Callander McDowell
Callander McDowell
reLAKSation no 421
Confused: A colleague recently stayed at the Dakota Hotel near Nottingham in Central England. He was vaguely aware that the Dakota Hotel had been in the news because of a commitment to using only sustainable fish in its restaurant and grill. He was therefore surprised that the menu in the excellent restaurant made no reference to either sustainable fish or the Marine Stewardship Council.
He later checked and found that it was in fact the restaurant at Dakota’s sister hotel, the Dakota Forth Bridge, just outside Edinburgh that had made this commitment and had been the first restaurant in Scotland to be eligible to use the MSC logo on the menu beside certified sustainable fish and seafood dishes.
Chef Director of the Dakota Forth Bridge, Roy Brett said in a press release issued by the MSC that he and his team are please to do their bit to champion the cause of sustainable fishing. He added that he would like to see more Scottish fisheries going for MSC certification so he can improve the range of MSC dishes on his menu since he prefers to use locally sourced seafood where possible. He said that he looks forward to the day when he can offer only MSC fish on the menu. Mr Brett said that he would start by offering Alaskan salmon, Cornish mackerel and Hastings Dover Sole onto the menu because these fisheries are already certified.
The fish sourcing policy at the Dakota Forth Bridge is a typical example of why, we at Callander McDowell, have major concerns about the current strategy of sustainable certification. Here is an award winning hotel located at the gateway to the Highlands and Isles of Scotland that wants to source fish locally but has opted to put Alaskan salmon on the menu instead of the excellent local farmed Atlantic salmon because the farmed salmon is not certified and the Alaskan salmon is.
The same view also applies to the retail fish counters. The use of the MSC logo implies that the fish that carry the logo are the sustainable option whilst those without are not. This might not be a problem if the MSC were to certify farmed fish but they don’t claiming a lack of resources. Before any-one writes in to say that fish farmers will soon be able to apply for certification through the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, this twin stream approach is bound to lead to consumer confusion. The fish is either sustainable or it is not.
Anyone with any doubts that confusion will not prevail need only look at the September issue of the Asda Magazine (www.asdamagazine.com ). In their monthly customer magazine, Asda, one of the big four UK supermarkets and part of WalMart, there is a two page feature on choosing sustainable fish.
The introduction, which includes a reference to Dr Chris Brown, Asda’a Head of Ethical and Sustainable Sourcing, the magazine says that shoppers ‘won’t find endangered species such as swordfish, shark, skate, ling, huss and Dover sole in Asda.’
Could this be the same endangered Dover sole that the Dakota Hotel has included as part of its sustainable MSC certified menu? If Asda’s Head of Ethical and Sustainable Sourcing doesn’t know that Dover sole is not only sustainable but is MSC certified, how are customers supposed to know?
Dover sole from Hastings actually has two different certifications, one for trawl and the other for trammel net. Dr Brown might be forgiven for not knowing about one of these certifications but two? Equally, it’s not as if the fisheries are incapable of supplying a large customer such as a supermarket as Tesco’s Hastings MSC certified Dover sole at £9.99 for 380g demonstrates.
However, the confusion does not stop at Dover sole, as Asda say that they only stock fish that have been caught from fisheries that are sustainable and well-managed. They highlight Pacific cod which they say is MSC certified and list five other fish too, but do not indicate whether they are MSC certified or not. Surely, if theses fisheries are already considered to be sustainable and well-managed, then why do they need to be certified as well?
The fish named are plaice, sardines, salmon, trout and tilapia. Of course, of these, three are farmed fish and therefore are not eligible to be certified by the MSC although Asda don’t mention whether the salmon is wild or farmed. As they indicate that the fish is available only from selected counters, we suspect that they mean wild since farmed salmon is available everywhere. Yet, if this is the case, then why not mention that it is MSC certified. Confusing? Well, we are certainly confused, so what hope is there for the general public?
