reLAKSation 444
Once a month: Writing in an editorial in the latest issue of Seafood International, John Fiorillo asks what needs to be done to boost salmon consumption in the US to reach three pounds per person.
Mr Fiorillo says that one thing is clear to him and that is that salmon has captured the hearts and stomachs of consumers in the US. This is because back in 1998, the average American was eating 1.38 pounds of salmon a year but ten years later consumption had increased to 1.8 pounds. He does mention that consumption actually peaked at 2.4 pounds in 2007 but fell back. There is some debate whether this is now the start of a reverse trend or that 2008 was simply a blip. We won’t know until the 2009 figures are released in a few months time. In the meantime, the assumption is that salmon is popular with consumers and currently in demand.
Whilst Mr Fiorillo suggests that supplies of salmon are relatively plentiful at present even with Chile’s problems. What he doesn’t say is that supplies will continue to increase as Chile’s salmon industry gets back on track. There have been suggestions that Chile will focus on supplying South American markets such as Brazil but Carlos Odebret of Salmon Chile makes it clear that the US market will be a priority. Mr Odebret told Fish Farming Xpert that Chile has to be working in those markets where we are losing ground, especially USA where our production is being replaced with Norwegian salmon. He dismisses the idea that the Norwegian industry can totally replace Chilean salmon adding that from 2011 “we will take the portion not already taken by Norway and thenceforth we will have a permanent fight with that country to recover the USA market”.
We, at Callander McDowell can fully understand Mr Odebret’s position. Chile was responsible for developing the US market at a time when Norway ignored the opportunity. However, this does not mean that Chile has a divine right to exclusivity in the US. In our view it would be madness to start a battle of existing market share. The reality is that Norway and Chile, as well as other countries that supply the market in the US, should take up the challenge laid down by Mr Fiorillo and look to expanding the market in the US, creating room for all potential suppliers.
Taking 1.8 pounds per head as a starting point, US consumption needs to be doubled to meet Mr Fiorillo’s target of three pounds per person. This means that instead of the one portion of salmon every two months that 1.8 pounds per head equates to, Americans need to be eating one portion every month instead. This does not seem a great ask but unfortunately these average figures are easy to misinterpret. The reality is that every American doesn’t eat one portion of salmon every two months. Most Americans probably don’t eat any salmon at all, whilst those that do eat it are more likely to eat it once a week or a couple of times a month. It will not be easy to convince someone who already eats salmon weekly to increase their consumption.
Interestingly, readers of Seafood International may come across a comment from Johan Kvalheim of the Norwegian Seafood Export Council. He said that they now intend to focus on increasing the frequency of consumption by those who already eat salmon rather than seek out new consumers. This is because he says that targeting new consumers has become very expensive. However, whilst this may be appropriate in France, the same cannot be said of the US market. Consumption patterns in France are very different to those in the US and thus Mr Kvalheim may be right to take a different approach. The US is a very different matter.
Mr Fiorillo` says that he doesn’t pretend to know the answers to expanding the US market. He also doubts that most salmon company executives know the answer either but in his view the time has come to start thinking about how to do it.
We disagree. The time for thinking is already over. Now is the time for action. Changing consumption patterns will not happen overnight. The salmon industry should already be implementing ways to stimulate new consumers into eating salmon. The industry should have been doing this even before Chile began to experience problems. Norway was then considering how to break back into the US market. The battle over salmon share was already in prospect.
We, at Callander McDowell, were then thinking about Mr Fiorillo’s challenge, even though it would be some years before he put it to paper. Expanding consumer demand has always been on the agenda, at least from the moment that salmon were first farmed. We believe that there are ways to expand the market and especially to stimulate interest amongst those who never eat salmon. Whether the industry is ready to accept Mr Fiorillo’s challenge is another question.
