Callander McDowell
Callander McDowell
reLAKSation no 430
Ask for advice?: Imagine the scene; Mrs Shopper enters the fishmonger shop and points to a particularly attractive display of fish and asks for a couple of fillets. The fishmonger replies ‘Sorry, you can’t buy that fish because it isn’t sustainably sourced!
Writing on Facebook this week, SeaFish said that ‘Your local fishmonger should be able to give you information about where their fish comes from that will put your mind at rest.’ Yet, no fishmonger or fish counter staff are ever going to admit that the fish they sell is anything but sustainably sourced.
We, at Callander McDowell, are not suggesting that any fishmonger or fish counter would knowingly sell fish from unsustainable sources, but can consumers really be expected to identify whether fish are sustainably sourced or not? As we reported recently, Consumer Focus was unable to identify any fish being sold by UK supermarkets that were listed by the Marine Conservation Society’s ‘at risk’ list. Why should consumers be any different?
These thoughts were prompted by SeaFish’s Facebook page. They featured a video about the importance of
MSC certification is not the only measure of sustainability, but it is one way of identifying sustainable fish in your supermarket.’
Certainly, there do appear to be different measures of what is sustainable and what is not. The Marine Conservation Society recently published the results of their survey of supermarket fish sustainability. Morrison’s attained a score of 68% as compared to the Coop’s 80%, but was praised for having the largest choice of sustainable seafood. This week during out routine trawl around UK supermarkets we visited a number of Morrison’s stores and found they stocked only three examples of MSC certified products; Wild Alaskan smoked salmon, smoked mackerel (various flavours) and scallops. Clearly, they must be selling other sustainable fish, since the MCS say they are, but they are either not labelled as MSC certified or are judged to be sustainable in a different way. The MCS survey indicates that at least one species of fish which Morrison’s sell could be fish that the MCS say should be avoided but equally it could be more. Consumers are left in the dark and have to make their own buying decision.
Seafish also said that ‘the best thing we can do as consumers is be curious - ask your fishmonger or supermarket about their sourcing policies.’ However, as Consumer Focus points out that whilst stores are not particularly good at providing information in their stores, they all provide information on their sourcing policies on their websites. Whilst Consumer Focus says that Tesco’s information could be better, the MCS points out that they have a strong sourcing policy. According to the MCS, most supermarkets have a good sourcing policy for wild catch fisheries and thus it seems that consumers are unlikely to learn anything more by asking questions of the staff.
Independent fishmongers are unlikely to provide any better information on sourcing. Unlike the supermarkets, many fishmongers are already remiss about supplying the basic legally required information on origin and catch or culture methods so will probably claim all their fish is sustainable even if it is not. However, because many are supplied by established wholesalers, we think that it is unlikely that most traditional fishmongers sell anything but sustainable sourced species.
If fish can be judged to be sustainably sourced without the blue tick accreditation of the MSC, then the question is whether the MSC is really necessary? We have previously discussed the furore over the Antarctic toothfish fishery which has sparked a major criticism of the certifiers. They have been accused of a shocking analysis of the state of the fishery by 40 international scientists. The clients have responded that they are confident that the fishery will be given MSC certification despite the protests. This is perhaps because the standards are not yet as rigorous as they might be.
The MSC admit that the certification is part of a learning curve that will strengthen with time. Certainly, there are still big question marks about some of the issues such as by-catch and there is also the unanswered question whether enhanced fisheries such as Alaskan salmon have an unseen impact on the wild stock.
This week, the new client for Alaskan salmon, ASMI, has postponed any decision as to whether Alaskan salmon will retain its MSC certification. This is because they have not agreed a new funding mechanism with the MSC. ASMI want certification to be cost neutral for them but cannot agree how this can be achieved. Without agreement, the MSC certification will lapse and the MSC will lose one of the largest certified fisheries as well as much of their credibility.
However, since most fish already appear to be judged as sustainable without this certification, we suspect that consumers won’t actually notice if the logo is used or not!
Share your bath: An IntraFish editorial asks whether, despite all the ‘noise’ about sustainability and some progress over the years, have consumers noticeably changed their behaviour and has this led to healthier fish stocks or better aquaculture production?
As far as we can see, the answer is no, with perhaps one or two exceptions. The dire warnings about cod stocks have led to a change in consumption with more pollock being eaten. However, the motivation was not consumer driven but a commercial decision by the processors who also found pollock to be cheaper. Cod consumption has fallen and cod now seems plentiful. Stores now have to discount cod to persuade consumers to return to the fish. This week for example, cod loin can be bought in the UK for just £7.34/kg, cheaper than standard fillet.
Aquaculture production has also improved but not because of the issues of sustainability but because it is part of an ongoing process to ensure that welfare and production management remains high.
However, despite these exceptions, little has changed. Now according to the IntraFish editorial, two new studies have cast doubt on the sustainable seafood movement’s market and consumer approach. A study from Dalhousie University, the Ecotrust and Swedish Institute for Food, suggests that irrespective of what they’ve been told, most choices consumers make about fish don’t matter.
Fishnewseu.com reports that the study says it is hard to balance people, profit and the planet, especially as food production is the single largest source of environmental degradation globally and can impact dramatically depending on what, where and how the food is produced. For example, the researchers found that growing salmon on a land based farm can increase greenhouse gases by tenfold over conventional farming. They say even how we eat the food can have an effect. Driving to the store alone and then cooking alone at home has a big impact, whilst going out for dinner more or eating more frequently with family and friends can have a big impact.
