reLAKSation 356. Callander McDowell
Obese: The fish and seafood industry regularly reports that more consumers than ever now recognise the benefits to their health of eating oily fish. The Mediterranean diet, which is rich in oily fish, is often held up as the model of healthy eating with Southern Europeans suffering from a much lower incidence of heart disease. Now the Guardian newspaper reports that following the Mediterranean diet may now not be such a good idea.
According to the FAO, Southern Europeans have developed a taste for foods that are 'too fat, too salty and too sweet'. As a result, Greeks now have the highest Body Mass Index in Europe. The healthy diet of fish, fruit and vegetables consumed by their forebears is now in 'a moribund state'.
Over the 40 years to 2002, the average calorific intake across Europe has risen by 20% but in Southern Europe, the rise is typically 30%. Forty years ago, 25% of the Spanish diet was fats and oils, now it is 40%. However, the FAO do not attribute the increasing level of obesity in Southern Europe to just changes in the diet but also to an increasingly sedentary life-style as well as a fall in home cooking which is being replaced by a tendency to eat more fast food.
The real question that these findings raise is if Southern Europeans, who have all the right ingredients for the healthiest diet on their doorstep, are now turning away from their traditional way of eating, how willing will the rest of Europe be to adopt the healthy eating message?
Sometime ago, Waitrose told IntraFish that sales of oily fish were booming but Waitrose represent only one segment of the market, Whether, the same can be said across the whole market is not so clear. Indications suggest they are not. For example, the UK's National Seafood Week promotion, despite being declared an overwhelming success, has now been extended for a further week to Seafood Fortnight. Perhaps a week did not allow sufficient time to convince consumers that they should be eating more fish?
Consumption data from AC Nielsen/SeaFish shows that species with a positive growth include salmon (4.5%), trout (17.8%), pollock (130.8%), sea bass (20.5%), plaice (0.1%) and monkfish (8.0%) whilst cod (-14,1%), haddock (-1.7%), mackerel (-8.6%), tuna (-8.8%) and herring (-11.0%) all exhibited declining sales. The problem is that percentage growth is not really indicative of sales performance as there are major differences between the volumes sold of each species. Salmon is one of the UK's best sellers and thus 4.5% of a large volume would represent a significant increase in sales, whilst 130% growth of only a small volume of pollock may not be. The real indicator that fish consumption may not be surging ahead is that there are just as many species showing a decline in consumption as there are showing an increase.
Northern European consumers face the same market pressures as their southern European counterparts. It should not be too surprising if both exhibit a similar attitude to healthy fish consumption.
In or out?: IntraFish reports that Iceland is expected to roll out the first of its own fisheries eco-label this autumn. Kristjan Thorarinsson of Iceland's Federation of Fishing Vessel Owners (IFFVO) said that they had opted for their own label because they felt that there are some major questions about the Marine Stewardship Council's approach. He said that their criteria are too open so that there are different criteria from one stock to another and there is too much variation between each. He may have a point for after two years consultation; the MSC has announced that it is to launch a new fishery assessment methodology. Seemingly, the new methodology will be standardised for every fishery as well as defining how the MSC standard should be interpreted.
Clearly, if the MSC believes that the methodology should be standardised, then previously it must not have been, leading to the possibility that the assessment may not have been as rigorously applied to every fishery. Certainly, the fact that the Alaskan pollock fishery has been found to have a by-catch of over 130,000 Chinook salmon shows that certified fisheries may not be as sustainable as the MSC would have consumers believe. It is therefore not surprising that Iceland believes that it can apply a more rigorous standard to its own fisheries as verified by independent certifiers.
The Icelandic National Association of Small Boat Owners (NASBO) has opted for certification through the Swedish eco group KRAV because they too felt that the MSC label is not a true indication of sustainability. Whether these additional eco-labels will add to, or just further confuse consumers remains to be seen. Just as the MSC seems to be making head way as the leading certifier of sustainable fish stocks, the news that Iceland's own eco-label will soon be launched on the market cannot be welcome.
However, Iceland's independent approach to sustainability may not be the MSC's only concern. The Alaskan Government has recently announced that they are no longer willing to be the client for certified MSC Alaskan salmon. According to seafood.com, this is because they believe that such a relationship would no longer work. Denby Lloyd of the Alaskan Department of Fish & Game said that their role as client was highly unusual as in every other case, the client was a private group or company. In addition, serving the industry in this role was proving to be straining the agency's finances and draining human resources.
