Scottish farmed salmon was the UK’s top food export last year, ending up in restaurants and on dinner tables all over the world. But also in 2023, the industry trade body Salmon Scotland sought to drop the word “farmed” from its protected geographical indication of “Scottish farmed salmon” after two successive years of falling production.
As well as the name change, Salmon Scotland’s application to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) also sought to ease restrictions on production methods.
The reason Salmon Scotland gave in its application for dropping “farmed” was to protect Scottish producers from competition from “imported, commoditised product, often of lower quality”, despite “Scottish” already being a protected label.
Defra approved this application in April 2024, meaning “farmed” could be dropped from all packaging of food containing Scottish salmon in any form.
But there’s a chance that the changes to production methods outlined in the application could themselves cause quality to suffer – and with it the reputation of Scottish farmed salmon. This could be compounded if consumers, not seeing the word “farmed” on labels, assume they are buying wild-caught salmon and end up disappointed with the product.
Back in 2008, the European Commission had approved the UK government’s application for protecting the name “Scottish farmed salmon”. European regulations recognise the need to improve farmers’ incomes as well as protect consumers with clear information.
Salmon Scotland’s successful application also removed the qualifiers “conventional” and “organic”, with no distinction left between the two. And crucially, dropping the production method – “farmed” as opposed to “wild-caught” – creates ambiguities at a time when the Scottish government is seeking to conserve wild salmon stocks.
In removing several constraints on production methods, it risks harming quality in favour of cheaper production. The requirement of fish farmed in “western Scotland” has been broadened to “Scotland” as a whole. But eastern Scotland, as well as the shallower waters of the North Sea, is not suitable for quality salmon.
Most critically, the requirement ensuring stocks within cages do not exceed a density of 10kg per cubic metre was removed, creating a higher risk of infections and infestations of sea lice.
Interestingly, in 2018, retailer Waitrose had asked the sector to drastically reduce the density of salmon stock in cages to the level of organic stock, given the high salmon mortality rate of 23%.
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency reportedly asked the industry 44 times in five years to reduce the number of fish to reduce salmon-related waste. The waste affects other seabed-based species, and eventually the salmon itself, with sea lice infestation and high mortality.
A requirement to ensure the fish has “no rancidity” is now essentially reduced to an informal smell test.
The 2008 protected geographical indication was intended to guarantee the salmon’s Scottish origin. But given the multinational producers operating in Scotland and the need for large fish of a specific shape, salmon eggs are largely imported.
A Scottish government survey shows that 43.9 million eggs were imported in 2022 and 40.6 million in 2023, usually from Ireland, Iceland and Norway.
These eggs have been bred to create farmed salmon exclusively for size, quite different from wild salmon, risking the wild population when they escape from their cages.
In allowing Salmon Scotland to drop the word “farmed”, Defra’s decision appears to go against the spirit of the EC regulations on protected geographical indication. So, there is a serious risk that what was a premium product will eventually become known as the same commoditised, low-quality product that Salmon Scotland is claiming to fight against.
Such commoditisation – placing more focus on quantity than quality – puts smaller Scottish producers at a disadvantage against global producers operating in Scotland like Norway-based Mowi and Faroe-based Bakkafrost. Domestic producers, unable to benefit from economies of scale, rely on the geographic premium or on the method of production (“organic”, for instance) to carve out their niche in the market. The geographic premium to protect the interests of small farmers and producers is the reason for the geographic indication – large producers can create a premium around their own brand.
A consumer perspective
Many studies show that, while consumers worldwide value Scottish-farmed salmon, they also prize wild salmon over farmed.
A large study across the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain regarding consumers’ willingness to pay found that shoppers were willing to pay less for farmed salmon than the wild-caught variety.
Separately, a French study found that consumers view wild fish as significantly healthier than farmed fish and safer to eat. Another study found that Japanese consumers prefer wild salmon and that farmed salmon may be perceived as less environmentally friendly.
Removing the word “farmed” could confuse global consumers into thinking salmon is wild-caught. Any production-related controversy in the future could create a backlash if consumers believe that dropping the “farmed” production method was deliberately deceptive.
Controversies could stem from the so-called persistent organic pollutants, with a pilot study having found farmed salmon showed consistently higher levels of pollutants than wild-caught salmon. A major source of these pollutants is the fish meal and fish oil in the feed for farmed salmon.
A Canadian study found strong consumer aversion to increased levels of synthetic industrial chemicals called polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which may get into farmed salmon via its feed. Higher density could result in widespread infectious salmon anaemia in the salmon stock, as happened in Chile.
And biological problems have hit the Scottish salmon industry too. The Scottish government’s Fish Health Inspectorate noted salmon mortalities doubling between 2021 and 2022. One research study found mass mortality events of farmed Atlantic salmon are increasing, including in Scotland and Norway.
While Salmon Scotland has complained about attacks from “urban-based activists”, they and Defra should heed economist Adam Smith in seeking maximum profits, not larger quantities, for Scottish producers.
For modestly sized domestic producers, competing globally with a smaller amount of a higher-priced organic or other high-quality salmon genuinely associated with Scotland could be the answer. This might be more profitable than offering a larger quantity of potentially risk-laden – and therefore lower-priced – fish competing globally against a commoditised product.
Salmon Scotland and Defra may want to reconsider and retract their 2024 amendment, including the rebranding, especially given the sector’s importance to the Scottish economy and UK exports.
ManMohan S. Sodhi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
