reLAKSation 443
Good news week: In the last issue of reLAKSation we highlighted the extracts of a new book from novelist Jonathan Safran Foer about his journey to becoming a vegetarian which were published in the Guardian newspaper. Mr Safran Foer also took part in a Guardian web cast which received a lot of interest mainly from other vegetarians.
Mr Safran Foer is free to consume whatever food he wants but our objection to his book ‘Eating Animals’ comes from some of his accounts of food production but especially about the way that he has portrayed salmon farming. Aquaculture is by no means a perfect method of food production, but Mr Safran Foer appears ready to mislead readers with many inaccurate facts. However, if Mr Safran Foer does have concerns about the way food is produced (and much of his attack is aimed at terrestrial farming in the US) then becoming a vegetarian is certainly not the way to initiate change. Of course, Mr Safran Foer’s motives aren’t necessarily to bring about change but to make money from his writings, irrespective of how it impacts on a very important part of the food supply chain.
By extracting this book, the Guardian newspaper has exposed about 1.15 million readers to Mr Safran Foer’s misleading views. It is impossible to tell how many of this readership will consider his account to be accurate and may be deterred from buying salmon.
What has clearly been missing from these events is a balanced view. We may be wrong but, as yet, we have not seen any public attempts to correct Mr Safran Foer’s errors. We know that there are some who believe that the industry should keep a low profile, rather than fight the cause, and that Mr Safran Foer’s views will soon be forgotten. This is because they feel that the publicity will simply highlight his views even further. As the press is not known for allowing space for counter arguments, they may have a point. But still, it seems wrong that Mr Safran Foer should be allowed to remain uncorrected.
This case is opportune as one of the aims of the ongoing Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture (available from the Scottish Executive website) is to promote a positive image of the aquaculture industry by highlighting best practice, the robust regulatory regime, sustainability and the clear health benefits of eating farmed fish.
Last year, Roseanna Cunningham, Minister for the Environment, set up five (a sixth was added later) working groups in line with the five themes established in the framework document. Improving the image of the aquaculture industry fell within the remit of ‘The Better Marketing and Improved Image’ working group.
The chairmen from all the working groups briefed Mrs Cunningham at a meeting last November. The presentations from each group can be found at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Fisheries/Fish-Shellfish/18364/MGAPres
The first question posed by the ‘Better Marketing and Improved Image’ working group ‘How do we improve the image of Scottish aquaculture?’ The immediate answer would seem to be by countering any negative press. However, we do wonder why this question is being asked at all since the vehicle to promote a positive image of Scottish aquaculture already exists. This is the Aquaculture Information Bureau which was set up in early 2008. According to the AIB website (http://www.aquaculture.org.uk/index.html ), their main objective is to enhance the profile of the aquaculture industry as a whole.
Unfortunately, whilst the website still exists, the AIB seems to have ceased to function within months of its launch. Perhaps no-one was interested in hearing the positive aspects of Scottish aquaculture.
Regardless of who is interested, the latest media allows for the positive message to be passed on quickly and cheaply. We can understand why some may not be so willing to counter news stories that could undermine the industry but equally, the industry doesn’t even seem to be promoting the good news stories.
On a recent visit to the Seafood Scotland website (http://www.seafoodscotland.org/ ) we could not help but notice a banner proclaiming that Seafood Scotland will supply fish and seafood to the 2011 Bocuse D’Or culinary competition to be held in Lyon, France. They will be supplying langoustine, crab and monkfish. What they don’t mention, nor apparently does the salmon industry, is that Scottish produce has already been used in the Bocuse D’Or competition, albeit the preliminary rounds.
Earlier this month, James Kent, a sous chef at the restaurant Eleven Madison Park in New York City won the US finals of the Bocuse D’Or competition. According to seafood.com, Mr Kent was one of twelve finalists competing for the chance to represent the US in the finals next year. Each of the finalists had to prepare a platter of Scottish salmon and a platter of American lamb.
Yet, this competition is not just about the cooking. Josh Ozersky, an awarding winning food writer, says that it is about theatre, about spectacle and the ability to produce towering showpieces like that from the winner. James Kent produced ‘Scottish salmon with oestra caviar and sauce Fumet Blanc garnished with a roulade of salmon and king crab with meyer lemon relish, and chilled salmon mousse with salmon tartare and salmon roe. This had to be produced in a total of 5 and a half hours including preparation. This was not so easy.
Another finalist, Jim Burk of James restaurant in Philadelphia ran out of time, His dish was salmon galantine stuffed with smoked salmon mousse.
Although the dishes produced bear little relation to the sort of salmon dishes that the typical US consumer would cook and eat at home, the inclusion of Scottish salmon in the competition is clearly a boost to the Scottish salmon industry, especially as the competition was given widespread coverage because the US is so keen to win, or as Josh Ozersky says, to beat the ‘Frenchies’ at their own game. If this isn’t good news for the Scottish salmon industry then we don’t know what is.
Old habits: According to FishfarmingXpert, Brahm Insight found that consumers were largely unsure what ‘farmed’ means in relation to fish. This is because consumers are not really interested in the supply chain and thus give it very little thought. This finding was part of a study commissioned by Seafish to investigate consumer perception and attitudes to chilled and frozen seafood (details can be found on the Seafish website).
Although there have been repeated attempts to change consumer perception about chilled and frozen seafood, most consumers would perceive that chilled fish is more expensive and higher quality whilst frozen is cheaper and inferior. Inevitably, these existing perceptions will be reflected in what sort of consumers buy fish products from the two sectors.
