reLAKSation 368. Callander McDowell
Confused – you’re not the only one!: This week the Guardian newspaper website featured an article about sustainable fish. The website says that the Government recommends that everyone eats two portions of fish a week, yet three-quarters of the world’s fish stocks are currently being over-exploited. They ask what is the ethical yet health-conscious cook to do? Happily, some species of fish remain abundant. For example, they say that cod may be off the menu, as it’s one of the unlucky varieties heading towards the brink of extinction, but they suggest that battered pollack sits well next to a pile of chips. Equally, salmon may be out, but red gurnard is definitely in.
Yet, anyone visiting their fishmonger, whether independent or supermarket run, may be forgiven for wondering why the Guardian is offering this advice. Most fish counters have plenty of cod and salmon on display at value for money prices. Those consumers having any doubts about supplies of these fish species would soon be questioning whether this is a case of crying wolf. After all, dire warnings of the imminent collapse of fish stocks seem to have failed to materialise. This is not surprising since the Guardian article is based on information supplied by Greenpeace.
Greenpeace, like other environmental organisations, seem to have adopted a worst case scenario but whilst some stocks are suffering from over-fishing, others appear to be recovering and supplies are on the increase. In the last issue of reLAKSation, we discussed the increased cod quotas from Norwegian and Russian waters. Icelandic cod stocks appear to be healthier than the current quota levels suggest and even North Sea stocks could be in a better position once the issue of discards has been resolved. Certainly, plenty of cod seems to be reaching the market encouraging some supermarkets to discount fresh cod. Waitrose, one of the supermarkets to take a stand on sustainability, is currently discounting cod loins by £4/kg. Morrisons are discounting cod fillet by £1/kg, Booths have chilled cod fillets at a saving of £2.15/kg and even the Co-op are offering prepacked cod loins on multi-buy.
At the same time, sales of heavily promoted ‘sustainable’ species have not really taken off as many have forecasted. IntraFish reports that cod and haddock remain the first choice for most fish and chip consumers, despite being more expensive than coley, pollock or pangasius. David Audley of the National Federation of Fish Fryers said that if money is tight then people tend to opt for a medium-sized portion rather than a large one. Mr Audley is hoping that the credit crunch will bring about a resurgence in fish and chip consumption as more consumers stay at home rather than dine out. According to the Observer Food Monthly, sales of fish and chips have fallen by 30 million portions since 1998.
We have discussed in previous issues of reLAKSation that sales of Alaskan pollock have increased mainly because the frozen food companies have increasingly substituted pollock for cod and haddock in coated products. Sales of other species such as tilapia and pangasius are still only a tiny fraction of those of cod. Waitrose recently reported that sales of mackerel have shown an increase of 76% as more expensive fish such as salmon, cod and tuna are shunned by customers hit by the credit crisis. Seafoodintellignce.com also says that Waitrose report sales of prepacked mackerel have jumped by 129%. The supermarkets believes that cost is the main driver with mackerel costing about £5.99/kg compared to cod fillet at £13.49/kg.
Yet, canny shoppers could still be eating cod and salmon by changing supermarket. It is still possible to buy salmon fillet for as little as £6/kg and cod fillet at £8.70/kg. By comparison, prepacked (headless) mackerel in the same supermarket is also £5.98/kg but cheaper off the counter.
It therefore seems that any changes to buying behaviour have been driven more by cost rather than concerns about sustainability. Certainly, two examples from the world of celebrity chefs show that sustainability is not really on the public’s radar. Rick Stein, Britain’s top seafood chef, told the Daily Mail that he planned to continue using endangered species in his four restaurants despite warnings of over-fishing. He said that if he followed the advice on sustainability, he would not be able to keep his restaurants going. He also questions whether the situation regarding fish stocks is really as bad as the marine conservationists are saying.
He said that about 80% of the fish are claimed to be endangered and if he stopped using them he would be left with Pollock, lots of mackerel and herring. He claims that he couldn’t run a proper menu without hake, cod, brill and monkfish, all fish which the Marine Conservation Society say he shouldn’t be using. He is also happy to use farmed fish, although not in his premier restaurant!!!
The second story concerns the demise of Tom’s Place, celebrity chef Tom Aiken’s, sustainable fish and chip shop (a review appeared in reLAKSation 335.) ‘Tom’s Place’ was hailed as the first sustainable fish and chip shop in the UK and given a great deal of press coverage. Tom Aiken even attended the Barcelona Seafood Summit earlier this year to raise his sustainability credential. Unfortunately, it seems that the public didn’t particularly share his ideals and according to the Metro newspaper Tom’s Place quietly closed its doors for the final time in August. Clearly Tom’s new found passion in sustainability was not shared by the public, at least when it comes to buying fish and chips.