A mom who loves to cook: One way to stimulate demand for salmon is to engage with consumers. This has become easier than ever with the modern media allowing consumers to connect directly with the industry. At its best, those who supply our food can develop a human face. A good example is Marine Harvest Canada’s facebook site (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Campbell-River-BC/Marine-Harvest-Canada/13106762015?ref=mf. )
As well as Facebook, MHC also uses Twitter as a regular method of communication. So does ‘Salmon in Seconds’(http://www.salmoninseconds.com/ ) whose latest tweet links to the recipe for Norwegian Salmon Thai Coconut Curry. This can be found on their website along with a number of instructional videos.
To help avoid lecturing their viewers, Salmon in Seconds have given an identity to the host of these videos. This is Nicole – a mom who loves to cook. The intention is for the viewer to empathise and engage with the presenter. If the viewer can relate to Nicole by thinking that she is just a mom ‘like me’ and thus if she can cook salmon ‘then so can I’. The hope is to build a relationship with the presenter based on trust.
Unfortunately, this trust has already been broken for Nicole is not all she seems. It would appear that Nicole is not just a mom who likes to cook but a professional chef working in Connecticut (http://www.timetoeat.info/about.html ).
Salmon in Seconds have already been accused of misleading consumers in their ‘Why Norwegian’ video. It would seem that they have made another error of judgment. After all if viewers cannot trust Nicole to be who she says she is, how can they be sure that they can trust the claims she makes for Norwegian salmon?
Based on appearance and taste, salmon is quite able to speak for itself. It doesn’t really matter if Nicole is a mom or a professional chef but if those who promote salmon make a claim, they should make sure it is true. Otherwise, how can consumers trust what else is being said about salmon!!
Good news: Following our comments about the lack of industry response to Jonathan Safran Foer’s accusations about the salmon industry, it was good to see that Scott Landsburgh from the SSPO was given space by the Guardian to put the industry’s viewpoint. His response follows:
Jonathan Safran Foer's opinions on the salmon industry are misguided ('No fish gets a good death', 23 February). "Factory-farmed chickens, turkeys and cattle all suffer in fundamentally similar ways. So, it turns out, do fish," he says, adding: "'Aquaculture' – the intensive rearing of sea animals in confinement – is essentially underwater factory farming."
I am chief executive of the representative body for 95% of Scottish farmed salmon production, which is recognised as a leader in animal welfare best practice. Last month the RSPCA reported that Scottish farmed salmon was top of its Freedom Food charts, with an impressive 60% of production participating in its stringent animal welfare scheme which includes standards for husbandry, stocking density and harvesting.
Of the 532 million farm animals that are reared under the RSPCA scheme, some 440 million are Scottish farmed salmon. More broadly, salmon farming is one of the most highly regulated sectors of the food industry, complying with national and international legislation as well as with retailer standards and the independently audited Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture.
Contrary to Foer's claims that "salmon spend their lives in the equivalent of a bathtub of water", the average underwater pen is, by volume, the size of two Olympic swimming pools – meaning that fish have ample room to swim freely. As salmon only occupy a maximum of 2% of the space available in the pen, the remaining 98% of water is available for swimming. Therefore it is simply not true to imply that salmon are somehow packed into a confined space and constricted in their movements.
Foer describes the marine environment in which salmon are grown as "filthy water" and goes on to suggest that "animals' eyes bleed from the intensity of the pollution". These statements are nonsense. Excellent water quality is essential to grow quality salmon. The clean, clear coastal waters on the west coast and islands of Scotland, with excellent tidal flows, are ideal growing conditions.
It is in the farmers' interests to respect and safeguard the quality of the marine environment on which the fish depend. Furthermore, the release into the water of anything produced as a result of fish farming activity must be permitted by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
The health of the marine environment and the welfare of the animals in the farmers' care are crucial to the production of a healthy, high quality product which has made the industry one of the foremost food sectors in the UK today. This iconic Scottish industry produces high quality food products – the result of painstaking development and improvement over more than three decades.
It concerns me that an American author of fiction purports to write a factual account of a major, successful food industry with little regard for the implications of his lack of research.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/02/fish-farming-standards-scottish-salmon