reLAKSation 440
Irresponsible to wait: According to IntraFish’s Seafood Summit blog, Jose Villalon, WWF’s Managing Director for Aquaculture, has said that seafood buyers are eager for aquaculture produce certified as sustainable by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council but he suggests that those who are truly responsible will be prepared to wait. However, it may be a long wait as Mr Villalon says that it will be at least mid 2011 before the ASC is developed commercially and products will then be required to go through the certification process.
Far from being responsible, we at Callander McDowell would suggest that it would be totally irresponsible if buyers are prepared to wait that long. After all, the environmental groups such as the WWF have long argued that aquaculture is not sustainable so the sooner the industry can prove that it is, by gaining certification, the sooner we can focus on getting more consumers to buy tasty, healthy and value for money fish and seafood. Unfortunately, the environmental groups have pushed the issue of sustainability to the top of the agenda even though the issue is not of interest to most consumers.
Of course, the reason why Mr Villalon is keen for buyers to wait for the Aquaculture Stewardship Council is that its development is being driven by his organisation and so he wants it to be a success. Unfortunately, the WWF have come rather late to the table as there are already other organisations that are certifying aquaculture produce as sustainable now. For example, Friends of the Sea, Global Aquaculture Alliance and Global Gap have sustainably labelled products already in stores.
Having recognised that delays to the launch of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council could be damaging, Mr Villalon has signed an agreement to offer the current standards drawn up by the WWF as an environmental ‘add on’ to certification by Global Gap. Yet, we can only wonder why any producer obtaining an interim certification from Global Gap would not simply apply for full certification from Global Gap rather than have to apply a second time to the ASC.
Certainly, the ASC is promoting itself as the only label for sustainable seafood. Mr Villalon said that the likely scenario is for one major eco-label with others just satisfying certain niches. Unfortunately for Mr Villalon, this is never going to happen.
What is becoming more apparent is that many retailers prefer to trust their own judgement as to what is sustainable rather than rely on the decisions of an external organisation. Whole Foods have developed their own standards http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/aquaculture.php whilst other retailers have brought in independent advisers to help. Safeway have recently announced that they are working with the non-profit group FishWise to improve the sustainability of the products it sells.
Yet, the most influential decision affecting how sustainably farmed fish and seafood is judged is the news that shrimp supplied by Contessa Premium Foods meets the requirements of Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch programme and thus has been awarded a ‘good alternative’ listing. According to Seafood.com, this is a first for imported farmed shrimp which have previously been placed on the ‘Avoid ‘list as Seafood Watch deemed all imported shrimp as unsustainable.
The standards that have persuaded SeaFood Watch to give these shrimp their new rating were developed by Contessa and the Compass Group, who will be the main customer, in collaboration with the Monterey Bay Aquarium. The standards have been applied to specific shrimp farms and assessed by a third party process to verify that the standards are being applied.
What this seems to mean is that there is no real need for an independent certification scheme at all. Farming companies should be able to develop their own standards and as long as they meet the criteria of their major critics and customers, then their fish or seafood will be considered sustainable.
The reality is that these attempts to classify seafood as sustainable are nonsense. Aquaculture is sustainable or as sustainable as man’s influence on the planet allows. We don’t live in a museum and it’s crazy to think that we do. Unlike wild catch fisheries, where over-fishing can wipe out fish populations for ever, aquaculture allows us to produce as much or as little fish as we want. This is farming, in which we cultivate, not decimate our future.
In an IntraFish editorial, John Fiorillo writes that there are too many green groups with an interest in seafood. He says that these groups need a cause and the ocean is a popular choice. This has produced a surge of anti-fish farming sentiment, far beyond that what aquaculture merits.
Yet, whilst the green groups are quick to attack aquaculture, and especially salmon farming, there appears to be a wall of silence when it comes to mainstream agriculture. The WWF admits that livestock farming accounts for 57 per cent of agricultural emissions and these make a significant impact on global warming, even greater than the emissions from that originating from cars. It is estimated that methane related emissions from cows, sheep and goats account for about 900 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas per year and with methane being twenty times more effective than carbon dioxide of trapping solar energy, livestock farming is clearly significantly damaging to the environment. However, there seems to be little call from the environmental lobby to certify livestock farming as sustainable or even to modify the way that we farm livestock.
