This will be a blow to the cod farming industry because one of the unique selling points for farmed cod as compared to wild caught fish is that they are produced sustainably. This is at a time when most environmental groups have argued that stocks of wild cod are on the verge of collapse.

Now, not only are more wild caught cod coming to market, but this newly certified stock can claim to be sustainable. This will place added pressure on the cod farming industry to differentiate itself from the wild caught fish especially if it is to ensure a profitable future.

Only time will tell whether this newly certified cod fishery is truly sustainable. Whilst most of the smaller fisheries probably are sustainable because of the lesser fishing pressure placed on them, the larger fisheries have shown that the MSC certification is no real guarantee of sustainability. We will discuss this further in this issue of reLAKSation so will not focus on what constitutes sustainability here.

One of the reasons that Domstein Longline Partners applied for MSC certification is that they hope that it will ‘contribute to strengthen a sustainable price offering…’. In other words they hope that they will be financially rewarded for supplying cod with a MSC sustainably certificate by consumers who are prepared to pay a premium price to buy it. However, as yet there, is little evidence to suggest that most consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable products so it is unclear whether Domstein’s expectations will be met. Our observations in the marketplace would suggest not. Sustainability is just not an issue for many consumers so they are unlikely to pay more for something that is of little concern to them.

For example, one leading UK supermarket sells sustainably sourced cod fillet fish fingers made from Norwegian cod fillet but a similar branded product which makes no such claim, nor identifies the origin of the cod, sells in the same store for 12.5% more. We appreciate that this example is for a fish finger but the relevance is the same for cod fillet too.

Of course, there is a small section of the market to which sustainability is important. In these early days of Atlantic cod certification, this niche may be prepared to pay more for MSC certified fish. However, if more fisheries become certified, as the MSC have indicated, then any initial premium will certainly vanish. For the moment, low prices may be more of an incentive for most consumers than sustainability ever can be. For example, one UK supermarket is currently selling prepacked cod fillet for just £8/kg. Will consumers forgo such prices for a MSC certified label? We will have to see.

Following the discussion above about the first MSC certified Atlantic cod, we were interested to read in IntraFish that the fish will are to be supplied to Asda stores in the UK. Asda (WalMart) did not immediately come to mind as the first store group to offer MSC Atlantic cod because they are not the obvious choice in relation to ethical issues but instead are viewed, at least according to the Watchdog survey discussed below, as the supermarket offering the best value for money. However, Asda were once the target of a rooftop protest about their poor record in relation to the sale of sustainable fish and therefore they are now keen to highlight their new sustainable credentials, at least when it comes to fish.

Asda promotes itself by offering the most low cost products of any supermarket. This doesn’t seem, to us, to meet the aspirations of ‘Domstein Longline Partners’ who want to see their MSC certified cod ‘contribute to strengthen a sustainable price offering’. In other words, they would hope that consumers will be willing to pay more to buy a sustainable cod product.

It seems that Domstein Longline Partners may have to lessen their expectation as to a potential premium for Asda’s Perfect Catch MSC certified sustainably sourced cod loin is currently selling at £14.38/kg The new product seems to have replaced Asda’s Extra Special (Asda’s premium label) cod loin, which has also been selling at £14.38/kg.

Thus, it appears that the new MSC product is selling at exactly the same price as cod loin that has not been certified as sustainable. Of course, the current price could be an introductory offer and is set to increase in the near future. However, cod loin prices have been higher than this before now and could not be maintained because consumers were just not prepared to pay more. Now when prices are under increased pressure because of the credit crunch, it is unlikely that consumers will stomach yet higher prices even for a sustainable offering. On the other hand, £14.38/kg could be the list price for cod loin irrespective of whether it is MSC certified or not. We will be keeping watch of developments.

Sustainable Seafood Day: Consumers, retailers, restaurateurs and suppliers in Australia are being encouraged to take part in Sustainable Seafood Day. According to IntraFish, the MSC-sponsored event on March 20^th is designed to recognise and promote users of the MSC eco-label. The 2008 Sustainable Seafood Day was considered to be an outstanding success and this year’s event is expected to build on this success by cooperating with supermarkets and well-known seafood brands.

Unfortunately, Sustainable Seafood Day is scheduled to take place only a month after the Government of Western Australia has had to take further vital steps to protect and sustain Western Australia’s important commercial west coast rock lobster fishery. The Fisheries Minister Norman Moore says that this has been necessary because both experts and fishermen claim that the fishery is under severe pressure brought about by three years of low larval settlement.

The rock lobster fishery is the most valuable single species fishery in Australia representing about 20% of the value of Australia’s total fisheries. According to the MSC, annual sales are worth about AUS$300-400 million.

