The full story: The news that Bremnes Seashore is to axe 100 jobs has created a great deal of discussion in the Norwegian fish press with the blame being directed at the government and its current policies on aquaculture which have dampened confidence in the future.
However, the loss of these jobs has been prompted by the company decision to end production of its Salma branded salmon loins. iLAKS describes Salma as:
“skinless and boneless loin, ready to serve for sushi and sashimi of excellent quality. Packaged in a delicate designer packaging and available in grocery stores nationwide. A winner with consumers”.
Except it wasn’t.
The hard reality was that Bremnes Seashore were losing tens of millions of kroner annually. The company had said that the market situation had changed, and high prices mean that not everyone can afford highly processed salmon products. This has made it challenging to achieve volumes that ensure profitability. Unfortunately, the media has focused on the Norwegian government ‘s policies rather than consider the product.
Salma salmon loin was launched in Norway in 2006 as a high-priced premium product. Even now, the high price of Salma salmon can be seen from the price in a French supermarket this week the 160g Salma loin costing €62.44/kg (£51.91/kg). By comparison, Mowi branded salmon portions skin on were priced at €21.98/kg (£18.27/kg). This is a very big difference in price and certainly sufficiently large enough to make consumers think hard about spending that amount for something which other than a bit of skin is just a piece of salmon flesh.
The original product was a salmon loin of no specific weight, but the company then offered a half loin and then two fixed weight loins of 180g and 360g. According to the website they also diversified into Salma smoked salmon and a Salma burger.
I have not encountered these two products in store myself, but this week Norwegian supermarket Meny was selling the Salma salmon burger (220g) for NOK 59.90 (£4.25) down from NOK 79.90 (£5.67.) Even at the lower price this equates to NOK 272.27/kg (£19.33/kg). In the UK, flavoured salmon burgers were available during the summer BBQ season at around £12-£15/kg. It is unclear why something like a salmon burger needed to be made from premium salmon flesh.
Meny is still offering other Salma products including Salma loin at NOK 549/kg (£38.98/kg) and Salma smoked salmon at NOK 779/kg (£55.32/kg).
Even though Salma products were aimed at the premium market, I do agree that the higher price of salmon seen over recent years has stifled product development. This is most obvious at this time of the year when some really innovative products used to be available to adorn the Christmas table. Sadly, these have long disappeared, as have other more standard products that used to be available year-round for the wider consumer market. I have argued previously that salmon companies seem to prefer keeping investors happy rather than focus on expanding and developing the market looking at fulfilling consumer needs.
This Christmas, the focus is very much on salmon sides with prices around £11.50-£12.50/kg although Aldi are also offering a whole salmon for £5.99/kg. Larger packs of smoked salmon offered just at Christmas time will cost consumers from £26.67/kg upwards.
Smoked salmon: Last January, food writer William Sitwell wrote in the Daly Telegraph that he had banned smoked salmon from his home last Christmas. He wrote that he had banned smoked salmon because it was produced by industrial salmon that damage the natural ecosystems of the sea and freshwater in Scotland.
Instead, he recommended eating trout although he doesn’t mention much about how these fish are produced. I don’t have an issue about eating trout and happily do so myself but whether their alleged impact is much different is open for discussion.
The point here is that in the eleven months since he wrote that article, he seems to have forgotten why he is not eating salmon as he has reviewed fifteen of this year’s smoked salmon offerings on behalf of the newspaper.
Usually, I would take a look at the smoked salmon products that are considered the best eating but this year, I was more intrigued by those that were rated most poorly. I have also seen the Times reviews but that undertaken by William Sitwell is more extensive.
Every year, I point out that I do not consider these reviews to be fair because they never compare like with like. For example, Mr Sitwell gives Booths Strong oak smoked salmon just one star partly because it has a strong smoked flavour – the clue is in the name.
Other smoked salmons reviewed are described as mild and delicate such Lidl’s and Tesco so a completely different smoke. Also, some of the smoked salmon are flavoured so are different again.
I was interested in the review of Daylesford organic smoked salmon which Mr Sitwell describes as looking like natural salmon rather than over-fished mass market stuff. I can only wonder how it is over fished when it is farmed (in Norther Ireland).
Bottom of the pile was Waitrose whisky and orange smoked salmon. Mr Sitwell says that it has golden edges as though it has been spray-painted. Chewy and unpleasant with a tangerine flavour. They’ve ruined a good piece of fish…
The edge of some smoked salmon is coated in a gold sheen whilst others are coated on the edge with different colours or flavours. The gold does not affect the taste of the fish. It is for Christmas show. My view is that the whisky and the orange were hardly noticeable and blind tasted would not be identified at all. It wasn’t chewy and it wasn’t unpleasant. However, neither was it a standout salmon. There are certainly better options although it is a cheaper offering from Waitrose. Unfortunately, their Chestnut smoked salmon didn’t fare much better in Mr Sitwell’s opinion.
Third bottom in Mr Sitwell’s list was Mowi brand smoked salmon. He gave it one star saying that it was very orange, though he said that it has quite a natural cut and a good thickness. He adds that it glistens more than the others and is tasteless and rubbery and does not melt in the mouth.