More confused: In their magazine, Asda begin their introduction to sustainable fish with the paragraph: ‘Overfished and over-used in cooking, cod has long been the species in the spotlight when it comes to sustainability. But thanks to sensible sourcing and stocking, Asda customers can buy MSC certified Pacific cod with a clear conscience.’ Does this mean that Asda customers who buy our traditional cod cannot do so without examining their conscience because whilst Asda stock MSC Pacific cod on some of their fish counters, all also stock traditional cod fillets and loins and these are also widely available in prepacks. The magazine article goes on to say, as we discussed in the previous comment, that ‘Asda stores stock only wild caught fish from fisheries that are sustainable and well-managed.’ Surely if there are questions about the sustainability of Atlantic cod as Asda has implied, then why does Asda stock this cod at all? By making statements that cod is over-fished, Asda is simply perpetuating the myth that consumers should not be eating cod. Instead of highlighting alternative species because of their supposed sustainability, perhaps it would be better to encourage their consumption because they are tasty and good to eat and offer variety to the household menu.
We, at Callander McDowell, are not the only ones who are confused. Mike Urch writing in Seafood Source also highlights the mixed messages being given to consumers. He was reporting from the recent London Value Added Seafood Conference where Morten Hyldborg Jensen, executive VP of sales and marketing at Aker Seafoods told delegates that cod from the North East Arctic stock in the Barents Sea are plentiful and the spawning biomass is at its highest level since 1948. He added that this is not the first time that abundant stocks have been reported but questions whether this will be sufficient to persuade consumers to start eating cod again? He thinks not, mainly because the press are not interested in publishing good news stories.
Mr Jensen said that even if something could be done to correct the news stories that have been proven to be untrue, consumers are likely to end up confused. Should they or should they not buy cod?
We, at Callander McDowell think that the issue is no longer quite that simple. Cod certainly used to be the favourite species of British consumers but the question mark over the sustainability of stocks threw the market into disarray. The frozen food companies, who manufacture the breaded and battered products that British consumers seem to so like so much, substituted cod with other species such as Alaskan pollock. Despite having a taste for cod, consumers who tried the pollock found that it was not so different, at least in the coated forms. In addition, it was cheaper, especially as it was often heavily discounted to encourage consumption. However, whilst Alaskan pollock was originally chosen for it sustainable credentials, other species have also been used in the coated products. These include cape hake and pangasius and not surprisingly, consumers were equally ready to try these fish, mainly because the fish was often described as white fish or just fish rather than using the name (although the fish species name appears in the ingredient list). Once considered as extremely traditional and conservative fish consumers, the British public have found that they have developed a taste for other white fish instead of cod.
The problem for the cod industry is not how to counter the issue of declining stocks but rather that cod is still worth eating. Once battered and breaded products are taken out of the cod mix, we wonder whether cod, and other white fish, are losing favour especially amongst younger consumers who seem to prefer more meaty species like salmon, monkfish and tuna rather than the more delicate lighter species like cod. Cod just doesn’t seem to have that something extra to make it that bit more desirable. This is possibly why cod has lost its way in the marketplace.
Yet in France cod sales are on the rise. According to Kyst.no, sales volume has grown by 52% over the previous year. This rise has however been driven by lower prices, down by nearly 12%. Whilst some British supermarkets have made slight price adjustments to cod prices, the main attempt to boost consumption in the UK is with major price promotions. This week’s offers for cod include:
Booths: Skinless cod fillet £10.65/kg save £4/kg
Morrisons: Cod loin £10.69/kg save £5/kg
Sainsbury’s: Cod fillet £7.00/kg save £3.50/kg
Tesco: Smoked cod loin £7.73/kg half price
Waitrose: Cod loin £11.99/kg save £6.00/kg
More information about cod products and prices can be found in our monthly retail cod survey. Further details from office@callandermcdowell.co.uk
The scale of these price discounts are significant when compared to the price offers currently available on other fish and demonstrates the magnitude of incentive required to persuade consumers to restart buying cod. The problem, like any major discounting, is that once prices revert back to previous levels, interest in buying the fish once again diminishes as consumers look for the next best offer. Clearly, cod will need to be repriced if consumption is to return to former levels because it is unlikely that without a major campaign, cod may never be as popular as before.
