which fish they actually bought in the last year. It’s not surprising that the most popular fish remain so with cod topping the list. This is despite all the dire warnings about buying cod and the efforts taken to persuade the public to try alternative species.
Cod 69%
Salmon 59%
Prawns/shrimp 58%
Haddock 56%
Sardines 34%
Mackerel 33%
Plaice 27%
Mussels 22%
Herring 15%
Bass 13%
Coley 11%
Hake 11%
The remaining species are all under 10%
Lobster 8%
Halibut 8%
Tuna 5%
Oyster 3%
Pollock 3%
Barramundi 2%
Trout, Scallops, Crab, Squid, Gurnard, Skate, Hoki, Swordfish, Lemon sole, Anchovies, Sole, Monkfish – 1%
Other 7%
I do not buy fish 11%
The big surprise is tuna, which given its widespread availability in stores would be expected to be more popular. However, this is not a survey on how much has been sold rather what people buy. What it does show is that the British public is still very traditional when it comes to fish consumption and there will have to be a much greater effort required if these long standing habits are to be changed.
Green is the new black?: The IntraFish Brussels show blog reports that whilst the Marine Stewardship Council label was a common sight throughout the show, this year they suggest that it is totally inescapable. We, from Callander McDowell, were not so sure. Yes, a number of stands displayed the blue tick symbol but many did not. One that did was of course the Marine Stewardship Council’s own stand which we visited during the show.
We don’t know whether they had been questioned by many visitors but we found their staff to be in a belligerent mood. When we said that we were interested in the way the MSC certified fish stocks and the reply was that ‘we don’t certify fish stocks, independent certification bodies do’, we knew that we weren’t going to get an intelligent response to anything. We appreciate that we are not exactly positive to the MSC, but we didn’t even get to introduce ourselves. Instead, a DVD was thrust at us, which we were told to watch. The DVD features the MSC story entitled ‘Fish for Today, Fish for Tomorrow’.
Rather than provide answers, we found the DVD simply echoed our concerns. Yes, the MSC offers fish for today and fish for tomorrow but what about fish for the day after and all the days after that?
Our concern focuses not on the principle of sustainable certification but rather the implementation which relies on the ability and experience of these independent certification bodies. Whilst they are able to assess the process, they cannot actually ascertain whether the fishery is truly sustainable. The example of the Alaskan Pollock fishery confirms this concern. For any fishery to be sustainable the harvest must equal or be less than the recruitment of new stock, if not, then the fishing pressure exerted will threaten the stock. Already the quota on Alaskan pollock has had to be reduced, demonstrating that the management of this so called sustainable stock is no different to those fisheries which have not yet been adjudged to be sustainable. In addition, the Alaskan pollock fishery has been found to have an unacceptable by-catch of Chinook salmon. These two issues clearly undermine any claims to sustainability even though the certification body has given it the MSC seal of approval.
What is more worrying is that the presence of the MSC label then appears to give all those in the supply chain the right to abdicate any responsibility for ensuring the fishery is truly sustainable.
Interviewed in the DVD, Alison Austin, Head of Sustainability at British supermarket Sainsbury’s, said that every supplier is given a detailed set of questions about their products which they must answer but in the case of MSC certified fish, then the supplier must only answer the first question. Is the product MSC certified?
MSC certification may be a guide to sustainability not it is a blanket guarantee. The supply chain should ask just as many questions as to the sustainability of the fish, irrespective of any certification. After all, they should have the answers.
IntraFish say seafood is just as prone to following trends as any other industry. They say that this year, the MSC is the must have designer label. Like any trend, they can easily go out of fashion. The Grocer survey suggests that whilst the industry may want to identify with this trend, consumers still have a long way to go to be convinced!