MSC: In a previous issue of reLAKSation, I discussed how the MSC have certified an Iglo fish product that simply lists the fish it is made from as ‘fish’. I find this somewhat unacceptable as I believed that part of the process was transparency about understanding from which fishery the fish was caught. It now seems that whilst the MSC are keen to promote the MSC blue tick logo to consumers, consumers are just expected to have implicit faith in the logo without any details about the fish they buy or the fishery where the fish was caught.
Under current labelling legislation consumers are supposed to be informed of the name of the fish and from where it was either caught or farmed. This is typically in relation to fresh and chilled fish. When processed, different criteria apply, however because the fish is certified by the MSC, it might be expected that consumers would be informed of the name of the fish from which the product is made together with details of where it was caught,
Unfortunately, this example of Iglo fish schnitzels shows where the transparency is lacking. I did write to the MSC asking for details of the fish and fishery for this specific product. They replied:
Every product bearing the MSC logo must be approved by us, the MSCI licensing team, before it can be marketed.
This product is also approved, with only “vis” listed in the ingredients instead of the names of the exact MSC-certified species.
The MSC-certified producers always inform us which MSC-certified species are used in a product, therefore the MSC-certified species in this product are traceable.
To which I replied repeating the pack code asking for the name of the fish used in the specific pack I bought. They provided the following:
I then asked if they could identify which of these three species was used in my pack of fish schnitzels to which they replied:
As MSC is not the producer of this product, we won’t know which exact MSC certified species are used in this particular product batch.
Only Iglo will know this based on their batch tracking and production records. Please contact Iglo directly for the batch-specific details.
I therefore contacted Iglo directly as suggested, and they replied:
Iglo Visschnitzles are made from ground whitefish. This can be various types of whitefish such as pollock, hake or cod.
So, whilst the MSC list the species approved for use in this product as Alaska pollock, cod and haddock, Iglo say pollock, cod and hake. Clearly there is a difference of opinion on which fish are used in these fish schnitzels.
Iglo’s reply also implies other white fish could be used too. Certainly, it appears that other species than those highlighted by the MSC are used in these schnitzels such as hake.
Minced white fish is something which is commonly used in coated fish products, usually at the cheaper end of the market, although I have not seen it used in any of Iglo’s sister company Bird’s Eye products, All Bird’s Eye fish is MSC certified and is in a pack labelled with a named fish in the ingredient list mostly cod, haddock or Alaskan pollock.
In the UK, Bird’s Eye’s main competitor is Young’s, who do offer one or two products made from minced white fish. The difference is Young’s products are not MSC certified and thus consumers make a choice on whether they want unidentified white fish, fish with a name or fish that is MSC certified. Perhaps, Iglo should follow the example of their sister company and only use named fish in their MSC products, but at the same time, MSC should ensure that products with their logo are exactly what they say and that the consumer should, if they request, be able to determine exactly from which fishery the fish is caught. We can see from the MSC response that for example haddock is fished from ten different registered fisheries. Surely the whole point of the certification process is that the consumer should be able to ask who caught the fish they eat and from where, otherwise the whole system is meaningless. This is because consumers would have to rely on trust only as to the sustainability and sourcing of the fish they eat.
My own experience of speaking to consumers is that most couldn’t care less about such matters. Instead, they trust their retailer to supply the best possible fish and the best possible price.
As readers might have deduced, I was recently in Holland and there are some stores there that only sell fish that has been certified by the MSC or ASC, thus all the packs are labelled accordingly. I would suggest why bother if the store only sells such fish and seafood which has been certified. The consumer no longer has a choice, so the labelling is irrelevant.
I mentioned in my previous piece about the huge sums of money that it takes to run the MSC and ASC. I personally think that this sort of money could be better spent promoting consumption of fish, especially those species that are less well known and whose stocks are considered to be healthy.
Horror: Phil Rhys Thomas writing in the Spectator relates how whilst in Spain on holiday he watched his fellow Brits recoil in horror when they encountered a restaurant’s fish and seafood display. He considers that the middle classes don’t like the dead-eyed edibles harvested from under the waves. He hypothesises whether it is a deep fear of the unknown, or are Brits more squeamish than other nations? By comparison his Spanish friend Pablo tells him that the Spanish love eating fish and seafood.
Mr Thomas discusses the issue with Rick Stein who said that this idea that really no one likes to eat fish has bothered him since he began cooking. Whilst he says that many do not share his enthusiasm, his seafood restaurant in Padstow has been open now for fifty years. However, that is one restaurant in one holiday coastal town. Yet Mr Thomas says that he is not convinced by such examples and suggests that eating an oyster is no different either in taste of consistency to a sorry day out with the team at Thames Water.
Pablo, Mr Thomas’s Spanish friend says that the only fish that most Brits will eat has to be deep fried or processed beyond recognition. He cites that there are 10,500 chippies in the UK but only 1,000 fishmongers. Mr Thomas says that this helps explain why the furthest most Brits go in the supermarket is to a block of salmon, which retailers instinctively understand must be represented as a chunk that doesn’t look like a fish.
He ends by saying that Brits should focus on enjoying the food they eat because it is tasty, not because they are supposed to like it, which is why the one of the most popular meals in Spain is the classic Benidorm full English. Mr Thomas has a point.
I have now been observing consumer demand for thirty years and what Mr Thomas has to say resonates with my observations. Concerns about fish consumption are not new. Demand has varied over the years but equally the market has changed. There may have once been many more fishmongers than there are today, but their offering used to be rather limited, depending on geographic location. I remember fishmonger counters dominated by cod and smoked haddock with a small offering for mackerel, herring and crab but very little else. Today we have much more choice but fewer consumers who are interested in eating anything but the Big Five.
