Here is part 2 of my radio series on sustainable seafood. A month ago I attended Slow Food Montreal’s 5 à 7 at Pecheries Norref, the largest distributor of seafood in Quebec. The General Director M. Jean-Roch Thiffault spoke about the comapny’s sustainable seafood practices and concerns. At this point in the evening Greenpeace rep Katherine Vezina took over and discussed her organization’s role in promoting sustainable seafood, as well as their cooperation with Norref. The talk turns defensive and confrontational, and the most surprising issue arose – Norref prides itself on its awareness of sustainability issues but M. Thiffault didn’t know that Atlantic salmon were on the OceanWise “red-list” of species “to avoid.” A tour of the warehouse later we see why economics always come first; Norref is making a lot of money and Thiffault admits that they won’t stop selling fish that consumers want. But who is responsible for convincing consumers of what they really want? Government? Industry? Or the consumers themselves?
Missed Part 1? Find it here.
Here’s a transcription of the radio piece:
Amie Watson: “At this point Greenpeace representation Katherine Vezina is invited by Mme. Rollet to present her organization’s work regarding sustainable seafood. She mentions the main “red-listed” fish – cod, salmon, red tuna – as large predators that have been fished too efficiently. She speaks of advantages in technology that have reduced stocks of previously hard-to-find species to a relatively simple process. So Greenpeace is speaking with scientists to find a solution, to discover what they can do help species at risk. Perhaps to encourage people to eat other species than salmon. They don’t want to tell people to not eat any seafood, but instead to change their consummation habits.
“So what we are doing is working with large supermarket chains in Canada. Why supermarket chains? Because more than 60% of seafood is sold in big stores such as Metro. Because of the strategic impass between you the consumer and the producers – the fishermen – the supermarkets have the means of asking questions to the producers: “Can you tell me what kind of fish this is, what fishing method was used to catch it? Can you tell me if this fish comes from a pirate fishery? We haven’t talked about yet today but there are a lot of species that we don’t even know if they come from illegal fisheries but there’s no traceability system. So already there, to eat something that you don’t know if it was stolen or not, it’s not very legal, in my opinion.
So what we’re doing is working with large supermarket chains so they develop seafood policies. The first step that we ask them to take is to get in contact with their providers, to ask them what kind of fish is used.
Greenpeace then works with providers to encourage them to move toward “selective” fisheries, fisheries that will fish cod and not shark or sea turtle. What we also demand is that supermarkets put a sticker on their products. No one can make an informed choice based on the information offered on packaging today, except at a few poissoneries that take the time to do it. “
This stands in opposition to what M. Thiffault of Norref spoke about earlier in the evening. If consumers are responsible for influencing industry, but aren’t provided with enough information to even know there’s a problem, why would they act to change anything? For example, according to Vezina, canned tuna is confusing because provenance and type of tuna is not always indicated.
“Sometimes cans of are marked as “pale tuna” that includes different kinds and make no reference to the scientific names of the species, so we don’t know where the fish came from. We don’t know if it’s a fishery in danger or a pirate fishery. So you’re not in a situation to make a good choice.
Greenpeace specifically wants supermarket stickers to indicate fishing zones, fishing methods.” Vezina states that the supermarket chains have been responsive and for now she’d give them 5 out of 10, because they’re moving in the right direction. She even states that she feels a little put on the defensive by M. Thiffault, but assures him that she is optimistic about Norref’s initiative.
M. Thiffault explains that this sticker system is very complicated and will take time to get in place. Every step – from the fisherman who catches the fish, to the processing plant to the trucker or method of transport needs to be indicated, and this entire process happens to quickly that sheets of paper indicating dates and fishing methods aren’t functional. He says that the industry is in the process of changing, but reiterates that it won’t happen overnight. He also mentions the economic implications – all that labeling and documenting is expensive.
Vezina later discusses Greenpeace’s surprising view of Oceanwise, an organization that is generally thought of as one of the most respected sustainable seafood organizations, offering lists of fish to be avoided, labeled “red”, fish considered sustainable, labeled “green”, and fish somewhere in the middle, labeled “yellow”.
“Oceanwise’s labeling system is useful for restaurants but…We agree with Oceanwise about species that are on the “red list”, but we don’t feel good about species that are on the “yellow list” because species that are on the yellow list can easily find themselves on the red list….So what we at Greenpeace recommend, I can’t speak for Oceanwise, is to go with species that are lower in the food chain. So leave the big predators alone for awhile and go with sardines, swordfish, mussels. And if you really can’t give up the bigger species you can at least go with vegetarian species – those that don’t eat other species. It’s best to diversify your protein sources.”
The next issue discussed is how to choose as a consumer. Since fish can change categories (yellow to red, or yellow to green) so easily, how is a consumer, overwhelmed with information, expected to make an informed decision? Vezina answers by agreeing that this is a huge issue and continues to critique Oceanwise’s standards by explaining that another problem with the green is that if everyone only buys, for example, black cod, the species will be put under an industrial pressure that will lead to its population decline, so there isn’t a great solution right now.So what she recommends is for consumers to go to their supermarkets with their red-list in hand, to encourage their supermarkets to inform themselves about the politics of seafood, and to ask questions of your fishmonger. We are moving in the right direction, she re-iterates.
