reLAKSation 435

         Back to: reLAKSation   |   Home

A Senseless Concept: In the last issue of reLAKSation we discussed the poor consumer response to seafood eco-labels. This week, we have seen the results of a poll conducted by seafoodintellignce.com which asked its readership whether there is a future for seafood retailing without eco-certification. Although the level of response was not great, there was no overall conclusion with almost as many people believing that seafood retailing can survive without any certification, as those that do.

(seafoodintelligence.com)

Clearly, if half the industry is indifferent to eco-labels and consumers even less so, then what exactly is driving the move to eco-certification.

Before we try to answer this question, we were interested to read an interview with Philip Smith that appeared in the December issue of Fish Farming International. Dr Smith is the Development Director for the Aquaculture Stewardship Council. The WWF officially launched the ASC at the beginning of 2009 and Dr Smith was appointed in September but since then news of the ASC has been thin on the ground.

In the interview, Dr Smith says that the ASC is the standards holding body for the standards established by the Aquaculture Dialogues programme. These were initiated five years ago but he expects that it may be another two years before the ASC is up and running. When asked about other certification organisations, Dr Smith said that ‘It is my wish that retailers and consumers can depend on one credible logo.’

This is a point we, at Callander McDowell, have made in the past. As Fish Farming International highlight, there are at least seven certification bodies for fish and seafood which to some degree diminishes the value of each. Consumers aren’t interested in eco-labelling, so having more than one lessens the impact making the issue of even less interest. One single logo would at least help concentrate minds.

Unfortunately when Fish Farming International asked the question, they meant about one single label for aquaculture produce, not one single label for all fish and seafood.

So far the Marine Stewardship Council has been the front runners for a single recognisable label to confirm the sustainability of any fish or seafood product. However, the MSC have discounted any possibility that aquaculture produce would be included in their remit even though most consumers would not differentiate between a wild caught and a farmed fish when considering what to buy. They are all just a meal choice.

The MSC have suggested that the reason why they will not include aquaculture produce in their scheme is because they don’t have the resources available to deal with a wider range of fish and seafood (even though the MSC don’t actually certify the fishery themselves leaving it to commercial certification companies to do so). However, the MSC was originally founded by the WWF who are also behind the Aquaculture Dialogues and the ASC. As significant funding will be required to set up the ASC, surely it would have been more cost effective to extend the MSC rather than establish a whole new organisation. After all, both will be working to achieve exactly the same objectives and redirecting the funding intended for the ASC to the MSC would have given them the missing resources.

A more likely reason is that according to Seafood Source, the United Fishermen of Alaska have said that they would only support recertification of MSC certified Alaskan salmon provided that the MSC refrains from certifying farmed salmon. It could critically harm the viability of the whole MSC programme if certified Alaskan salmon pulled out of the scheme so it is unlikely that the MSC would do anything that may stop the current recertification process.    

So because the wild catch lobby do not want any association with farmed produce, the issue of sustainability will not only become more complicated but also of even less concern to consumers. However, consumer interest is largely irrelevant. Even if consumers are not interested in eco-labels, then their purchase can still be manipulated to ensure that they are in tune with those who drive the sustainability cause.

Seafoodnews.com reports that the David and Lucille Packard Foundation have just released details of the philanthropic grants made during 2009. Their total spending for the year was $265 million of which nearly 25% or $60 million was directly related to marine conservation and fisheries policy. The leading recipient of Packard funding was the Monterey Bay Aquarium which received a staggering $35.3 million used partly to promote their Seafood watch guide.

The Marine Stewardship Council received $4.05 million whilst the WWF were given $3.375 million of which $1 million was spent on the Aquaculture Dialogue programme.

Does it not seem that there is a central theme running through all this funding? Is it the case that the sustainability movement is being played like a puppet on a string? Could it be that the issue of sustainability is being used to manipulate the aquaculture industry into being what the Packard Foundation wants it to be?

