reLAKSation 365. Callander McDowell
Rosbif sandwich: In the last issue of reLAKSation, we discussed how Atle Eide extolled the French tradition of good food and good eating. Our own observations of the French market suggested that Mr Eide may have been looking through rose-tinted glasses and that the reality of France was not all it seemed.
One of the things that Mr Eide highlighted was the presence of a good restaurant café or bistro on almost every Parisian street corner but according to the Independent newspaper such attractions are now fast disappearing with the closure of nearly 3,000 restaurants and cafes in France this year.
The Independent says that once upon a time if you had not claimed a table by 12.30pm then all decent and affordable restaurants would have been full. They say that the alternative would have been a doubtful unswept brasserie, a McDonalds or something even more un-French, a sandwich at your desk. However, all this has changed with many restaurant tables now standing empty and restaurant earnings have fallen by 20% this year. It seems that alarm bells are ringing in the French restaurant industry as well as the French government. If the French have stopped indulging in their favourite sport – eating out then they say that there must be something profoundly disturbed in the state of France.
A variety of reasons have been put forward for this dire situation ranging from the credit crunch to the smoking ban or because there are no Americans around. Probably it is a combination of all of these, but according to Bernard Picolet, a Parisian restaurateur, the real problem is that the French are no longer eating like the French. Instead they are eating more like the English.
He said that younger French people don’t understand or care about food. They are happy to gobble a sandwich or chips rather than sit in a restaurant. They will spend a lot of money going out, but not to eat a good meal. They have the most sophisticated mobile phone but they have no idea what a courgette is. They know all about the internet but they don’t know where to start to eat a fish.
M. Picolet, whose restaurant is near the Champ Elysees in Paris, says that he has lost one in five of his customers. He added that without his faithful customers his business would be dead. He added that most of his regulars are the English who work in the vicinity and who still like to eat a good lunch.
Marie-Christine Schmit, who helped write the report for the finance insurance company, Euler Hermes agrees that the main problem is the changes in French eating behaviour. She says that there has been a gradual movement away from the traditional French lunch towards buying sandwiches or bringing a packed lunch to work. Even, we at Callander McDowell have noticed the increasing availability of sandwiches in many stores and even the appearance of wraps and rolls in addition to the regular sandwich, as well as more varied and inventive fillings.
However many restaurants are not helping their cause. The French restaurant critic Francois Simon reports in Le Figaro that there is a typically French war of nerves going on between restaurants and their more ‘careful’ clientele. Many people who still frequent restaurants are being more restrained about what they order and as a result, they are being harassed by the restaurateurs. Diners at Aux Lyonnais, a restaurant owned by celebrity chef Alain Ducasse, who refuse to order an aperitif are told that their meals ‘will take a long time to prepare’. Meanwhile guests at Quincy, a restaurant near the Gare de Lyon, were recently shown the door when they declined to order a starter. Such actions, whilst understandable are helping speed up the decline of the restaurant sector.
We already discussed in the last issue of reLAKSation how the French supermarkets are already changing and that the type of products available suggest a move away from more traditional eating. M. Picolet agrees that the root of their problems lie in the home. He says that French people now eat snacks in front of the TV rather than sitting down and eating a meal together. How can you expect them to appreciate a good meal, he adds?
In time, such changes will undoubtedly be reflected in the type of foods that the French buy. If younger people are no longer interested in buying food such as fish, then demand for farmed salmon will undoubtedly fall. This is a reflection of what has happened in the UK, with younger consumers avoiding fish other than traditional fish and chips.
The image of France as a centre of gastronomy, as viewed by Atle Eide, may once have been true but this image is changing and it is probably a change that will be difficult to reverse. The traditional view of French food is one of top quality basic ingredients but if new consumers are not interested in purchasing such traditional foodstuffs then in France like elsewhere, the emphasis will be about producing what these consumers actually want.……
Too late?: Frank Asche of the University of Stavanger told IntraFish that the salmon farming industry is not taking the challenges of eco labelling seriously. He said that it is only matter of time before the eco-labels will provide wild caught fish with a competitive advantage over farmed fish and this is a challenge that salmon farmers should take seriously. Unfortunately, Professor Asche’s comments have come far too late but this is not surprising since much of the salmon industry give scant regard to what is actually happening in the market place. The reality is that eco-labelled wild salmon has already gained a significant advantage in more than one sector of the market and has done so for well over two years, if not even longer.
Eco-labelled wild salmon has gained most competitive advantage at the extremes of the market, i.e. both the bottom and top ends. At the bottom end of the market, high prices for Atlantic salmon, boosted by the pointless industry in-fighting, have made farmed salmon too expensive for inclusion in many added value products. Processors have recognised that the cheaper wild Pink and Chum salmon can be substituted in these products with much improved margins. The fact that the taste of these fish does not match that of Atlantic salmon has been mitigated by the ability to use the MSC logo. Thus in one fell swoop, the processors have been able to reduce costs and claim the advantage of using sustainable fish. They are helped by the fact that most consumers have no idea that the salmon used is not the same fish that is found swimming around local waters.