M. Thiffault interjects to ask a question: “The salmon is on the red-list. Why?”
His question is left with stunned silence from the audience. Vezina replies that fish farms have a lot of chemicals because the fish get sick. And the problem with fish farms is that they’re often in the sea and they’re not covered. So the fish that are raised in this type of aquaculture, if there’s a storm the caged fish can escape and infect wild fish. There are many cases of sickness with farm-raised salmon. They pose a risk.
Vezina explains that Greenpeace is currently recommending land-based salmon farming operations as a better solution. She also finishes her part of the discussion by saying that it’s the responsibility of the government of Canada to create laws that are clear regarding sustainable seafood, a message that shifts the responsibility again away from consumers, and even from industry, into the hands of government.
So why aren’t Canadians eating more local fish anyway? Wouldn’t these be easier to track in such a well-managed fishery, according to M. Thiffault? Eating local may not be the best idea, however. Take, for example, farm-raised rainbow trout.
“Farm-raised rainbow trout are some of the most highly-polluting fish in Quebec. Because in fish farms in Quebec…We’re not bad. We started about 12 fish farming operations in Quebec about 5 or 6 years ago that we financed. Not in Gaspé, because fish farming in Quebec isn’t possible.
This is where things started getting a little confusing. M. Thiffault first seemed to say Quebec was good at farming fish, and then switched to say that we don’t farm fish. And he didn’t explain what was so bad about rainbow trout farms. He continues to explain that fish farming is risky and getting the money to start one is not economically an option for most entrepreneurs. It costs $11 or $12 million dollars to produce fish that won’t be ready for sale for a long period of time. There’s also the issue of the salinization and temperature of the water, which would need to be kept at certain levels, and ice getting in the way of the fish cages for farms. To set up land-based systems the costs increase, so the sale price of the fish produced would also increase. M. Thiffault argues that consumers would not be willing to pay an extra $3 a pound for fish farmed this way. But what he doesn’t take into account is that consumers willingly pay an extra for organic meats, vegetables, and other fine food products.
According to M. Thiffault the only place to make money is with the seawolf because they’re happy at -2 degree Celcius temperatures. Other fish need technological help to inject them with a kind of organic anti-freeze. But when was the last time you saw those for sale at your grocery store?
M. Thiffault and Mme Vezina both agree that the amount of fish that’s caught or farmed just feed other types of animals, and other, more desired fish is shocking. 21% of all fish caught is turned into feed. Vezina explains that all the containers of cocktail shrimp purchased are farmed and those shrimp are fed with other fish.
“you all eat catfish?” Ask M. Thiffault. No is the main reply from event attendees, but M. Thiffault continues that in Asia there are channel catfish farmed without any thought to the amount of pollution going into the waters. They freeze the fish and they send them here to Quebec and Canada.
At this point the attendees had some tough questions for M. Thiffault. When he insisted that consumers wouldn’t pay an extra dollar for better-raised catfish, attendees questioned the pricing of fish. He said it’s not up to Norref since they’re sold now. They don’t decide retail prices. If a provider wanted to raise their prices, the supermarket chain that brings them millions of dollars in revenue could decide to go to a competitor. So IGA and Metro could take their business elsewhere, where catfish costs a dollar less per pound. Removing shark from their sales to IGA was easy because there just wasn’t a demand for it. It looks great on paper that IGa won’t sell shark anymore, but it was a rather painless change for them financially.
Vezina then directly asks M. Thiffault why the entire system of labeling fish (where, how, by whom was it fished) hasn’t already been put in place. “How have these mechanizations nbeen implemented already? Why are we still having to hold evenings like this one to discuss it?”
“Because the industry hasn’t demanded them.”
“Why hasn’t the industry demanded them?”
“The person with power is the consumer. You’ve known it at Greenpeace for a long time. Those that pay have the power. If those that pay decide to not buy salmon, and they decide to buy catfish instead, well I’ll sell catfish.”
“But no the people with power is the government to impose on everyone a traceability system. “
“but the second the government says they’re implanting a traceability system, well they have to do it step by step too. They’ll break those who work in this industry. So that tomorrow morning if this starts it’s always step by step.”
“In New Brunswick they fish anything. But when they sell it for $4.99. You know they buy it for $4.99. It’s awful. We know. They buy it at $4.99. The person with power is the consumer. “
“But the consumer needs to know how to choose.”
“I don’t think it’s the consumer who has the power. I really don’t have that impression. I don’t understand why for the past few years it’s catfish, all these names of fish that are everywhere now…”
“Sir, a yogurt is a yogurt. There are 45 different kinds. If you eat them all you’ll be sick.” (Laughter).