Certainly, a couple of news stories might give some credence to this view. A report in Scientific American highlights a new sustainable process that raises coho salmon in freshwater. The salmon, to be sold under the SweetSpring label are produced by AquaSeed Co in a closed containment system in Rochester Washington. Now, IntraFish reports that the Monterey Bay Aquarium is recommending the fish as a ‘best choice’ whilst continuing to list traditionally farmed salmon as a fish to avoid. Clearly, the Monterey Bay Aquarium are keen to put increased pressure on the aquaculture industry to convert to closed containment systems because that is what those behind the Monterey Bay Aquarium want to see happen. We can only speculate how long it will be before the Aquaculture Stewardship Council logo will only be awarded to those aquaculture companies that comply with closed containment.

The second story is the news that the Norwegian branch of the WWF is now calling for an end to any further increase in salmon production in Norway. Secretary General of the WWF, Rasmus Hansson told IntraFish that there must be a halt to production growth whilst at the same time ensuring that there are larger farm free zones as well as emptying any fjord that has wild salmon of any salmon farming activity. Instead, Mr Hansson would like to see a move to closed containment systems.

Doesn’t it all sound a little too familiar?     

(Interestingly, whilst Mr Hansson calls for a stop to all marine farming activity, he doesn’t distinguish between salmon and marine fish).

Exposed: We were recently sent a copy of the Pure Salmon Campaign’s DVD entitled Farmed Salmon Exposed. Much of the footage is devoted to how the presence of salmon farms has destroyed local wild salmon populations. This is attributed to the presence of sea lice. The video ends with a comment from a Scottish ghillie (fishing guide) that those areas where salmon farming has ceased, wild stocks have shown a rapid recovery. The clear implication is that salmon farming is fully responsible for the decline in wild salmon stocks.

This week the Scotsman newspaper reported that sports fishermen fishing for salmon on one of Scotland’s leading salmon rivers will have to release every fish they catch until June amid concerns over dwindling stocks. Until now there has been a voluntary code to release the first salmon they catch and to keep only one fish in two. However, fishermen are now being urged to return every salmon they catch for the first five months of the year.   

William Jack, Chairman of the local fisheries board said that there was a poor run of spring salmon in 2009 as well as a disappointing grilse run. As a result catches of salmon fell by as much as 50% on the river.

The river in question is the Tay, a famous salmon river. The river rises in the Highlands and flows down into the centre of Scotland to Dundee. It is the longest river in Scotland and the seventh longest in the UK. The Tay drains much of the lower region of the Highlands, its source being high on the slopes of Beinn Laoigh. The source is only about 20 miles from the west coast town of Oban, in Argyll and Bute. The Tay flows through Perth and Kinross to the Firth of Tay and the North Sea, some 100 miles to the east.

Whilst the River Tay may pass close to the offices of the Scottish Salmon producers Organisation in Perth, it doesn’t exit to the sea near any salmon farms. In fact there are no salmon farms on the east coast of Scotland at all therefore any decline in the wild fish catch cannot be due to salmon farming. 

The Scotsman reports that the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation has found that the number of salmon dying at sea has doubled over the last twenty years but they cannot attribute the deaths to any cause. One theory is that because so few spring fish left Scotland two years ago because something happened in their native rivers. However, the widespread nature of the collapse suggests that there were no localised problems.  Other possibilities include widespread catching at sea or global warming leading to the depletion of the plankton on which spring salmon feed. Interestingly, the three page article makes no mention of salmon farms at all.

Perhaps the Pure Salmon Campaign’s blinkered view of salmon farming has prevented them considering the possibility that wild stocks may have declined for other reasons.    

Lost the plot: Just before Christmas, Cornish sardines received European Union protected status. According to the BBC, only sardines which are caught, landed and processed in the country of Cornwall can be called Cornish sardines. They are the fortieth food in the UK to be granted protection under the Protected Food Names programme.

Food, farming and environment minister, Jim Fitzpatrick said that the new status was a good thing for producers and consumers. He said that consumers can have a greater reassurance about what they are buying and getting the product that they expect. He added that it is win-win for producers because it prevents anyone else from imitating Cornish sardines.