At the other end of the market, wild MSC labelled salmon is also gaining market advantage because the environmental groups have deemed wild to be good and farmed to be bad. Thus those consumers with an environmental conscience now opt to buy wild caught fish instead of farmed, even though the MSC fish has been shipped halfway round the world and has been previously frozen. Again consumers are slightly misled because most of these fish are sold as wild Alaskan salmon rather than the specific species. Most consumers remain unaware that they could be offered a choice of different fish with different eating characteristics.
This move towards buying wild caught Pacific salmon has had a major impact on the market for farmed salmon. Scottish producers argue that imported cheap salmon from Norway has undermined the market position as the premium salmon in the marketplace but the truth is that those top end consumers who might have once been willing to pay more for quality farmed Scottish salmon are actually paying even more for eco-labelled wild caught fish. However the joke is somewhat on them because they remain unaware that these wild caught environmentally friendly salmon actually spent the first part of their life being reared on exactly the same salmon farms that the environmental groups condemn.
Professor Asche argues that the farmed salmon industry is overlooking the opportunity to help shape any future eco-label for aquaculture and risks the possibility that the environmental groups could ban a variety of commonplace activities making certification impossible for many salmon companies. He suggests that it is irresponsible if the salmon industry fails to face up to this challenge claiming that it is inexpensive insurance against something that could otherwise become a huge problem.
We, at Callander McDowell, are not convinced. The salmon farming industry is far too important to retailers for them to reject, even if the environmental lobby comes out against farmed salmon. In fact they already have done so and it has done little to diminish the flow of salmon to the consumer. The reality is that despite the high profile case put for consumption of sustainable fish by the Marine Stewardship Council and other environmental groups, a recent YouGov survey conducted for supermarket chain Waitrose and the Marine Conservation Society, as revealed by Seafood.com, British consumers continue to favour just five different species; cod haddock, tuna, salmon and prawns, none of which really can be classed by the MSC as being sustainable.
It could be argued that selection of these five species is based on a poor understanding of the issue of sustainability however the survey found that the vast majority of UK consumers had a good knowledge of sustainable fishing and the importance of sourcing fish from well managed fisheries using fishing methods that have little impact on the marine environment. The truth is that most British consumers let their stomachs rule their choice and not their minds when it comes to buying fish.
It has been previously suggested that British consumers have been very positive to sustainable fish and that sales of species such as MSC approved Alaskan Pollock have increased significantly. However, this is because a large proportion of UK fish and seafood sales are of breaded and battered fish which previously has been cod. The processors have been increasingly substituting Alaskan pollock in these products instead of cod reducing the choice to consumers but increasing the sales of these sustainable (and much cheaper) species.
Sustainability is certainly the hot potato of the moment and whilst consumers may be slow to select sustainable species, the supply chain has reacted positively. Yet, it may be all in vain. We have written previously about the concerns that certified sustainable fisheries may not be as sustainable as everyone has been led to believe. Now Seafood.com reports that the Western Australian rock lobster fishery, a poster child for the MSC and one of the first certified fisheries, is now in real danger of collapse. The Australian Department of Fisheries has found virtually no larval stage lobsters in areas which are expected to be awash with new born stocks at this time of the year. According to the West Australian newspaper, the findings have stunned the lucrative lobster fishing industry which warned that unless there was a dramatic turnaround in numbers in the next four months, then future fishing seasons would be a total disaster. The Department of Fisheries have no idea what has caused the alarming findings and are investigating whether climate change or over-fishing is to blame.
Whatever the reason, fishermen have already been directed by the State Government to ease pressure on the fishery by reducing the number of pots and closing the fishery on Sundays. This is expected to reduce the catch by 20%. The West Australian reports that, whilst fishermen operate within set guidelines, a growing number have expressed concern for some time, that the total catch pressure on the fishery was too high.
The obvious question is how can a fishery that has been certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council, be found to be over-fishing? This is not the first time. Fishing quotas have already been reduced in the MSC hoki and Alaskan pollock fisheries. This suggests that the MSC certification scheme is not sufficiently robust enough to actively police these fisheries to ensure they remain sustainable.
This eco-certification is no different to existing fisheries management in which governments in consultation with fisheries specialists set quotas which hopefully retain sufficient fish stocks to maintain a viable stock. Experience has shown that they don’t always get it right so why should we believe that the MSC would be any different.
We have always argued that the only way to guarantee the future viability of fish stocks is if demand can be met from other sources. In terms of fisheries management, this means putting far distant stocks under the same fishing pressure whilst easing that on local stocks. This means that if North Sea cod stocks are threatened then place limits on what can be taken and instead source cod from the Pacific fishery. In time, this extra demand for Pacific cod will no doubt place extra fishing pressure on what used to be a sustainable fishery. How long will it be before we start to hear reports that quotas for the Pacific cod fishery need to be reduced?
The only realistic alternative source of fish is from farming. The more farmed fish that can be produced the less fishing pressure there will be on wild stocks. The MSC don’t want to get involved in certifying farmed fish because if they encourage farming they undermine the rationale for their own existence. This is a short sighted approach.
Do farmed fish need to be eco-certified? The answer is no. What they do need is to be seen to be responsibly farmed and this is the approach that seems to be more acceptable to the major retailers. Do they need another badge to do this? Consumers do not want to be faced with a plethora of different eco-labels. It is sufficient for their retailer to say that the only fish they sell are sustainable or responsibly farmed. The consumer only has to then choose which to buy.