Mr Davidsen suggests that there is inequality because consumers are being misled into buying Pangasius with packaging that indicating that ‘the best from the sea’ and ‘rich in omega-3, adding that both statements are wrong. Mr Davidsen also maintains that there may be residues in the flesh because of weaker regulation.

Jan Trollvik of NSEC also contends that Pangasius is being misrepresented in the marketplace. He said that he had personally seen it labelled incorrectly as plaice and that it is sometimes thawed and sold as fresh fish.

At the same time, cod production company SponFish says that consumers let themselves be tempted by dirt cheap Pangasuis even though the nutritional content and taste are in a totally different class from cod.  

We, at Callander McDowell, wonder why if Norwegian cod is by far superior, rather than being equal to imported Pangasius, then there is a need to compete on equal terms? The consumer market is extremely complex and it is too simplistic to suggest that the availability of cheap Pangasius is undermining the market for Norwegian cod. We would argue that the damage to the cod market is not due to the presence of Pangasius but rather because of the ill-judged warnings from the environmental groups about the state of European cod stocks and the subsequent substitution of cod with Alaskan pollock.

Alaskan pollock has flooded into the European market without eliciting any significant comment from the Norwegian cod industry, yet suddenly Pangasius has become the villain of the moment. Why this has happened is because recovering cod stocks have meant that more fish have become available but market demand has not adjusted. Many consumers still believe that they should be avoiding cod and the result of the increased availability combined with low demand is a collapse in price. The Norwegian industry is hurting and found a ready scapegoat in Pangasius. The problem is compounded because most of the evidence against Pangsius appears to be anecdotal.

There is no doubt that Pangasius imports have increased but consumer interest is not widespread throughout Europe. Reports suggest that Spain, Germany and Holland are the main markets, whilst our observations elsewhere suggest that the fish is not so well regarded.

In France, Nile Perch appears to be the fish species that has filled the gap that Pangsius would be expected to target so that there is little evidence of the fish in retail outlets. In the UK, various presentations of Pangasius have been offered to consumers but none seems to have generated sustained consumer interest. Instead, products are offered on promotion but once the promotion ends, sales rapidly fall off as consumers return to their usual preferences. There are only one or two Pangasius products that have managed to be available continually, and the shelf space and stocking levels suggest that they are not major sellers.

We have not seen any specific examples where consumers are being misled into buying Pangasius by claiming to be a totally different species, however in the UK, retailers have not agreed to a common name so the fish is described either as Basa or River Cobbler. There are a couple of examples where Pangasius is used in added value products and is described as ‘fish’ on the packaging but it is unlikely that the consumer is being misled when buying such products.

Pangasius may not be a good source of omega-3, especially when compared against oily fish but there does seem to be a move to describing all fish as a source of omega-3, even if they are not rich in the oils in order to compete against omega-3 enriched dairy products and such like. Better to eat Pangasius than no fish, and if it leads to consumption of other species, then even better.

As to the question of frozen Pangasius that has been defrosted and then sold as fresh, we can only wonder whether Mr Trollvik has ever been out into the retail sector. Inconsistent supplies and long supply chains have meant that much of the fish sold in the retail sector might be sold as previously frozen. This is commonplace and applies to a range of fish from the top to the bottom of the price spectrum. Most of the Pacific salmon sold has been previously frozen so has Pacific cod, Pacific halibut, Chilean salmon and a wide variety of whitefish, too numerous to mention. We have even seen organic salmon sold as previously frozen. This is nothing unusual however, before Mr Trollvik starts to focus on previously frozen as a negative, he may be interested to learn that packs of the newly MSC certified Norwegian cod is sold in the UK labelled as previously frozen but unlike some species, it has not been defrosted in such a way that it can be refrozen by the consumer.

Previously frozen Norwegian MSC certified cod loin

In the case of Pangasius, ‘Fresh’ fillets are available on the fish counters of three of the main UK retailers all labelled as previously frozen. The fourth retailer only sells it in chilled prepacks because all the fish sold on their fresh fish counter is sold as fresh.

Reference was also made to the difference in taste between Pangasius and cod suggesting that they are in a totally different class. A much better description would be to say that they are totally different. But then so are many fish species. Halibut is different to cod is different to haddock is different to sea bass is different to salmon. Consumers buy different fish, at different times because of their different tastes and different eating qualities. Pangasius is just another taste on the food palette.

