reLAKSation 76.
Salvation or salivation!: “Only consumers can save cod now” so said Bernadette Clark, Fisheries Officer of the Marine Conservation Society. Ms Clark went on to say that both politicians and the fisheries sector have failed to protect fish stocks, which leaves consumers to play the major role in managing commercial fisheries. She said that there are now 20 species of fish which consumers should avoid, including cod and haddock. Instead, she identified a further 25 species, whose consumption should be encouraged. One of the alternative species recommended by Ms Clark is catfish ensuring significant publicity from both TV and the press because of its ugly appearance.
Fish consumption has soared in recent years because of the increased preference for healthy food. As a result, supermarkets have boosted sales. Sainsburys claim to have tripled sales over the last decade. At the same time, many commercial fisheries have crashed and some like North Sea cod may be on the verge of collapse.
According to Intrafish, the MCS believe that their message is getting through to the supermarkets, which are reviewing their fish sourcing policies and have stopped stocking certain species. For example, Marks & Spencers have stopped selling swordfish, Atlantic halibut, monkfish and thornback ray. In addition, they no longer sell cod from the North Sea, sourcing from Icelandic waters instead.
Whilst their assertions to convince the consumer to change their eating habits may provide the news services with a good story, the reality is most consumers prefer to stick with the traditional species. Cod and haddock are still extremely popular with consumers and their popularity has only been surpassed by the widespread availability of low cost salmon. Other alternative low priced species have failed to excite consumer demand, even when promoted as part of National Seafood Week.
Clearly, it is not the consumer who should be shouldering the responsibility of saving threatened fish stocks, but rather supermarkets, fishmongers and restaurants who should take the initiative. After all, consumers can only buy cod and haddock because it is available on the supermarket fish counter. If it is not there, then consumers would have to choose an alternative if they want to continue eating fish. This is the only way to effectively protect these threatened species.
Unfortunately, whilst it may be easy to de-list less popular species such as swordfish and thornback ray, the supermarkets appear less willing to remove the popular species like cod and haddock. This is because they might feel that if they do not provide these fish, then their customers might change to competitive supermarkets that will. This may equally apply to any other outlet for fish such as restaurants and chip shops.
It is understandable that the supermarket chains might not want to restrict customer choice, especially of popular species, yet at a time when fish stocks are under increasing threat, the supermarkets actually seem more intent on encouraging consumption of these popular species. Over the last month, almost every supermarket chain has discounted the price of cod or haddock in one form or another.
Asda:
Smoked haddock reduced from £7.98/kg to £7.38/kg.
Co-op:
Chilled cod reduced from £8.39/kg to £6.89/kg.
Marks & Spencers:
Smoked haddock reduced from £16.49/kg to £14.49/kg
Haddock portions in crumb reduced from £1.69 to £1.39 per pack.
Morrisons:
Smoked cod loin reduced from £9.29/kg to £8.29/kg
Cod and chips 100% extra free 568g for price of 284g.
Safeway:
Chunky cod fillets reduced from £10.99/kg to £9.99/kg
Smoked cod reduced from £7.69/kg to £6.69/kg
Sainsburys:
Skinless cod loin reduced from £11.49/kg to £9.49/kg.
Cod/haddock in batter reduced form £1.99 to £1.69 per pack
Somerfield:
Cod fillet reduced from £8.99/kg to £6.99/kg
Breaded cod portions 100% extra free. 400g for price of 200g
Tesco:
Cod loin reduced from £8.78/kg to £6.78/kg.
Waitrose:
Cod and haddock recipes dishes reduced by 70p.
Clearly, if consumers are to be encouraged to help save white fish stocks, then supermarkets should discount the price of the less popular species rather than those, which are threatened. Perhaps they should also change their displays so that the less popular species are at eye level and those, which are threatened, placed in a less prominent place. However, more importantly, consumers should be encouraged to select those species, which are farmed, rather than those harvested from the wild.
Certainly, the widespread availability of low cost farmed salmon has helped change consumer eating habits. Fish displays are often dominated by pink salmon, simply because it is widely available and represents value for money. Consumers have been easily persuaded to buy more salmon so that it is now one of the most popular food species.