According to IntraFish, the big question is whether anyone will be willing to take over the role and if not, is the Alaskan industry prepared to let the eco-certification lapse?
IntraFish suggest that the Alaskan Seafood Marketing Institute may not be willing to help because they believe that the fact that the seafood comes from Alaska should be sufficient proof of its sustainability and quality credentials. Equally, the big Alaskan seafood companies are reported to be showing little inclination to stump up the money. Without a client, then Alaskan salmon would lose its certification. Yet, this does not seem to bother those in the industry. It seems that they think that the potential business lost would be more than offset by new markets in India, Brazil and Russia and that if an eco-label is absolutely essential then they could follow Iceland's example and develop their own certification.
Although there might be new markets, IntraFish poses the question as to whether European consumers would still be willing to buy Alaskan salmon if it doesn't have the MSC label. They also ask whether EU retailers, many under pressure from the environmental organisations to sell eco-certified seafood, will continue to offer Alaskan salmon on their fish counters, or in the same quantities?
The answer is not easy, but we at Callander McDowell, suspect that the absence of the MSC logo will not be too detrimental to sales of Alaskan salmon. This is because we believe that the main driver of consumer sales is the fact that Alaskan salmon is sold as wild. The environmental groups may want consumers to buy eco-certified fish from sustainable stocks but they also have a negative view of aquaculture and argue that consumers should be eating wild fish only. Whilst Alaskan salmon cannot be seen as a direct replacement for farmed salmon, it appears to be acceptable to those consumers who are prepared to listen to the environmentalists even if their view is flawed. The environmental lobby is just not willing to accept that farmed salmon is actually more sustainable than Alaskan wild salmon and thus continue to promote the consumption of the wild fish. Only when this view is accepted will the market for Alaskan salmon be under threat. Until then, the presence or absence of the MSC certification will make little difference and thus we wouldn't be too surprised to see the MSC certification lapse.
Way out!: The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten reported figures from Norway's Agricultural Research Institute that show for every seven farmers opting to farm organically, six have subsequently converted back to conventional farming. One of the main reasons given for pulling out of the organic sector was that the documentation required became intolerable. The amount of paperwork required was not recouped by the expected higher returns.
One of the reasons that many farmers opted to convert to organic production were claims that consumer demand would boom to the extent that the Norwegian Government had set a target of 15% organic production by 2015. This is now unlikely to be met with production now stagnating.
At the same time, IntraFish report that US consumer interest in organic production is also slipping with 69% of consumers buying some form of organic produce from a peak of 73%. The Hartman Group who carried out the research said many factors could be prompting this decreased interest. They think that the presence of other labels such as fair trade or locally produced might have tempted consumers away from the organic sector. However, they do believe that whilst the wider consumer base may be losing interest, the appeal to the core organic consumer may be strengthening. If this is true, then interest in organic seafood may have already peaked since hardcore organic consumers rarely consider seafood as being organic.
In the UK, demand for organic seafood, mainly salmon, trout and prawns, has been boosted by repeated claims from the environmental groups that farmed fish and seafood is tainted with artificial dyes, antibiotics and other chemicals. Such emotive terminology is bound to cause concern amongst consumers and this is why some have turned to organic produce instead.
However, it is the environmental groups that use the term dyes instead of pigmentors and whilst they readily criticise the use of pigmentors in salmon farming, few words are directed at pigmentors in egg production. Perhaps, the fact that they prefer to focus on more pressing issues such as egg production in cages means that pigmentors are only a minor concern by comparison. They also prefer to ignore that antibiotics and other medications are used widely in terrestrial agriculture for the welfare of the animal. Such use is even permitted in organic production yet, antibiotic usage in salmon farming is tiny and when it is used, it is because there is no other option.
Perhaps if consumers were given a more honest account of conventional salmon farming, they would be just as happy to buy traditional farmed salmon, but then the only way that many environmental groups can maintain a media profile is by denigrating the hard work of the salmon farming industry.
Consumers should buy organic fish and seafood for positive reasons not because of the inaccurate claims from the environmental lobby.