Whilst this may not be good news for the wild catch cod fisheries, it could be a disaster for the cod farming industry. Plentiful supplies coupled with low demand will keep prices low, yet for cod farming to be a success, prices need to be much higher. The historic price data for farmed cod appears to suggest that there is a small market that is prepared to pay a small premium for farmed cod but as soon as the farms release larger volumes onto the market, prices tumble. One commentator has said that cod farming is dead but this obituary may be premature as we believe that this small niche market still has the potential to be developed. However, if cod farms are to survive, they are going to need to pull something really special out of the hat.
Confusing: Not so long ago, we argued that aquaculture is the best management tool to help maintain the sustainability of wild fish stocks. For every fish that can be produced by aquaculture, one less needs to be caught from the sea. Unfortunately, rather than work together to ensure a continuous supply of healthy and nutritious fish to the market, some parts of the wild catch sector seems to feel threatened by the growth of farmed fish production.
Senior Vice President of the European Parliament’s Fisheries Committee, Struan Stevenson MEP, told the Scotsman newspaper this week that a cheap new alternative from Vietnam could hit Scottish cod fishermen with a massive slump in prices. He is of course referring to pangasius otherwise known in the UK as River Cobbler or Basa depending on from which supermarket it is bought. Mr Stevenson said that the fish costing about £2/lb has proved so popular in France and Spain that fishermen there complain that sales of their own catches are in decline. He said that the same could happen in the UK with a price slump affecting cod, haddock and even salmon as people turn to panga and chips.
We, at Callander McDowell, don’t think that panga and chips will become a UK staple although its price point makes it an attractive substitute at the value end of the market. However, it must be good for the sustainability of wild fish stocks if consumers are turning from wild caught fish to alternative species. Surely that is the message that has been consistently bombarded at consumers. Of course the problem for Mr Stevenson is that as supporter of the fishing industry, he wants to see consumers buy alternatives that are also caught from the sea and ideally have been certified by the MSC as sustainable. Pangasius does not fall into this category and, of course, never will since the MSC do not certify farmed fish and thus can never be judged to be sustainable through the mainstream certification process.
However, in case readers of the Scotsman should be confused by the fact that having being previously told that they shouldn’t be buying wild caught fish such as cod, Mr Stevenson does all he can to deter them from buying the farmed alternative. He told the Scotsman that there are serious concerns over the purity of the water and the way that some producers rear the fish.
He highlights that Panga are bred in huge industrial fish farms in the Mekong River and recent test conducted by scientists in Spain found eight out of ten samples of the fish were seriously polluted with dangerous toxins. He adds that factories pump thousands of tonnes of contaminants into the slow flowing waters so that the water is teeming with bacteria and poisoned with industrial effluent. He says that the fish processors wash and freeze the fish with this water before sending them for export. However, ‘worse still, some reports insist that Vietnamese fish farmers inject the female fish with a hormone to encourage fish to lay up to 500,000 eggs at a time and to grow more quickly’.
If Scottish consumers were unsure about eating pangasius before, Mr Stevenson has surely done little to encourage them to do so now. Actually, in trying to persuade consumers to avoid pangasius in favour of cod, Mr Stevenson has done the whole fish industry a major disservice. This is because he has planted doubts about the eating quality of one species and once they start to question the safety of eating fish, where do they draw the line?
Sadly, before he began his endeavor to boost the consumption of Scottish cod at the expense of pangasius, Mr Stevenson clearly didn’t put on his thinking cap or bother to research the subject. Mr Stevenson describes pangasius as a new species but it has been around the European market for at least a couple of years. It is now widely available and sold in all top five supermarkets in one form or another, including top of the range Waitrose. Does Mr Stevenson really believe that these supermarkets would sell the fish if it contained even the slightest trace of any toxin or contaminant? Equally, both the two leading processors of frozen seafood also offer pangasius products. Companies with their expertise of fish sourcing also must conduct adequate checks on the fish they buy. If the fish are as poisonous as Mr Stevenson claims, why have there not been any reports of major health issues? Clearly, Mr Stevenson has become carried away with his endeavors.