The colour is orangey but there is a huge range of colour between the offerings which depends on how it is processed as much as the colour of the flesh. There wasn’t much wrong with this as a standard smoked salmon except the glistening which Mr Sitwell failed to describe as a bit oily.
Of course, these reviews are meaningless without comparison with the smoked salmon that Mr Sitwell awarded 5 stars. This was M&S Cherry and chestnut smoked salmon. Mr Sitwell says that is meanly cut in narrow slices although with a reasonable thickness. He says that it is really delicious, rich and luxurious and that it would be lovely with scrambled eggs.
According to the pack the salmon is smoked over cherry and chestnut wood and is dressed with a cherry and kirsch glaze. Certainly, the edges are a deeper colour in the same way, the Waitrose product has a gold edge. It is nice to eat, but whether the cherry juice and the kirsch can be tasted over the smoke and the hint of salt is debatable.
The reality is that most people buying smoked salmon will simply make a choice based on price and look and will be more than happy with their purchase because unlike Mr Sitwell, they won’t be eating different packs at the same time.
Smoked salmon, like most foods, is down to personal choice about the taste. I have found over the years that price or producer is no guarantee of meeting personal expectations. I have had some very expensive smoked wild salmon which I actually found very disappointing. I also found some artisanal smoked product to be equally disappointing. It is really about personal taste.
Labelling: Having been thrown off farms, activist Don Staniford has turned his attention to retailers to investigate whether there are any breaches of labelling regulations. Mr Staniford has visited London retailers Fortnum & Mason and Harrods and accused both of misleading their customers by not displaying the country of origin and whether the fish is farmed or fished. Mr Staniford told the Daily Express that Scottish salmon is a welfare nightmare and should be avoided. What Mr Staniford’s view on fish welfare has to do with retail labelling is unclear.
It should be pointed out that both cases highlighted by Mr Staniford are not all they seem. They are of smoked salmon sides which are sliced to order by the customer and thus does not carry a label. Instead, a sign is placed next to the fish, and it is this sign that did not include all the relevant information. However, unlike normal retail packs, the customer had to interact with a store assistant in order to buy the product and could have asked for more information if the customer required it. The shoppers were not being misled; they were poorly informed.
Of course, Mr Staniford specifically highlighted these top stores because they would be newsworthy. However, clearly, Mr Staniford is not really aware of the extent of poor labelling in the UK because I suspect that most British fishmongers’ stores are equally guilty of such poor labelling by omitting information of whether the fish is farmed or wild caught and where it was farmed or caught. Many fishmongers I visit now seem to have a chalk board on the wall with fish name and priced displayed so avoiding the need to label each species on the counter. This is not just salmon but across all species. Many others just label fish with the common name and price. This is because there is no policing of the legislation because most trading standards departments are short staffed and such labelling breaches are not a priority. After all, visits to any fishmongers’ store involves human interaction and consumers who are interested in the detail can ask the question.
The breaches highlighted by Mr Staniford are generally petty as with a video he posted on social media of a Coop store with a shelf label stating that ‘All our fish is responsibly fished’. The fish stocked above it just happened to be farmed salmon, which is clearly labelled as farmed in Norway. Mr Staniford says this is illegal labelling but there is nothing to indicate that the shelf label relates to the product displayed.
I do not believe that the authorities will be convinced that these alleged breaches are intended to mislead consumers and are nothing but human error. Certainly, they will not be a deterrent for consumers to buy salmon over the Christmas holidays or in fact any other time. After all, origin and production method are not primary reasons why consumers buy salmon or any other fish.
1 in 5: Fish Focus reported that only 1 in 5 people eat the NHS recommended two portions of fish a week in the UK and one in four consumers are eating less fish than two years ago. These are the findings of a survey – Super Seafood: Sustaining people and planet commissioned by the Marine Stewardship Council.
I think that the findings above are about right but after that, I start to question the results of the survey. There is no indication of how the questions were framed, which could influence the responses. This is because the survey found that 55% of respondents said that seeing the MSC ecolabel would make them more likely to buy a product and 53% say that they are prepared to pay more for products that come from a sustainable fishery. Sadly, in all the time, I have watched the market, there has never been a shred of evidence that consumers will pay more for certified products and my observation is that is that if any of the ecolabels were removed from stores overnight, most shoppers wouldn’t even notice.
The MSC report states the main drivers of consumption continue to be safeness, tastes, freshness and health followed by price Twenty one percent of consumers say they are primarily motivated by sustainability credentials when purchasing fish. I am not convinced as most surveys tend to suggest that the main drivers are appearance at point of purchase and price. In fact, 52% of the asked by the MSC said that they would eat more fish if it cost less. Whilst a third said that they would buy more if it was produced in a way that doesn’t harm the oceans with a quarter citing health reasons for increasing consumption and a fifth saying that if there was better availability they would eat more. Yet, one reason why the choice has shrunk is exactly because consumers focused on just a handful of species.
Of course, the survey from the MSC is bound to promote sustainability as being at the heart of consumer concern but the message from the store aisles is very different. Promoting sustainability will never bring about a change in consumer consumption habits. The MSC was launched in 1997, that is approaching thirty years ago. From where I stand, not much has really changed, except in my opinion, stores appear happy to stock ecolabel products to avoid criticism from the environmental lobby, rather than to promote consumer awareness.