reLAKSation 469
First time: It may not be that surprising but since the beginning of September 2004, only salmon farmed in Scotland can be labelled ‘Scottish Farmed Salmon’. It is now six years since Scottish Farmed Salmon was awarded the ‘Protected Geographic Indication’ by the European Commission. The PGI effectively protects the name of Scottish salmon and prevents other salmon being passed off as being Scottish.
At the time, Scottish Quality Salmon hailed the award as a major boost for Scottish salmon producers in both the UK and international markets. Brian Simpson of SQS said that the PGI is better recognised in Europe than in the UK and as a consequence, increased interest had been expressed in markets such as Italy, Germany and Spain. SQS were also hoping that sales would be given extra impetus in France, the main export market for Scottish salmon.
Brian Simpson also believed that UK consumers will increasingly see PGI as a badge of quality and authenticity. “UK food producers have perhaps been slower than some markets to recognise the value of PGI status. But that is rapidly changing and consumers here will become much more familiar with PGI, its logo and what it stands for.”
‘Scottish Farmed Salmon’ is not the only fish and seafood product from the UK to receive a PGI designation. Cornish sardines, Arbroath Smokies and Traditional Grimsby Smoked Fish also are permitted to carry the PGI logo. However, we, at Callander McDowell, can safely say that we have never seen the PGI logo on any product either in the UK or abroad, although terrestrial farmers in the UK use it on some of their promotional material for beef and lamb.
This changed this week. After six years, we have now seen our first salmon product displaying the PGI logo. It is salmon en croute (salmon in pastry), part of the new ‘Eat In’ range from the Co-operative (Co-op).
We find it interesting that the first example of a PGI labelled salmon product is a value added product and not a pack of raw salmon flesh. After all, the salmon industry went to a lot of trouble to apply for this designation but have never used it at the consumer interface. We can only assume that a change in labelling legislation has negated the need for the PGI.
Prior to the PGI award, salmon that had been imported whole and then filleted in the UK could be labelled as ‘Produced in the UK’. Although this statement always appeared on the back label in small lettering, the salmon industry thought that it gave the impression that the fish was Scottish when it wasn’t. The implication was that Norwegian salmon producers were trying to pass off their fish as Scottish. The Scottish industry applied for the PGI designation to prevent imported salmon being labelled as Scottish. However, subsequent changes to the labelling legislation have meant that the origin of any salmon has to be clearly displayed on the pack and therefore the PGI has become unnecessary and which is why it has remained unused.
Over recent years, there has been a surge in applications for PGI designation from British food producers. This is in the mistaken belief that the PGI designation can improve the market image of the product concerned. Certainly, this was also a belief expressed by the salmon industry but it does not appear to have made any real impact at all. Will consumers be persuaded to buy a product because of the presence of the PGI logo? We, at Callander McDowell, are not convinced. It is only necessary to look at the Coop product to see why.
The label conveys a whole host of messages of which the PGI is just one. The label states that the salmon is Scottish in more than one place so the PGI doesn’t add anything further. We are not even convinced that whether the salmon is Scottish is even a factor in the consumer choice. The shopper buys this salmon en croute because this is exactly what he/she would like to eat. The motivation to buy this may even be that it is part of a £5 promotion to buy a main dish and two side dishes from the Eat In range.
One of the other ways in which we know that the PGI or even that the product is made from Scottish salmon is not the main driver for purchase of this product is that there is a second salmon product in the Eat In range. This is salmon fillets in watercress sauce. This product is not labelled with the PGI logo in the same way as the salmon en croute and for very good reason. This is that the product is made from Wild Alaskan salmon. Instead of the PGI logo, the pack of salmon in watercress sauce displays the MSC logo. We don’t know which Alaskan salmon is used but we suspect that it is pink salmon and looking at the appearance of the fillet, we are not surprised that it is covered up by a sauce. The rational for using pink salmon in this product is more likely driven by price rather than origin, sustainability or the wild/farmed issue. The salmon in watercress sauce contains 56% salmon as compared with just 23% in the en croute (and even that small amount is not one single piece of fillet).
There seems to be a rush now to put a myriad of labels on food products but they do little to influence consumers. In the Coop, the choice is whether the consumer wants to eat salmon en croute or salmon in watercress sauce or even haddock mornay, cod in cheese sauce or a beefburger or a gammon steak or any of the other products in this range. The presence or absence of these labels makes little difference.