Brahm Insight found that those who were least likely to buy fresh and chilled fish were younger consumers from the lower social classes who had little or no cooking skills. By comparison, those who ate fish most were older, from the higher social classes and were confident cooks. Sadly, this is little different from research stretching back over twenty years when we, at Callander McDowell, first started to look at what consumers ate. Consumer attitudes to fish and seafood seem to have changed little over the past two decades.
It is also of no surprise that fish consumers tend to come from the higher social classes. Inevitably, such consumers are better educated and thus have a better understanding of eating fish. However, this form of education is not knowledge per-se but rather that they come from homes that already eat fish and thus have a familiarity which will be reflected in continued consumption.
By comparison, those who have not grown up with fish in the home probably only experience fish from the fish and chip shop. It’s a convenient choice which many still buy into. The menu from Atlantic Fast Food, fish and chip shop of the year, which can be found on our website, shows that the meals offered are cheap and filling.
However, many homes in the lower social groupings have limited incomes and even the cost of cheap fish and chips can soon mount up. This has encouraged consumers to translate the fish and chip shop experience back to the home with the purchase of frozen breaded and battered fish. Unfortunately, this is the limit of their experience of cooking fish at home.
Coated fish accounts for around 30% of the frozen market (over 50% if fish fingers are included). Together with the fish consumed from fish and chip shops, this is a significant contribution to overall fish consumption. It is a very well defined market sector and helps push total consumption to an average 1.6 portions of fish per week. The coated sector is so different to the rest of fish consumption that it would be more meaningful if it were separated from other fish consumption data as this would better illustrate the divide as to the ways fish is consumed.
The main thrust of fish promotion is the two a week message and it could be argued that 1.6 portions is not that far off. However recent data from the new National Diet and Nutrition Survey published by the Food Standards Agency has found that consumption of oily fish is well below the recommended one portion per week.
We have discussed previously that the real challenge for the fish sector is to convince those sections of the public who never eat fish, or do so only as fish and chips, that they should start to eat fish in other ways. Brahm Insight found that one of the main reasons that many people don’t eat fish other than from the fish and chip shop is a lack of knowledge. However, it is something more than that. Whilst Brahm Insight say that the fear of fish is driven by a lack of knowledge, the greatest reasons for not buying fish are that whole fish are off-putting, especially the heads and eyes, the presence of bones and the smell. Increasing the knowledge about fish will do nothing to change these. These concerns outweigh anything else but they are also worried about food poisoning if they incorrectly cook the fish due to adverse press reports.
The message is clear. Whilst we could try to improve consumer confidence through better education, we could equally be producing more of the types of products that don’t elicit such concerns as a way of increasing consumption. The fish industry is often too focused on how the fish look on the fish counter rather than consider whether consumers want to buy it. Perhaps there’s a lesson to be learnt from the coated fish sector.
Provenance - a plaice in France!: The Scotsman newspaper reported earlier this month that Scots had supported local producers and chosen Scottish brands with record braking sales over the Christmas period. For example, sales of Scottish salmon increased by £2 million to £44.4 million year on year in December. Richard Lochhead, Rural Affairs Secretary, said that food is so much more than a question of taste.
Mr Lochhead cited a number of other examples of increased sales but in the case of salmon, the increased sales could be explained by higher salmon prices rather than an increase in the number of customers. When it comes to fish, provenance may not be such an important driver of sales as it could be for other foods.
In the research discussed in the previous comment, Brahm Insight also looked at the decision choices taken by consumers when buying fish. Not surprisingly, the main drivers were how it looks and price. Those drivers that were of least importance were provenance, sustainability and method of production. We have discussed sustainability and the question of farmed over wild a number of times previously but yet again research shows that consumers are just not interested. Brahm Insight say this is because there is no emotional attachment to fish as there might be with say a little fluffy lamb (although it seems that in the UK, consumers have become detached from all types of food production, not just fish). The fish sector should be aware that the whole move to sustainable sourcing is being driven by the environmental groups not the marketplace.
Producers often make much of the provenance of their products but it does seem that many consumers will not go out of their way to seek such provenance. This is nothing new. Research from the now defunct Scottish Salmon Board in the early 1990’s found that over 70% of consumers said that they would be willing to pay more for Scottish salmon but when faced with the choice, most failed to do so. This still seems to be the case, as Brahm Insight have now discovered.
In food production, provenance can mean so many different things ranging from the breed of animal reared, how ethically it is produced and how it is treated down the supply chain rather than the specific country per-se. With fish, the picture is less clear. Fishing boats could catch fish from the same shoal and land them in two different countries. It is difficult to see why one should have a better provenance than the other except due to the way the fish are handled and this is not something that would be immediately apparent to consumers.
The message is even more confusing to consumers when retailers highlight the origin as a selling point but then source from more than one origin. Chilled cod and haddock sold by the Co-op in the UK is labelled as Icelandic, yet the chilled breaded cod they sell is labelled as Norwegian and the chilled breaded haddock as Scottish. If Scottish fish is considered sustainable enough for the breaded products, then why not also use it for the fresh chilled packs rather than the Icelandic fish that they do use.
We are not suggesting that the origin of the fish be hidden from consumers but the Co-op make a point of using the origin in the product description rather than as a separate statement. Origin seems to make little difference to consumers, especially when retailers do not offer a choice of origin. Co-op customers who want to buy cod or haddock will simply buy what is on the shelves.
Despite what Mr Lochhead suggests, the same is also true of salmon and as most salmon offered in the UK is of Scottish origin, then that is exactly what consumers will buy.