reLAKSation
44.
Rising
prices, cheaper salmon: As
prices rise towards their Easter peak, UK supermarkets have begun to discount
salmon at both the fresh fish counter and chiller cabinet. A survey of current
offers includes:
Asda:
Fresh
fish counter.
Salmon
fillet portions. 130g Normally £1.49 now £1.08 save 41p.
Chilled.
Skinless
& Boneless fillets £2.99.
50% extra free 390g for the price of 260g.
Smoked.
400g
pack. Normally £5.99 now £3.78 save £2.21.
Marks
& Spencer:
Chilled.
4
Caledonian salmon fillets. 530g.
Normally £6.98 now £5.98 save £1.
2
Caledonian salmon fillets. 265g.
Normally £3.99 now £3.49 save 50p.
2
Scottish salmon fillets 230g Normally £2.99 now £2.49 save 50p.
2
Scottish salmon steaks 300g Normally £2.49 now £1.99 save 50p.
Smoked.
100g
pack Normally £2.99 now £2.49 save 50p.
200g
pack Normally £4.98 now £3.98 save £1.
500g
pack Normally £10.99 now £5.99 save £5.
Morrisons.
Fresh
and chilled.
Whole
salmon. Normally £4.38/kg now £3.38/kg save £1/kg.
Salmon
fillets. Normally £5.99/kg now £4.99/kg save £1/kg.
Salmon
steaks. Normally £4.59/kg now £3.59/kg save £1/kg.
Nisa:
Chilled.
Salmon
fillet 283g half price Normally £3.29
Now £1.64 save £1.65.
Safeway:
Fresh
counter.
Whole
salmon. Normally £4.99/kg now £3.99/kg
save £1/kg.
Salmon
fillet. Normally £8.99/kg now £5.99/kg. save £3/kg.
Sainsbury:
Fresh
fish counter.
Whole
Orkney salmon Normally £6.99/kg now £4.99/kg save £2/kg.
Orkney
salmon fillet Normally £9.99/kg now £7.99/kg save £2/kg.
Chilled.
Salmon
fillet £5.99. 50% extra free. 720g
for the price of 480g.
Somerfield:
Chilled.
Salmon
fillet 300g half price Normally £3.99 now £1.99 save £2.
Tesco:
Fresh
fish counter.
Whole
salmon Normally £4.39/kg now £3.29/kg save £1.10/kg
Chilled.
Salmon
fillet 780g Normally £7.99 now £5.32 save one third.
Salmon
fillet 260g Normally £2.99 now £1.99 save one third.
Smoked.
400g
pack half price. Normally £9.99. Now £4.99 save £5.
Waitrose:
Smoked.
400g
pack. Normally £9.99 now £6.99 save £3.
From
January, retailers should have been labelling their fish with ‘caught at
sea’, ‘caught in inland waters’ or ‘farmed’ but Ms Blythman writes
that supermarkets are not labelling the fish because the public image of fish
farming is so dented by controversy over its use of toxic chemicals, pigments
and its effect on the environment that they are reluctant to label the fish
until they can think of a more positive way to present the fish.
Yet,
this view on labelling is not surprising, especially when she has relied on
interviews with Don Staniford of Friends of the Earth and Philip Lymbery of
Compassion in World Farming and Patrick Holden of the Soil Association to
support her case. Joanna Blythman is such a well-known critic of commercial food
production that she will use any excuse to attack the industry.
In
response, supermarket chain Sainsburys says that it is taking advantage of the
six months of grace given until the new labelling is enforced to use up its
current packaging. Safeway said it is difficult to change things overnight.
Our
own observations of the market suggest that the new labelling is starting to
appear in British stores and that Ms Blythman is simply using this as an excuse
to yet again criticise the fish farming industry.
We,
at Callander McDowell, are not convinced that the public is that bothered about
the origins of the fish they buy. This is despite research conducted by Omnimas/Taylor
Nelson Sofres for the Seafish Industry Authority, which found that consumers
have overall negative attitudes to fish farming, but that some label descriptors
influenced consumers more favourably than others. Hence, research shows that
‘Farmed on the West Coast’ would deter consumers less that just the word
‘Farmed’.
However,
we believe that there is a significant difference between what consumers might
say in these research panels and what they do once they are actually in the
supermarket. Certainly, experience has shown that the consumer view, for
example, on paying a premium price for Scottish salmon. Research carried out in
1996 indicated that 72% of consumers would be prepared to pay a premium price
for Scottish salmon, but clearly when given a choice in the supermarket, the
price premium becomes a deterrent. In much the same way, consumers might say
that the wording of any label would prevent them buying farmed fish, but once in
the store then other factors take over.
Sadly,
it is only industry critics who appear to have a problem with what is written on
the labels. Increasing sales of fish in many supermarkets suggest that the
public do not have a problem. Who is right will only become apparent when all
the stores have adopted the new labelling?
Shush!!!!
The Scottish salmon industry has refused to comments on news that Tarald
Sivertsen, chairman of FHL Havbruk has made overtures about the possibility of
forming a joint European Producers Organisation.
According
to IntraFish, a source close to the Scottish Salmon producers Organisation has
said that the whole PO concept is not something, which should be debated in the
media. We, at Callander McDowell, are not surprised.
Ever
since Professor Chris Ritson of Newcastle University proposed using Producer
Organisations as a way to regulate the European salmon industry there has been
an overwhelming reluctance to discuss this concept. Perhaps, the reason why is
that it is actually unworkable.
Producer
Organisations operate in the commercial fisheries sector to share out quotas,
based on estimations of fish stocks. They are designed to ensure that commercial
fisheries are not so depleted that stocks are threatened. Although, the Common
Fisheries Policy has been something of a disaster, it does not mean that
Producer Organisations, of which they are part, does not work. The significant
point about PO’s is that they are used to allocate parts of a finite resource.
By
comparison, the output from farming is potentially infinite and rather than
allocate part of the resource, a farming PO would distribute market share. The
problem is even the most knowledgeable market expert, cannot predict the actual
size of the market. However, the reality is that market size is actually
unimportant
This
is because market size is not the reason why the concept of Producer
Organisations was promoted. Instead, it is price.
Yet,
there is a direct relationship between price and production volume and if
Producer Organisations placed limitations on global volume, prices will
eventually rise. Whether this would benefit the industry is unclear since higher
prices will cause the market to shrink, as salmon is no longer considered to be
a value for money everyday meal choice?
Producer
Organisations would be a bureaucratic nightmare, especially trying to distribute
the allocation between farming companies. However, the real problems would arise
between those companies who had taken a very proactive approach to the market
and those who had not. It might be argued that those who had developed their own
marketplace for the salmon they produce, together with extra margin should not
be penalised because other companies have not. Resolving such issues would be
just the start of many such problems for any potential PO. This is why they must
be discussed.
We
have previously discussed the issues relating to Producer Organisations and
would direct anyone interested in learning more to the reports sections of our
website and refer to the report ‘Eighty-five questions about Producer
Organisations (you may not have thought to ask)’.