But all is not lost. According to Gizmag.com, Dr Lorraine Lillis of University College Dublin has found that the addition of 2% of fish oil to the diet of cows can reduce the effects of flatulence, although the actual reduction has not yet been qualified. It is however a start. All we need now is a good source of fish oil…….
Sheer luxury?: Richard Stavis of Stavis Seafood told IntraFish last month that whilst salmon was once the driving force in the seafood industry, it is likely to move back to the luxury status it once enjoyed so many years ago.
Certainly, salmon was once viewed as a luxury food but it is extremely doubtful that it will ever become so again. A shortage of fish caused by the problems in Chile will make salmon more expensive but this doesn’t mean that just because it will cost more that it will regain its former status.
The reason why salmon was considered a luxury food was due to its rarity value. There were so few fish that it was highly prized. Farming has transformed that image by making it widely available and at a value for money price. The problems in Chile mean that in terms of global supply, there is a shortage, but it is still widely available, albeit at a higher price. Consumers have recognised salmon as a commodity everyday fish and a temporary shortage will not change that.
As Mr Stavis has predicted, salmon is becoming more expensive. Back in October Waldbaum’s store in New York State was offering salmon fillet on promotion at $6.99/lb. This week, the same fillets are on promotion at $8.99/lb. Whether Waldbaum’s customers will be willing to pay the higher price remains to be seen. It is unlikely that a $2 difference will make customers see salmon in a new light making them want to buy it because it is special rather than wanting to buy it because it makes a value for money everyday meal choice.
There will always be a small niche market to whom the case can be made that salmon is a luxury food but the wider market will not be so convinced. Last month, one UK supermarket distributed a small guide to fish and meat. Included (alongside yet more instructions on how to fillet a fish) was a chart detailing popular types of fish. This also gives an indication of price range whether budget, basic or special. Salmon is firmly placed in the basic range (trout is classed as budget) far from being a luxury food. This guide clearly reinforces the commodity message and this is one which will be hard to destroy.
Salmon prices will go up but if salmon becomes too expensive, consumers will stop buying it. The only way that retailers will then be able to continue selling the fish is if they then cut the price.
Salmon may become more expensive but it certainly won’t be a luxury.
Wrong message: Contributing editor, Nicki Holmyard writes in Seafood Source that she recently joined fourteen of the UK’s top food writers at a sustainable seafood seminar and was dismayed by their poor understanding of the seafood industry. She adds that these are highly influential people who help form public opinion and that their knowledge was lacking on all fronts. According to Ms Holmyard, there were looks of mild panic as it dawned on the group that the event was hands-on and they would be preparing mackerel, haddock, monkfish, gurnard, langoustine, crab, oysters and mussels from scratch. Only two in the group had ever dressed a crab and a few more had handled whole fish. When asked what advice they gave to their readers, the reply was to buy ready prepared or get a good fishmonger. Ms Holmyard retorts by saying what a waste of good fish bones for stock!!
We, at Callander McDowell, disagree. We think that the writers’ advice is spot on. Consumers should buy ready prepared or get a fishmonger to prepare the fish for them.
The fish and seafood industry undoubtedly supply excellent products and they are rightly proud of the fish and seafood they deliver to the supply chain. However, it doesn’t equate to consumers having to visit the fish dock to buy the fish as it comes off the boat and then have to take it home to gut, fillet and portion the fish. Consumers don’t do this with other proteins so why should they have to do it with fish.
What aims do the fish industry aspire to? Does the industry want consumers to eat more fish, in line with the recommended two portions a week or do they want consumers to become expert fishmongers? We certainly believe that the message should be to eat more fish and if that means buying a skinless, boneless portion of fish wrapped in plastic, then what’s the problem? If a consumer develops an interest in fish cookery and wants to know the provenance of the fish, how it is caught and how to prepare it then that’s great. This is no different to anyone taking an interest in wines. This doesn’t mean that the average consumer has to know what grape variety is used, the name of the vineyard, what side of the valley the vines are planted and so on, to be able to enjoy a glass of wine.