Unfortunately, Mr Stevenson’s concerns about pangasius are not new. Several food blogs have repeatedly discussed and debated the same issues and they all seem to stem from one single source. If Vietnamese River Cobbler is googled, the top response is a blog called Diet Mind Spirit which has an entry entitled why you shouldn’t eat this fish - http://www.dietmindspirit.org/2008/01/30/why-you-shouldnt-eat-this-fish-pangas-pangasius-vietnamese-river-cobbler-white-catfish-gray-sole/ from February 2008.
A summary of the claims the site makes include:
1. Panga’s are teeming with high levels of contaminants (same use of words as Mr Stevenson).The Mekong is one of the most polluted rivers in the world with PCB,s DDT, CHL, HCH and HCB. Supermarkets continue to sell the fish knowing they are contaminated.
2. They are frozen in contaminated water.
3. Panga’s are not environmentally sustainable. Shipping them to Europe means that they have a large carbon footprint.
4. There’s nothing natural about Panga’s. They are fed remnants and bones dried and ground into flour just like mad cows.
5. Panga’s are injected with dehydrated urine of pregnant women. The female panga grow quicker and produce more eggs.
6. You get what you pay for.
7. Buying Panga’s supports unscrupulous, greedy evil corporations and food conglomerates
These claims have been taken from a 20 minute French documentary which can be seen at http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xo87j_quest-ce-quun-panga_sustainable_dev . Even though our French is poor, the documentary is interesting because the pictures at least don’t seem to support the claims made in the blog, although we may be wrong. Sure, the fish are fed compounded feed made from fishmeal etc but so are other farmed animals too. Yes, as the film shows, the breeding females are injected with a type of gonadotropin to induce egg formation but not in the fish that are destined for the table. Yes, frozen fillets are transported around the world but so are MSC sustainably certified fish. However, the claim that buying pangasius supports greedy evil corporations illustrates the blinkered view of this blogger.
Finally, we need to return to the issue of contamination. Perhaps it’s not surprising that Spanish researchers have found contamination since the fishing industry there has accused pangasius imports of destroying their fishing industry. However, whilst Mr Stevenson appears to want to pursue a similar route, the reality appears very different.
The BBC TV consumer programme ‘Watchdog’ investigated claims of contamination after receiving questions from concerned viewers, no doubt prompted by the issues raised in this blog. Their response can be seen at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2009/04/a_fish_called_river_cobbler.html . What they say is: Watchdog has had several emails about a fish called river cobbler which is on sale at Asda and Tesco. It's also on sale at Sainsbury's where it's called basa. It comes from Vietnam and its proper name is pangasius.
Some of you looked it up on the internet because you'd never heard of it before, and came across all sorts of horror stories claiming it's fill of toxins, such as arsenic, toxic metals and harmful pesticides. Lauren Antony from Lanarkshire emailed us to see if we could investigate this further and enlighten the nation, so we had a go.
We sent a fish we bought in Asda to a lab, where the scientists did five tests to see if they could find some of the things the internet reports suggested they would. The lab told us they couldn't find detectable levels of any of those substances - which to all intent and purposes mean they weren't there. Now, as we only tested one fish, we can't say the scare stories are a load of cobblers - but we found no reason why anyone should worry. The supermarkets say they've done plenty of their own research too, and maintain that they wouldn't sell any product that they weren't confident in anyway
Perhaps Mr Stevenson missed this episode of Watchdog and that’s why he is so willing to not only confuse consumers but also scare them. Is he really concerned about pangasius or rather that a farmed fish might actually reduce the fishing pressure on threatened cod stocks?