This fishery was first certified by the MSC in March 2000 and then recertified in December 2006. The lobsters are caught in baited pots and the MSC have agreed a catch of 10,750 tonnes. The intervention of the Fisheries Minister now shows that this fishery is, for whatever reason, not sustainable. Mr Moore first imposed a 15% reduction in unit values from last December with another 15% cut for next season. However, these measures do not appear to have achieved the results necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the rock lobster fishery. The Government’s aim is now to reduce the commercial catch to 7,800 tonnes compared with a predicted catch of 9,200 tonnes which will hopefully offset the low catches expected in ensuing years. Mr Moore admits that this will be a difficult time for lobster fishermen but he said that the research and advice shows that WA’s rock lobster stocks need urgent increased protection.

It is hard to imagine how the MSC can be expecting to celebrate a day of sustainable seafood in Australia when Australia’s most important fishery is now being subjected to the most stringent measures to prevent its collapse. It is something of an enigma to us how a fishery that has been certified as sustainable is now under such severe pressure. Clearly something has gone dramatically wrong with the whole process. The problem is that this is not the only certified fishery that is going through such difficulties. It begs the questions as to really how sustainable are sustainably certified fisheries? It seems only time will tell.

What’s interesting is that the Western Australia’s Fisheries Minister makes no mention of the MSC when he launched his new tough measures. We wonder whether he will be taking time off from his fisheries protection role to participate in their forthcoming Sustainable Seafood Day?

Shopping habits: Although the environmental groups would have us believe otherwise, most consumers are not influenced by issues like sustainability when they do their food shopping. Instead, it seems that the rush to seek sustainable and ethical options is driven by a fear of exclusion from the supply chain for non-compliance. Just this week, one UK supermarket displayed shelf labels proclaiming that all their salmon is now Freedom Food accredited. The price of their salmon however remains unchanged. Consumers are paying the same price for higher welfare standards (although Freedom Food poultry is usually priced higher than standard broiler chicken).

This week, the BBC’s TV consumer programme ‘Watchdog’ announced the results of a viewers’ survey of supermarket shopping habits and preferences. 36,308 viewers participated in an on-line survey that was open for anyone to take part. They specifically looked at why people chose to shop where they did and if the credit crunch had affected their choices.

The survey asked why shoppers chose to shop where they do and the single most important in determining choice was split three ways with an equal response to each of 26% of respondents. These are price, convenience and quality. Price needs no explanation other to say that price is clearly still very important to many consumers, however it is not the only factor which drives consumers to shop where they do. Convenience is another factor. Most shoppers will use their local supermarket and are unlikely to travel far to another even if it better meets their requirements. Even where there is a good local choice, convenience still plays an important part of consumer choice. Finally, and more surprisingly, consumers are influenced by quality. This doesn’t necessarily refer to the choice of premium products but rather the difference between standard items offered by one supermarket and another. As regular visitors to all the leading supermarkets we are only too aware about some of these differences because of our product testing. Quality can vary and it understandable how this can influence choice. It seems that most consumers are happy with their current choice.

The survey also asked if consumers had changed supermarket in the past year and just 30% said that they had. The main reason for this change with 32% of respondents was price. Interestingly, many of those consumers that have moved and now shop at the cheapest discounters also continue to also use another supermarket which suggests that the limited range offered by discounters cannot meet all their needs.

Although many news reports suggest that consumers are watching their spending, the survey found that 14% of respondents now spend less than they did last year whilst 47% actually spend more. Food shopping is still clearly very important to consumers and they are happy to continue spending their money on food shopping.

What this survey doesn’t show is that whilst spend is increasing, consumers are becoming more savvy about the way they spend what they do. They try to limit the amount they spend on each item so instead, the supermarkets have responded with deals that look attractive but maybe, don’t offer such good value.

Finally, the survey asked consumers which supermarket was their favourite or the one that they would prefer to use. The answer was Waitrose, the store that is considered one of those at the premium end of the range. Waitrose does not have the largest customer base but 21% of respondents would prefer to shop there. This answer has provoked a heated response on the Watchdog website since many northern consumers claim that the survey is biased towards southerners where Waitrose have their strongest customer base. It is only quite recently that Waitrose have extended out of their southern stronghold to open shops in Edinburgh and some parts of the north of England. Waitrose is still a relative rarity in the north.

This brings into question about how effective such market research is. 36,308 respondents is a large number for such a survey yet it could be argued that the viewer base of the Watchdog programme is skewed towards a certain type of viewer. Certainly, the responses based on the geographic area do show a bias. Scotland produced 2265 responses whilst London produced 3803. The South East of England produced 7951 whilst the North East just 1128.

Even with such a high rate of response, it is easy to see how answers cannot be taken at face value. A bit of commonsense must also be employed. Even with huge market research budgets, it is still possible to get it wrong as Tesco have found to their cost in the US, where despite some extensive research, including building a mock up of  a store to test consumer responses, they found that consumers have not responded well to their stores. What they failed to appreciate, because they didn’t ask the right questions or more importantly spend time visiting other stores and watching shoppers, was the significance of the weekly offers circular, something that doesn’t occur in the UK market.

This doesn’t mean that the Watchdog survey should be discounted it is that it should be used alongside other market research. This is a valuable lesson that we will revisit in future issues of reLAKSation.