Yet, despite this popularity, the Marine Conservation Society have ignored the possibility that fish farming might be used as a management tool for the protection of wild fish stocks. In fact their message is extremely confusing.
One of the 20 species, which the MCS list to avoid, is Atlantic salmon as stocks have declined by 50% over the last twenty years. However, during this time, the availability of farmed salmon has vastly increased. Some commentators have suggested that 90% of Atlantic salmon sold in supermarkets is farmed; meaning that about 10% is from wild sources. We, at Callander McDowell, would disagree as no British supermarket stocks wild salmon at all, except Pacific species. When this is sold ‘fresh’, it is usually under the Marine Stewardship Council label and therefore should be distinct from farmed Atlantic salmon.
Unfortunately, despite changes to the labelling legislation, most consumers do not read the labelling information provided. This is clear from many observations in the supermarkets. For example, one supermarket group sells whole salmon, which sometimes are tagged with the Scottish Tartan Quality Mark, yet the display label clearly states ‘Farmed in Norway’. This might be dismissed as a rare error, but the label has been in place for three or four months and has been observed in several stores. Clearly, not one customer has read the label and queried the discrepancy otherwise it would have probably been changed by now.
If consumers do not read the information labels they are unlikely to be aware as to whether the salmon sold in the various supermarkets is farmed or wild. They may be motivated to take the MCS advice and avoid salmon, which would be a major disaster for wild marine fish stocks since farmed salmon are undoubtedly helping remove some of the fishing pressure on these threatened stocks. Consumers should be encouraged to eat more farmed fish if they really want to save stocks of wild cod and haddock.
Certification or self congratulation?: The Board of the Marine Stewardship Council has deferred any decision to certify aquaculture products. This should not be too surprising since aquaculture products by their very nature can be considered to be sustainable since they involve complete and total management. This contrasts with the usual wild catch fisheries which are the main target for MSC certification.
The aim of the MSC is to provide certification of those fisheries which are adjudged to be sustainable. Products from certified fisheries are able to carry the MSC logo with the intention of providing consumers with a clear indication that the fish they buy comes from a sustainable source. As yet, only fish from two significant fisheries can carry the MSC logo. These are Alaskan salmon and New Zealand hoki.
Consumers interested in helping relieve the pressure on European fish stocks might be deterred from buying such fish due to the potential impact of transporting these fish over such huge distances. Locally farmed fish offer a much more realistic option.
Whilst the MSC remain undecided about certified aquaculture products, they also remain ambivalent about certification of the industrial fisheries which form the basis of much aquacultural feed. According to Intrafish, the MSC recognise that industrial fisheries could be certified within the scope of the existing programme, but at present there are no applications to do so. Perhaps this is because the MSC simply do not consider such applications to be a priority.
Several years ago there was some uncertainty as to whether aquaculture should fall under the fisheries or agricultural remit. Was fish farming an extension of wild catch fisheries or part of the wider farming sector? The eventual decision was that it should be considered to be part of the fisheries sector, yet despite this close association, aquaculture has never been perceived to be an effective tool for fisheries management. The aim of the MSC is to encourage sustainable fisheries. This means that the catch should not exceed the limits for natural replacement, but increased demand has meant that fishing pressure has increased beyond these limits. The MSC is unable to help satisfy demand, it can only limit supply. If this supply can be met from elsewhere then these endangered fisheries can be protected. The most obvious source of supply is from aquaculture.
Unfortunately, environmental activists have meant that aquaculture production receives continual bad press. One of their major criticisms is that fish farming also imposes a demand on industrial fisheries, which has implications for other commercial fish stocks. Clearly, if fishmeal from industrial fisheries can be certified as sustainable, then the market position of the resulting aquaculture products can be significantly boosted. This means that such certification also becomes an effective management tool for both aquaculture and commercial fisheries. Sadly, the MSC do not see it this way. Could it be that as the products from certified industrial fisheries will not be available to end consumers, there is no need for them to carry the MSC logo and without the logo, the MSC loses the opportunity to promote itself?