Finally, there is the issue of cost. Pangasius is cheap, but so are some other fish species. In fact some are even cheaper depending on the specific retailer. However, it is not that cheap. Typically, Pangsius fillets sell off the fish counter at around £6.49-£6.99/kg. Cod fillet can be bought for as little as £8.70/kg (this is not a new lower price) so the differential is not so great that consumers would forgo cod in favour of Pangasius. If the consumer isn’t bothered by the exact shape and colour of the fillet, then it is possible to buy salmon fillets for as little as £6.98/kg so Pangasius is not a dirt cheap alternative at such a low price that consumers choose to buy it in favour of anything else.

The reality is that Pangasius is just another offering on the fish counter or the chiller cabinet. In these times of economic difficulty, Pangasius offers a low priced alternative but there are other choices and there are still plenty of consumers for who price is not everything. They may be watching their finances, but are still prepared to pay for the fish they prefer to eat.

The cod market may be suffering at the moment but the answer is not to attack the competition but rather invest in persuading consumers that cod is good to eat, sustainable and value for money. Blaming Pangasius for the current problems with negative comments will solve nothing and could well damage the wider fish and seafood market.

Price barrier: In reLAKSation 361 and 362, we discussed the remit of a new market research project commissioned by SeaFish to see how the drivers of fish and seafood consumption have changed, if they have changed at all.

We have not seen the results of this study but Fishupdate.com has discovered that the single biggest barrier to increased fish consumption is, not surprisingly, cost. Further details are provided by SeaFish in the latest edition of ‘The Longliner’ magazine which is available from their website. A whopping 79% of the 1000 people surveyed said that price was the main factor influencing their decision when purchasing seafood. They said that they regarded seafood as the most expensive protein and it was their single biggest reason for not increasing consumption. It may be argued that the credit crunch has reinforced this view and that consumers are more conscious than ever about the money they spend on food, yet, this view of fish and seafood is one that is repeated year in year out. Fish and seafood have always been regarded as expensive with price being the biggest obstacle to purchase.

We, at Callander McDowell, have argued repeatedly that rising salmon prices will eventually damage the salmon market. High prices may be good for producers but consumers will be increasingly deterred from buying salmon. So far, retailers have managed to maintain the price they charge their customers, no doubt due to buying contracts so the market is withstanding these increases. However, as contracts come up for renewal, consumers will start to look for alternatives if salmon prices continue to remain high.

Equally, the cod industry despairs at the low prices for their fish, but this is an ideal opportunity to convince consumers that cod is not only good to eat but it is also value for money. Retailers have been offering discounts on cod products and hopefully this will re-ignite consumer interest in the fish.

Fishupdate.com also found that many women said that they were unsure how to cook fish or know when it was ready to eat. Their main fear was of undercooked fish. Again, this is nothing new but we wonder whether the research company, Amarach Research, were adding bias to the study by asking only women or whether Fishupdate.com assumes that only women had participated in the survey.

SeaFish say that educating consumers on preparation cooking tips and providing simple recipe ideas will go a long way to demystifying seafood and giving people the confidence to eat seafood at home. Education has been on the agenda for many years. This is nothing new. The reality is that many consumers have had no experience of buying and cooking fish. If they have never done so before, they are unlikely to start now because of some information sheet. The web has brought the potential for education right into the home on demand with ready access to all sorts of demonstrations, recipes, and other information and still, consumers remain unsure.

The reality is that the industry perceptions of fish are very different to those of consumers. There is too much effort spent trying to bring consumers to fish whereas we should be aiming to bring the fish to the consumer. We need to understand what consumers buy now and adapt fish and seafood to fit in with that demand.

The only other data mentioned by SeaFish in ‘The Longliner’ is that 49% of consumers are influenced as to what they buy by taste. Fifty per cent also look for variety. This is only of marginal interest since it has no bearing on changing consumption habits.

What is of most interest about this research is whilst it is described as comprehensive, it sought the opinion of just 1000 people. What is unclear is whether the 1000 people were all confirmed fish and seafood consumers or whether some, or even none, ever eat fish and seafood. Clearly, the results will be very different if all the respondents regularly buy fish as compared to those emanating from people who never eat fish.

Why this is important is that most fish is bought and consumed by older age groups. By comparison, younger age groups tend to avoid fish. The key question for those who seek to increase fish consumption is, do we encourage those who already eat fish to eat more, or should we be trying to persuade those who never buy fish to start doing so. Typically, most effort is aimed at those in the first group but that is a big mistake since existing fish consumers are already attuned to the benefits of buying fish, whereas those who avoid fish are not. If younger consumers don’t eat fish now, it is unlikely that they will start to do so as they grow older. Some commentators say that they will, but is the fish industry willing to gamble on that?