Now it seems that it is not just fish and chip consumers who lack any real interest in buying sustainable fish and seafood. If asked about sustainability issues, most consumers will probably make the right noises when responding but when it comes to actually choosing sustainable fish they prefer to leave the decision as to what is sustainable to the retailer. This negates the need to have the displayed fish specifically identified as sustainable. This is because retailers would not have bought in any fish which are not classed as being sustainable. This is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the news that the Marine Stewardship Council is considering redesigning their logo.
According to IntraFish, Toby Middleton of the MSC has said that eco-labels must be ‘one dimensional’ and utilise consumers ‘strong emotive response to sustainability concerns’, which is why the MSC is considering this redesign. We can only presume that consumers are therefore not showing such a strong emotive response to the current logo. However, what the MSC would prefer not to consider is that this absence of any response is not because of the logo design, but rather a general ambivalence to this issue. We very much doubt whether a different logo would make any difference to consumer response. After all, the recent rise in interest in the MSC has been driven by the environmental lobby whose roof top actions have prompted retailers and processors to comply, rather than by consumer concerns.
This difference can be illustrated by looking at the recent evolution of fish fingers. A few years ago consumers were regularly subjected to high profile TV advertising whose message was that the only fish fingers to be eaten were cod fish fingers, especially those from Captain Bird’s Eye. At the time Bird’s Eye, under different ownership, were one of the initial partners involved in the formation of the Marine Stewardship Council. It was therefore not unexpected when Bird’s Eye started to play down the cod message and introduce their consumers to MSC Alaskan pollock. Unfortunately, their consumers weren’t so keen on this change which is why Bird’s Eye continues to produce cod fish fingers. The fact that Alaskan pollock was the sustainable option seemingly failed to impress their consumers so a new tack was necessary. This new USP was omega-3 even though Alaskan pollock, in common with most other white fish is a poor source of omega-3. This was not a deterrent and omega-3 fish fingers were successfully launched on the market. What the packaging of omega-3 fish fingers failed to mention was that the fish was from a sustainable source and nor did it include the MSC logo, which had appeared on other packs of fish fingers made from Alaskan pollock. The sustainability issue had been without doubt, relegated.
Bird’s Eye’s main competitor Young’s had also substituted Alaskan pollock into their fish fingers. They also pursued the sustainability theme, not only through the use of the MSC logo but with prominent wording stating ‘100% sustainable’. However Young’s also made other fish fingers with MSC certified Pacific cod, the packaging claiming ‘100% sustainable cod’.
Young’s had already produced a range of coated Alaskan pollock, but not fish fingers that promoted its omega-3 credentials. This has now been remedied with the extension of the range to include omega-3 fish fingers and more interestingly, the launch of cod fish fingers which also provide a natural source of omega-3. The packaging does not indicate whether this cod is Pacific or Atlantic cod, nor whether it is sustainable or not. Thus it seems that we have turned full circle with the reintroduction of cod fish fingers that make no claim for sustainability.
The fish finger story has taken a further twist with Bird’s Eye launching a salmon fish finger made from Pink salmon. This should be rich in omega-3, in fact much higher than the content of their omega-3 fish fingers, as well as being from a sustainable MSC certified source. Interestingly, the packaging mentions neither.
And in a final twist, we have just seen the launch of GO3, David Beckham’s new range of omega-3 enriched foods. The range includes omega-3 fish fingers, made from Alaskan pollock, but boosted with added omega-3. These contain nearly double the content of standard omega-3 fish fingers, but are not yet comparable with those made from salmon. David’s fish fingers make no claims about their sustainability.
What’s clear is that sustainability is not an issue in the battle to persuade consumers to buy fish fingers. The main focus has become omega-3 even though the level of omega-3 is insignificant compared to that provided by oily species. Of course, it could be said that it is better that children eat a small amount of natural omega-3 than none at all. However, it does seem that the issue of sustainability has not provided sufficient incentive to buy Alaskan pollock rather than cod or haddock.
Cod is too entrenched in the British psyche to bring about an immediate change in buying behaviour. Sales of coated Alaskan pollock products have increased in recent times but these have been fuelled by heavy discounting. The simple fact is that, despite all the warnings of over-fishing, the British public remain loyal to cod. A recent YouGov survey for Waitrose found that when asked to name their favourite fish, three quarters of those asked responded with just five different species, cod haddock, tuna, salmon & prawns. Maybe, cod farming might still pay? After all, the evidence is beginning to suggest that Alaskan pollock may not be as sustainable as the MSC certification would suggest, whichever way one may look.