The news that 
Queens of the Netherlands has launched the first ever seafood product, pangasius and shrimp noodle red curry, to carry both the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) logos, prompted this response from a seafood industry insider: “How do the ASC and MSC [logos] taste in a ready meal? Like parsley and thyme, or rosemary?
“Have we got to the stage where we promote seafood meals on their politically correct ingredients? Not that they are tasty, good to eat, or healthy? I present my compliments to the new kitchen chef, who is a panda.” (The WWF logo is the iconic panda, and the NGO helped to set up both the MSC and ASC.)
Although facetious, this makes a very good point. Does the average consumer rate sustainability and environmental responsibility above taste, perceived value for money, even benefits to health? No, of course not. In fact, most consumers don’t rate sustainability and environmental responsibility at all. And the great majority of consumers don’t know what the MSC and ASC logos even stand for.
Martin Jaffa makes the same point in a recent edition of his reLAKSation newsletter.
“If purchasers of this product are actually bothered, which we doubt, the presence of either or both of these logos is largely irrelevant. The only choice for consumers to make is whether they want to eat pangasius and shrimp noodle red curry or not.
“Its success or failure in the market place will not depend on the presence of these confusing logos. Instead, it is whether it is the right price for what it is and, more importantly, whether it is good to eat.”
Of course, some consumers — usually those who more affluent and middle class — do care passionately about sustainability and presumably it is these consumers the big retailers are trying to attract by stocking species which have been MSC certified.
However, in another edition of reLAKSation, Jaffa draws attention to the fact that despite its commitment to selling only fish that are sustainable, major U.K. supermarket chain Sainsbury’s is still selling mackerel caught in the North East Atlantic despite the withdrawal of MSC certification
“In our eyes,” said Jaffa. “There is a major question mark over whether the mackerel currently available [in Sainsbury’s stores] is sustainable or not.
“The fact that it used to carry the MSC logo means that it was definitely certified as sustainable. The removal of the logo must mean that the MSC is no longer prepared to consider the mackerel as sustainable. If it is not sustainable then it must be now unsustainable and consequently should be removed from the shelves.”
This might be considered as being somewhat pedantic and apparently Jaffa asked “a senior industry figure” as to whether the removal of the MSC logo rendered the fish unsustainable and was told “no, they are just not certified.”
So, does this mean that the logo has no worth at all? Jaffa points out that as mackerel is still being sold in its stores “then Sainsbury’s is clearly saying that it makes little difference whether it is certified as sustainable or not and the fact that they are simply supplying what the consumer wants takes precedence.”
This, of course, is the attitude that would be expected as retailers are in business to make money. What is perhaps surprising is that Sainsbury’s doesn’t appear to have briefed its staff in case some shoppers noticed the logo had been removed and queried this.
When Jaffa asked staff at a Sainsbury’s fish counter why the fresh mackerel on display was no longer labelled as MSC certified. “The answer was that they [the staff] hadn’t realized that it had changed!”
The aims of the MSC — and now also the ASC — should be applauded. But the presence of their logos is certainly not the be-all and end-all to selling seafood as some of the organizations’ officials would have us believe.
Taste and perceived value for money are still the major factors in persuading customers to part with their money.
Queens of the Netherlands has launched the first ever seafood product, pangasius and shrimp noodle red curry, to carry both the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) logos, prompted this response from a seafood industry insider: “How do the ASC and MSC [logos] taste in a ready meal? Like parsley and thyme, or rosemary?“Have we got to the stage where we promote seafood meals on their politically correct ingredients? Not that they are tasty, good to eat, or healthy? I present my compliments to the new kitchen chef, who is a panda.” (The WWF logo is the iconic panda, and the NGO helped to set up both the MSC and ASC.)
Although facetious, this makes a very good point. Does the average consumer rate sustainability and environmental responsibility above taste, perceived value for money, even benefits to health? No, of course not. In fact, most consumers don’t rate sustainability and environmental responsibility at all. And the great majority of consumers don’t know what the MSC and ASC logos even stand for.
Martin Jaffa makes the same point in a recent edition of his reLAKSation newsletter.
“If purchasers of this product are actually bothered, which we doubt, the presence of either or both of these logos is largely irrelevant. The only choice for consumers to make is whether they want to eat pangasius and shrimp noodle red curry or not.
“Its success or failure in the market place will not depend on the presence of these confusing logos. Instead, it is whether it is the right price for what it is and, more importantly, whether it is good to eat.”
Of course, some consumers — usually those who more affluent and middle class — do care passionately about sustainability and presumably it is these consumers the big retailers are trying to attract by stocking species which have been MSC certified.
However, in another edition of reLAKSation, Jaffa draws attention to the fact that despite its commitment to selling only fish that are sustainable, major U.K. supermarket chain Sainsbury’s is still selling mackerel caught in the North East Atlantic despite the withdrawal of MSC certification
“In our eyes,” said Jaffa. “There is a major question mark over whether the mackerel currently available [in Sainsbury’s stores] is sustainable or not.
“The fact that it used to carry the MSC logo means that it was definitely certified as sustainable. The removal of the logo must mean that the MSC is no longer prepared to consider the mackerel as sustainable. If it is not sustainable then it must be now unsustainable and consequently should be removed from the shelves.”
This might be considered as being somewhat pedantic and apparently Jaffa asked “a senior industry figure” as to whether the removal of the MSC logo rendered the fish unsustainable and was told “no, they are just not certified.”
So, does this mean that the logo has no worth at all? Jaffa points out that as mackerel is still being sold in its stores “then Sainsbury’s is clearly saying that it makes little difference whether it is certified as sustainable or not and the fact that they are simply supplying what the consumer wants takes precedence.”
This, of course, is the attitude that would be expected as retailers are in business to make money. What is perhaps surprising is that Sainsbury’s doesn’t appear to have briefed its staff in case some shoppers noticed the logo had been removed and queried this.
When Jaffa asked staff at a Sainsbury’s fish counter why the fresh mackerel on display was no longer labelled as MSC certified. “The answer was that they [the staff] hadn’t realized that it had changed!”
The aims of the MSC — and now also the ASC — should be applauded. But the presence of their logos is certainly not the be-all and end-all to selling seafood as some of the organizations’ officials would have us believe.
Taste and perceived value for money are still the major factors in persuading customers to part with their money.