The study comes to various conclusions but the one which has been picked up most is the idea that we should eat more frozen salmon (the researcher focused on salmon) than fresh. They say that air-freighting salmon substantially increases the environmental impact than if it were transported frozen in containers. They add that the choice of frozen over fresh matters much more than say organic v conventional or wild v farmed. This implies that the argument whether consumers should be eating MSC wild salmon over farmed is irrelevant. Seemingly, one is neither more sustainable than the other. We have argued before that whilst critics of salmon farming say that it is wrong to harvest fish from the ocean to convert into fishmeal and then feed to fish, they ignore the fact that the wild fish also eat huge quantities of food but as it is out of sea, it is a case of out of sight, out of mind.
Interestingly, chef Tom Kine, who we mentioned in reLAKSation no 428 regarding his new book about MSC fisheries, appeared on the BBC’s Saturday Kitchen this weekend. He cooked a tagine made with plaice. Whilst there is a MSC certified plaice fishery, the fish is sold domestically in the Netherlands and not in the UK. Tom was keen to promote UK MSC fisheries for Dover sole and mackerel but clearly wasn’t motivated enough to cook with either fish. He also mentioned that consumers might like to try Alaskan salmon over Scottish farmed even though we now know there is no advantage with regard to its sustainability. However, what was interesting was that when he spoke about sustainability he focused on the carbon footprint, something which is not measured by the MSC certification.
Another point that the researchers have raised is the difference in the carbon footprint between salmon farming nations. In particular, Peter Tyedmers of Dalhousie University has highlighted the difference between production in Scotland and Norway. The Canadian Globe and Mail reports that Professor Tyedmers has found that the greenhouse emissions at the farm gate in Norway are about 1.8 tonne of carbon dioxide per tonne of salmon produced, whereas in Scotland the figure is almost 3.3 tonnes. Prof. Tyedmers argues that if Norwegian salmon was transported by container to the UK, it would have much less environmental impact than locally produced fish. This is sure to go down well with Scottish salmon producers.
The problem with this study is that we already know that everything man does has an impact on the planet. Surely, rather than worry about whether we should be eating fresh or frozen salmon, we should be more concerned about how to curtail population growth. A population that becomes out of control will have more impact on the planet than what we eat. Of course anyone who is really concerned about reducing their own environmental impact could always bath with a friend. It saves water and is more fun!!
Tasty!!: The Times newspaper recently asked London chef Mark Hix to conduct a taste test on a selection of smoked salmon. Formerly chef at the Ivy, Mark Hix now owns three restaurants of his own and as a side line smokes his own salmon, some of which he sells to Selfridges and to other restaurants.
He taste tested six different smoked salmon from leading supermarkets and awarded four stars to Lidl’s smoked salmon and Morrisons ‘The Best’ Spey Valley smoked salmon. M&S Kiln roasted Orkney smoked salmon received three stars and Waitrose Organic Orkney smoked salmon two. Tesco’s Finest Shetland isles smoked salmon and Sainsbury’s Taste the Difference Birch and Juniper smoked salmon were given just one star.
We don’t want to take anything away from Lidl’s achievement but why is it that such taste tests never compare like with like? Lidl’s smoked salmon, the only one that they sell, can best be described as a standard smoked salmon, yet although all the other retailers produce a similar standard product, not one was tasted by Mark Hix.
Mr Hix makes his view about smoked salmon clear from the outset when he says that he cannot understand why people saturate their smoked salmon with lemon as you want to taste the fish. He clearly prefers a simple plain smoked salmon and from his comments, we presume that he might even prefer the milder ‘London’ smoke.
The UK smoked salmon market has a strict divide between those that prefer what was called the London smoke, a much milder smoke than the more robust and smokier product produced in Scotland. In the retail sector, the milder smoke is used for the standard product whilst the premium ranges tend to be a much stronger smoke.
Mr Hix said that the Lidl product, made from Norwegian salmon, provided a good balance of fish and smoke flavours. He added that the colour suggests wild salmon, although this is more likely to reflect the pigmentation strategy used in Norway. The Times gives the price of Lidl’s smoked salmon as £1.59 for 200g but this is an error as it is actually £2.59 per pack (£12.95/kg)
He also liked the Morrison’s product because the smoke was not strong enough to over-power the taste of the salmon. The Times gives the price of Morrison’s premium smoked salmon as £2.99 for 125g however, this was an offer price and the usual price is £3.99 (£32.92/kg).
Mr Hix didn’t like the smoke of the M&S product although he was impressed with the quality of the fish. The price given was correct at 100g for £4.99. Perhaps, if Mr Hix had seen the label rather than taste the product blind, he would have realised that the salmon had been kiln roasted and would be of a much stronger smoke flavour.
Mr Hix liked the taste of Waitrose’s organic smoked salmon but thought that the colour was insipid. Perhaps if he had known it was organic he would have responded differently. 140g for £5.99 (£42.78/kg)
He didn’t like the final two products. He thought that the Tesco Finest Shetland Isles product was dry with an odd artificial aftertaste which he described as unpleasant. 125g for £3.79 (£30.32/kg) whilst he didn’t like the juniper flavour of the Sainsbury’s birch and juniper smoked salmon. He said that this was like a salmon gin and tonic. The Times gives the price at 125g for £3.43 whereas the 120g packs are £4.29 (£35.75/kg) but have been on offer.
Smoked salmon is a very personal taste and sometimes, the views of a professional taster can be misleading even if the taster is a highly regarded and well-liked celebrity chef.