Part of the problem is that those who work in the sector have taken their eye off the market altogether. There is hardly any marketing effort to promote fish and seafood other than by the major frozen food companies. Otherwise, it seems that there is more interest in fishing boat surveys and the use of sustainability labels than promoting consumption.
There used to be a National Seafood Week campaign run by SeaFish, however, after some years it was apparent that this campaign failed to generate any increase in consumption. This was not surprising since putting ‘Two a Week’ stickers on packs of fish was hardly likely to stimulate any consumer reaction. Equally as the campaign focused on the fish counter or fish shelves, it was never going to attract those who never eat fish or seafood as they would never visit these parts of the store. Eventually, SeaFish indicated that they would need a much bigger budget to have any impact, so they pulled out of this campaign.
The Norwegian Seafood Council also promote fish in the UK, but their focus is on Norwegian origin rather than increased consumption. However, attaching a NSC sticker to packs also did very little to attract consumer attention, which is probably why packs appear to be no longer stickered.
In 2022, NSC targeted one town in isolation for a period of three weeks. This town was Letchworth, 45 miles from London, a town of 20,000 inhabitants. This campaign was supposed to be a model for future campaigns, and not just in the UK, but three years on, Letchworth is just a distant memory. It seems that the main activity for the NSC in the UK is now the Fish & Chip awards, which is a timely reminder of Pablo’s view on UK fish consumption.
I have always believed that consumer reaction to fish and seafood means that it is now necessary to look outside the box as to ways to increase consumption, and not just of the Big Five species, but other fish species too.
The problem is that there is now no-one in the business of fish marketing who might take the lead. There has been missed opportunities such as the Seafood Innovation Fund, but their main project was to rename megrim as Cornish Sole. However, as megrim hardly ever appears in retail, calling it a different name has made no impact.
It seems that Phil Rhys Thomas’s friend Pablo might have a better appreciation of UK fish consumption than we do ourselves.
Fishing for Alternatives: Fish Focus has reported on new research from the Norwegian Seafood Council which has found that 47% of consumers cite cost as a barrier to eating seafood regularly. According to Kantar, UK cod consumption has decreased by as much as 18% on recent years and in Norway, SIFO say that there is also a noticeable fall in cod consumption that could be linked to cost.
In response to the higher cost of cod, NSC say that consumers could still be attracted to the whitefish category by considering other species such as saithe, which has a price point that makes it a good choice for everyday eating, In addition, saithe, more commonly known as coley in the UK, is rich in protein (0.9g higher than cod) but whether consumers buy fish on the basis of protein level is doubtful. NSC also say that saithe has a generous quota so could be a more sustainable choice.
They add that this fish is underutilised. yet it is also well loved for both taste and versatility and therefore could be a good alternative to ensure that consumers get high quality, nourishing seafood in coming years.
All this sounds very admirable; however, I am not sure it is a view that is shared by many British consumers. In terms of overall fish consumption, UK consumers stick to the Big Five despite many attempts to persuade them to try different species. For example, supermarket chain Sainsburys ran a promotion twice, offering anyone buying one of the Big Five a free portion of a different species. Sadly, consumers weren’t impressed. The environmental lobby have argued that consumers should swop the Big Five for other species and again, consumers have largely ignored the advice and religiously stick to the fish they know.
It is also important to note that based on recent volumes, the Big Five are not the most commonly consumed fish in Britain. The Big Five are salmon, cod, haddock, tuna and prawns but when considering consumption of these species in all formats including ambient and frozen, then pollock, most likely Alaska Pollock, is consumed twice as much as haddock. In terms of fresh fish, then tuna is no longer a Big Five fish as cold-water prawns, mackerel and sea bass are all consumed more than tuna, but it is ‘mixed seafood’ that should be included in the Big Five. Mixed Seafood, as its name suggests, is usually a mix of seafood including calamari, shrimp, mussels, crab sticks etc.
As mentioned at the start of this commentary, NSC say that cod consumption in the home has fallen by 18% in recent years. This is misleading. Overall, cod consumption has indeed fallen, but the majority of this relates to coated fish products. This decrease has been matched by an increase in the use of Alaska pollock which is cheaper than cod. Neilsen put a retail price difference of £10.61/kg for cod against £6.16/kg for pollock. This is a prime example of the substitution that occurs in fish consumption as prices change but this substitution is one which is more apparent in the fish processing/manufacturing sector rather than by those buying fish to cook at home.
When it comes to fresh/chilled fish, the picture is very different. Despite a price of £21.01/kg salmon consumption continues to rise but surprisingly cod consumption has also increased in recent years with a price of £12.40/kg. Salmon consumption is about three times as much as cod even with the significant price difference. Imported pangasius (basa) has had mixed fortunes with ups and down in consumption despite a price of £9.79/kg and Atlantic pollock consumption has remained stable despite its £6.39/kg price, although the volumes are very small at 3,350 tonnes compared with 65,529 for salmon and 21,089 for cod (May 2025).
Returning to saithe which the NSC appear keen to promote, then according to Neilsen, just 112 tonnes are consumed with a price of £12.81/kg so not so different to cod. However, the volume is so small that coley is not recorded on the fresh /chilled spreadsheet even though the volume has been increasing.
It may be better to compare prices at retail. Currently Tesco are the only retailer to stock chilled coley filets costing £12.50/kg. By comparison, cod fillets are £21.07/kg, salmon fillets £16.15/kg, haddock fillets £20.36/kg, basa fillets £9.12/kg, mackerel fillets £18.75/kg, plaice fillets £17.00/kg, Cape hake fillets £18.33/kg, tuna steaks £41.67/kg and sea bass fillets £25.83/kg. These are not promotional prices.
Obviously, the picture is not so clear and consequently consumers will just have to pay for whichever fish they fancy but saithe (coley) is not likely to be their first choice.