Repeated research by SeaFish has found that consumers are put off fish by the bones, skin, heads, tails and smell so why are we forcing these on the consumer. It is no wonder consumers don’t buy more fish, yet this is the message we continue to force on the public, wherever they look.
As an example, the supermarket Waitrose offers a selection of ‘how to’ videos on its website (This could be any retailer and we have only selected Waitrose because this section of their website is easy to locate http://www.waitrose.com/food/cookingandrecipes/cookinglibraries/howtovideos.aspx ). In the section relating to meat, the video titles include: Sealing pieces of beef; Basting a joint; Cooking steak; Resting a joint; Carving a leg of lamb; Carving a rib of beef etc. These videos all relate to cooking or serving meat with one exception. There is a video showing how to butterfly a lamb joint which involves removing the bone. By comparison, the fish videos include videos that show how to: Fillet a round fish; Fillet a flat fish; Skinning a fillet; Pin boning a fillet and preparing a lobster.
Why should Waitrose customers want to know how to fillet a whole fish when they have trained fishmongers available on every fish counter? The only reason is that this is the ‘culture’ relating to fish consumption that the fish industry pushes on consumers. It is not surprising that once consumers learn that eating fish involves preparing the fish from scratch, they run a mile.
We, at Callander McDowell, have always argued that if we want to persuade more people to eat fish then we should put it in a form that consumers want to buy, not the way we would like them to buy it. If consumers don’t like heads and tails or skin and bones then why do we insist that consumers should buy them! One of the reasons why the salmon industry has been a success is the recognition that most consumers don’t want to buy a whole salmon. Instead they want a skinless and boneless portion, which is easy to cook and tastes good. Its not rocket science.
Ms Holmyard says that she shouldn’t have been too surprised by the journalist’s lack of knowledge as they are playing to their audience. Really, these journalists had nothing to learn from the seafood industry. Instead, the seafood industry needs to learn from them.
Sensationalism: A SeaFish letter published by IntraFish attacks the BBC for cheap sensationalism by re-broadcasting a series of programmes fronted by Alex Riley investigating Britain’s Really Disgusting Foods. SeaFish have taken exception to the programme that took a look at the world of fish and fishing. The series was originally commissioned for BBC3, a channel targeting a younger audience. The theme of the programme was that fish stocks are over-fished and soon they won’t be any more fish in the sea, leaving the world to eat burgers made from jellyfish.
SeaFish’s objections relate to the fact that they had had several conversations with the programme makers, acquainting them with many facts that they then chose to ignore, opting for cheap sensationalism instead. This is not surprising since they are in the business of entertainment not education. Hard facts are not really going to attract their target audience. It is therefore not surprising that the programme is tailored to the needs of the audience not those of the fishing industry. The whole tone of the programme was obvious from the outset when Alex Riley appeared in dressed in a silver space suit as a man from the future asking the question as to what fish will he be able to eat?
Whilst facts can be doctored, the views expressed by the specialists interviewed during the programme can not. Although there were clearly many errors during the programme, one really stood out. This was when Melissa Pritchard, Fisheries Officer with the Marine Conservation Society was explaining that the sea is an ecosystem and if part is removed as happens in fishing, then the whole balance could be upset. She said that:
Fish are a great resource for us but they are exhaustible. They are not farmed like chickens and lamb.
Given that the Marine Conservation Society employs just three specialists, one of whom is Dawn Purchase who has responsibility for aquaculture issues, it does seem very strange that Melissa doesn’t appear to know that fish are actually farmed. Could it be that an admission that fish can be farmed would spoil the story that seafood consumers can only look forward to future consisting of just jelly fish burgers.
SeaFish have accused the BBC of ignoring facts but the MCS seem to have gone one step further and omitted the facts to pursue their own agenda.