Callander McDowell
Callander McDowell
reLAKSation no 415
Dirty washing: “Why oh why does this industry persist in washing its dirty linen in public”. “Who can such a series of statements serve?” So writes Nick Joy of Loch Duart salmon in a letter to IntraFish. He was responding to comments made by Peter Bamberger, vice president of the European Fish Producers Association (AIPCE) who suggested in an interview in Seafood Processor that salmon producers are acting against the interests of their clients and ultimately themselves. This is because of yo-yo pricing which he claims is killing their customers. Instead, Mr Bamberger wants to see prices stabilised.
Nick Joy argues that stable prices are akin to market control and instead smokers and processors would be better served if they were prepared to enter into long-term contracts. Mr Joy believes that this is the only way to stabilise the market and we at Callander McDowell would not disagree with this view.
However, we mention this spat not because of the issues that Peter Bamberger has raised but because Nick Joy so despairs that the issue has been raised in the press, albeit specialist industry press. Mr Joy seems to believe that it is wrong to discuss these issues in the public arena and instead they are matters for the industry to pursue behind closed doors.
We, at Callander McDowell, know better than most that this is a long held view of a small section of the industry. Our own reLAKSation viewsletter was borne out of demands by the then Chief Executive of the Scottish Salmon Growers Association that the fish farming press desists from publishing our views in their papers, at the risk of losing all their advertising.
Their reasoning is that they prefer that the salmon industry never discusses any disagreements in public whether it be the long-running dispute between Scotland and Norway or just about the price of salmon. What they certainly don’t want is that anyone questions their views, no matter the issue. Instead, they want a wall of silence and with it the implication that the industry is in total agreement.
We, at Callander McDowell do not share this view. It is healthy to have free and open discussion especially as one never knows what new ideas might be forthcoming which could benefit all of the industry. Open discussion serves everyone and should be encouraged.
We don’t anticipate that Mr Joy will respond to our views because he is one of the few salmon farmers who have requested that he is excluded from our mailings.
Meanwhile we should continue to wash whatever dirty linen in public because it is the guaranteed way that all the dirt will be washed out!
Hating seafood: An IntraFish editorial asks why do kids appear to hate seafood so much. Ben DiPetro has been prompted to ask this question after reading a recent Mintel report looking at the eating habits of kids and teens when eating out. The report lists the top five choices in each of five main dining segments and found that fish and seafood was not featured at all.
The report found that casual, mid-market family and quick service restaurants all offered a typical standard kids menu including chicken, burger and bread/cheese dishes and even the up-scale restaurants tended to play safe. Their top five menus include chicken fingers, grilled cheese, spaghetti and hot dogs.
The editorial suggests that whilst fish fingers/sticks may be popular kids foods, they lose out when other choices, such as pizza are available.
The fish and seafood industry should not be surprised by such findings. It’s well known that young people are amongst the lowest consumers of fish and seafood and this is reflected in the choices offered by many restaurants and fast food establishments. What is unclear is whether the poor choice reflects the level of consumption or does the level of consumption dictate the choice on offer. The probability is that it is neither but rather what else is on offer that affects choice.
Recently, the Daily Telegraph reviewed the new book by Professor Kessler, ex-commissioner of the US FDA. In ‘The End of Overeating’, Professor Kessler argues that many food manufacturers have created combinations of fat, sugar and salt that are so tasty that many people find them hard to refuse. He argues that manufacturers are seeking to trigger a ‘bliss point’ when people eat certain products leaving them hungry for more. These foods are hyper-palatable and are designed to stimulate feelings of maximum pleasure.
Fish and seafood are perceived as healthy options and thus have not been manipulated in the same way and thus are clearly less desirable. In addition, many people are deterred from eating fish by the look and feel of whole fish which they then associate with even the most processed product.
Perhaps, fish processors need to follow the example of the wider food industry and start to engineer their products to produce a similar response. This will not be easy. A couple of weeks ago we heard a conversation on Britain’s leading radio station – Radio One. The presenter said that a character in a play went into MacDonalds to buy a Filet-o-fish and his associate asks who buys Filet-o-fish. She added that no one in their right mind goes to MacDonalds to buy fish!!
Punishment: We recently discussed how environmental journalist Lucy Siegle mentioned that the public only consume one of the three portions of fish recommended as the weekly intake. She of course got it wrong and she should have known that the actual recommendation is for ‘two–a week’. Lucy’s article actually focused on the 5-a-day recommendation for fruit and vegetables and the environmental impact of such advice on the supply of the amount of fruit and vegetables needed to fulfil this recommendation. Lucy says that as only 2.8% of us actually bother with the 5-a day recommendation then the concern for the environment is not as great as it could be.
The environmental issue is not of much concern here but what must be of concern is the fact that only 2.8% of the British public eat the recommended 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day. In an article in the Sunday Telegraph magazine, Bee Wilson says she finds it difficult to imagine what it is like not to enjoy fruit and vegetables yet a recent report in the Food magazine suggest that progress towards eating that level of fruit and vegetables has been ‘painfully slow’. Although the Government claims that the five a day campaign has led to the biggest increase in fruit and vegetables for over 20 years, the reality is that most of this growth has been due to an increase in the purchase of fruit juices and bananas. If these are removed from the equation, then consumption between 1974 and 2007 has increased by 10g person per day or about a 10th of an apple (although consumption of apples has actually fallen).
What this average figure also fails to take into account is that millions of people still barely eat any fruit and vegetables at all. A study of 10 year olds in Norfolk found that half didn’t eat even one portion a day. The conclusion of one nutritionist is that the Government’s recommendation for five a day is currently unachievable.
What caught our eye about this issue is that Bee Wilson asks what needs to be done. She says that part of the problem is economic but our reluctance to consume fruit and vegetables is more than about the price. She suggests that people devote money o the things that are close to our heart and despite the best efforts of those promoting the campaign, most of Britain still views fruit and vegetables as objects of punishment not desire.
If people are so reluctant to eat fruit and vegetables, which after all are easily accessible, what chance is there to persuade British consumers to eat two portions of fish a week? Given that many people are put off by the appearance of fish and are unsure about what to do with it, are fish also perceived as a punishment? This would not be that surprising especially as fish is promoted as the healthy option, when perhaps what consumers actually want is comfort and satisfaction. Could it be that as an industry we are headed down the wrong path and what we really need to do is adapt what we produce to be seen to be a treat and not a penance (especially given the association between fish consumption and Friday’s)?