Finally, we mentioned that we didn’t know whether the wild Alaskan salmon used in the salmon in watercress sauce was Pink salmon or another of the Pacific salmon species. The Coop does state the Latin name of the fish on the reverse of the pack. In the example of the en croute, the pack states ‘Made in Scotland using salmon (Salmo salar) farmed in Scotland’. The salmon in watercress salmon pack states ‘Made in UK using salmon (Salmo salar) caught in the Pacific Ocean’. As we all know Salmo salar is the Atlantic salmon which to the best of our knowledge is not caught in Alaskan waters of the Pacific Ocean nor is MSC certified, that is unless the MSC have now changed their minds and are starting to certify farmed salmon!!!
Colour coded: The Marine Conservation Society (MCS) produce a handy pocket guide to sustainable fish. The guide is colour coded with a traffic light system of red- avoid, amber – with caution and green for OK, although consumers looking closely at the recommendations might be confused by the idea that fisheries that have been deemed sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) produce fish that the MCS suggest should be eaten rarely.
Equally confusing is the news this week that Wholefoods have also introduced a colour coded ratings system for the fish that they sell. They now have four different labels for the fish they sell; Best, Good Alternative, Avoid and Not rated.
We, at Callander McDowell, are known for commenting on what we see but we cannot believe that any right minded person has not looked at the Whole Foods labelling and questioned why any retailer would put a product on the counter with a label that states AVOID – presently caught in ways that harm other marine life or the environment! WHY???
Surely, if Whole Foods in any way question the sustainability of any fish species, they must stop selling them - completely. Instead, Whole Foods have committed to stop selling red labelled swordfish and tuna fish by Earth Day 2011 and other red labelled fish by 2012 except sole and Atlantic cod which will remain on their fish counters until 2013. In the meantime, they are evaluating whether the fisheries can be improved and their ratings changed.
So what Whole Foods seem to be saying is that it is OK for them to sell unsustainable fish in the hope that they might be reclassified in the years ahead? Is this any different from saying to BP that it would be OK to let the oil gush in the hope that a better method of capping the well could be found in the months ahead? If a fishery is judged to be unsustainable, then it is unsustainable – end of story.
Whole Foods say that a number of people have asked them the same question? Why not stop now. Their answer is that they have stopped selling especially vunerable red rated fish such as non-MSC certified Chilean sea bass, sharks, marlin, bluefin tuna and orange roughy, but they don’t say why they won’t stop selling the others.
Whole Foods have always adopted a more stringent approach to ethical shopping than other retailers but this latest move is clear demonstration that the issue of sustainability is nothing just the latest fashion, adapted to suit whatever anyone wants it to be.
Whole Foods would have been more truthful if they simply said that they are working towards ensuring all the fish they sell is from sustainable sources.
It’s Fyne: Most newspaper restaurant reviews tend to be about new openings rather than well established restaurants. Manchester Confidential, a local web based review site has just returned to Loch Fyne restaurant for a second visit and managed to create quite a storm amongst the armchair critics.
Ruth Allen, Manchester Confidential’s restaurant reviewer enraged a number of readers by writing:
“”Loch Fyne remains true to its ethical ethos, which is explained on a plaque by the door as you walk in.
The Company is dedicated to the protection of our seas, our maritime communities and all forms of marine life, a mantra which is repeated by the staff, placemats, menu cards and comment cards.
Lobster and sea bass are August and September’s best catches, they advise, drawing your attention over and over again to Loch Fyne’s thoughtful fishing methods and concern for the environment. ‘Oh for God’s sake shut up would you I thought’.
Frankly, I’m not that bothered about where my food comes from, more about whether it tastes good.””
It was this last comment that prompted a few readers to respond declaring that how could any food critic not be concerned about where the food comes from but what was interesting was that a number of others responded suggesting that the time Loch Fyne spent on telling everyone about how green their food would have been better spent making the food more edible.
What began with a debate about the ethical concerns of food supply quickly turned into a rant about readers’ bad experiences at the various restaurants in the chain.
What’s clear is that issues such as sustainability and food ethics make little difference to consumers if the food is inedible. The environmental movement have hijacked issues relating to the supply of fish arguing that this is what is most important to consumers. This is not the case at all. What is important is that the fish they buy and eat tastes good and represents value for money. What the industry forgets is that if consumers don’t like the fish on offer, they won’t buy it. Then sustainability won’t be an issue because there will be no demand for the fish at all.