We, at Callander McDowell, wonder why anyone would want to pass off a sardine as coming from Cornwall if it didn’t? Cornish sardines don’t exactly have a cache in the marketplace. In fact, fresh sardines are a relative newcomer to the UK fish counter and are not exactly viewed as something special. This is borne out by the fact that currently Cornish sardines are on promotion in one supermarket selling at £3/kg a saving of £1.50/kg. A second supermarket sells them at £3/kg without any promotion whilst another has them priced as £3.99/kg and labelled as previously frozen.

The UK’s official ‘Protected Food Names’ website states that producers who register their products for protection receive the following benefits: gives protection; gives exclusive rights and gives a premium price. In addition the consumer can be assured of heritage, tradition and speciality and confidence that they are buying the genuine article.

We can fully understand that the heritage of traditional foods should be protected. Certainly, cheese such as Stilton comes from around Stilton, Melton Mowbray pork pies should be made in Melton Mowbray, Arbroath smokies should be smoked in a particular way around Arbroath and Parma ham should come from Parma. These are well established foods with a long tradition and heritage that require protection but sardines are not known to have a long association with Cornwall.

In fact Cornish sardines are a relatively recent marketing invention. The Independent newspaper reported back in 2003 that in a rebranding exercise that would put most government spin doctors to shame, the half forgotten and ever so humble pilchard has been rechristened as the Cornish sardine and is now selling by the boat load.

Nick Howell, manager of the Pilchard Works factory, told the Independent that the decline of the once-proud fish into obscurity presented a unique challenge: how to make Britons think pilchard again. "I changed the name and perception," he said. "I was looking for a fresh market for pilchards." He managed to convince wholesale buyers that Cornwall was abundant in sardines - the only thing was, they happened to be called pilchards.

The newspaper asked when is a pilchard a sardine? A food industry source replied “A pilchard is bigger than a sardine. Anything under six inches is a sardine, and anything over six inches is a pilchard – but it could also be called a sardine!!”

The problem for us is that a sardine is a sardine. It is just fish flesh and the fact that it is caught and landed in Cornwall doesn’t really confer the same advantage of tradition as something like a cheese, pork pie, smoked fish or cured ham. These foods are made in a very specific way and are unique. A sardine is still a sardine no matter where it is landed.

Unfortunately, the Protected Food Names scheme has been promoted as offering something it doesn’t. Producers are led to believe that it will bring a real advantage in the marketplace and perhaps for some products it does, although such products probably will have an advantage regardless. Protected Food Names may also offer some protection but the trade descriptions act also offers similar protection. Retailers can be prosecuted if they sell sardines as Cornish when in fact they come from somewhere else.

Yet, the Government is keen to promote these schemes. At the end of last year , The Scottish Government organised a seminar to highlight the economic value of gaining PFN status. Speaking ahead of the event, the Aquaculture Minister, Ms Cunningham said: "Our seminar has attracted interest from across the globe and provides a welcome opportunity to exchange ideas about how we can help increase the number of PFNs in Scotland. Although Scotland is already home to some of the most delicious and well-known produce anywhere in the world, too few have protected name status. Scotland is a land of food and drink and deserves to have its fine reputation protected."

She added that Scotland already has some of the largest PFNs in the EU, such as Scottish Farmed Salmon, accounting for around £350 million ex-farm sales. Yet whilst Scottish Farmed Salmon has held Protected Geographic Indication (PGI) since 2004, we don’t believe that it has contributed in any way to the £350 million of sales. We certainly have yet to see the PGI symbol attached to any salmon sold in either the UK or France, the main European markets for Scottish salmon (although we would be happy to be corrected if we are wrong).

The Scottish salmon industry applied for PGI status because they believed that consumers were being misled into thinking that Norwegian salmon labelled ‘produced in the UK’ was in fact Scottish. Changes to the labelling legislation have meant that such labels were superseded with wording like ‘Farmed in Norway’ or ‘Farmed in Scotland’ thus rendering PGI meaningless. We suspect that other Protected Food Names of raw produce have suffered a similar fate.

Finally, we were amazed to see that recent PFN applications being considered by producers include Scottish Wild Salmon!!!