“When industry comes and tells us, okay, and they offer calendars and fish recipes, and public ads about which fish, which is popular and all, then the consumer says, “Oh yes, it’s true. Catfish is good. What’s catfish?” they don’t even know what catfish is. It’s the recipe they want. It’s not necessarily the consumer that decides what they want to eat, but it’s industry that says, “We have catfish from Thailand that we’re selling for cheap. We’ll sell it to you. And now it’s fashionable, like what you see on TV with mahi-mahi.”
“I understand what you’re saying but…”
“No, what I’m saying is…”
“It’s the consumer.”
“It’s not the consumer. It’s industry.”
Thaiffault: “No, no, I don’t think so.”
“When I’m deciding what to buy, the $4.99 or the $8.99, okay, the lobster that’s at $4.99 tastes like nothing.”
At this point a few voices are heard supporting local for taste reasons, while M. Thiffault assures the crowd that the $.499 and $.8.99 come from the same place and could taste the same. “It depends on how the fish are caught, it depends…We can talk about brown bullhead catfish, mackerel, other fish coming out of Quebec, we can talk about it until tomorrow morning, but people won’t eat them. They did campaigns. They invested fortunes in campaigns for mackerel, but people don’t eat it. Just a second…If the campaign to get consumers to eat catfish worked, and convinced consumers to eat it, why didn’t the campaign work for the mackerel?”
“The taste? The texture?”
“They didn’t like that.”
At this point many voices are heard, some arguing that the campaign needs to start in restaurants, and M. thiffault continuing that it’s necessary to give the power to the consumer.”
We are now directed into the warehouse freezer part of Norref to take a tour of their facilities. The temperature of the first room we entered was set to -20 degrees Celcius. Fortunately, we didn’t stay long.
“So this is our freezer. It’s set to -20 which allows us to preserve the fish for a longer period of time. We don’t want to and we try not to but…So here’s how nice I am, we can leave now.
The next room we moved into was the cool container where temperatures stay between 0 and 4 degrees Celcius for better conservation of products. Just behind you you’ll find our exotic fish, so just look. You can’t see everything because we can’t take things out for you since we keep them in ice to preserve freshness as long as possible.
Here’s the cutting station. So if there’s a customer that orders a specific cut, a filet, we do it. It’s a service we offer to customers. Tuna is also cut here. Look at the racks to see the tuna.”
In 3 giant multi-tiered metal racks lay approximately 20 skinned and cleaned tuna fish not yet cut into steaks. In terms of monetary value, we were looking at thousands of dollars worth of fish.
“They’re classified into three categories. Sushi #1 and then #2 – sushi that’s a high enough grade to eat raw. #1 can be eaten raw with the suggestion to sear at least the exterior. #2 is really only called that because of the gray colour. It’s not that it’s not fresh, just that the fish is a little older so the flesh is a little more brown, a little less attractive, but just as fresh.”
“It’s sure that all the governmental warnings such as Health Canada advise you to cook the tuna, but you can eat it raw.”
In a room full of exotic fish from all ends of the world – from Iceland to Australia – I had to ask about local products. “Do you have Nordic shrimp?” “Yes.” “Is there a big enough supply to sell them in all the Sobeys, in all your grocery stores?”
“Yes.”
“It’s beautiful. The fish is beautiful.”
Our next stop was the “sub-zero” room. “It’s between -1 and 0 at all times. The products that are here are for the most part already filleted. So they arrive from the providers in boxes as they are. We don’t touch them except in teams to verify the quality of the products.”
Then into the lobster room where three elevated pools held cages of still living lobster in constantly flowing water. The pools can hold up to 10,000 pounds of lobster each at the same time. It’s the warmest room because lobsters can’t live in temperatures between 0 and 4, so we keep the room between 4 and 6 degrees to respect the life of the lobsters as well as the life of the oysters. The oysters are kept in the same room because this is most humid room, so it keeps them alive the longest amount of time possible.
This concludes the warehouse tour and removing our aprons, gloves and hairnets, we’re invited nxt door to Odessa Seafood to sample some sustainable seafood appetizers – oysters that were shucked an hour ago to be made ready for the crowd, mussels steamed at least 45 minutes ago and drying in their shells since the event is running late, mackerel sashimi (the highlight of the night), farmed Arctic char on stale crostini that tastes like nothing at all, and breaded and deep-fried farmed tilapia with a curry sauce that can almost save it from being called flavourless, textured protein, all served with cheap Australian wine full of all the chemicals that one would think such environmentally conscious consumers would want to avoid.
The event at Norref was eye opening, and more than a little startling. For all the good they do and can do, even they are not fully informed about environmental issues. But that’s why it’s good to see them open to events such as these, where representatives of Greenpeace and other organizations working in sustainable seafood are invited into their establishment and given the opportunity to make their voices heard. While M. Thiffault does not seem optimistic about lowering the percentage of fish and seafood imported to Quebec – 92% of the total purchased amount is imported – local seafood is available to consumers, if you know where to look and what questions to ask.
Leave a Reply