Recirculating ideas

Inote that there is now a sustainability director at SSPO, which I am sure is good news for all concerned - but it makes me feel my age. In 1998 I wrote the business plan for Loch Duart and debated with my two colleagues whether it should be called the Sustainable Salmon Company.The consensus was that it was too much of a mouthful and the market wasn’t really ready for it. Looking back, I have to agree with that conclusion.

Several years later, I was invited to meet some of the leading farmers in Norway to talk about sustainability. After pontificating about the requirement for a public-facing attitude from the industry, I was stunned to hear from one such leader (who shall remain nameless) who said:“We are not hearing any interest from our customers on this subject!”

I managed not to fall over at the ridiculousness of the comment.A lot of his customers were our customers and they were talking about sustainability. Not only that, they were willing to pay more for it. I am glad that attitudes change but I often wonder if it is because we are forced to change. Change is hard, and when it initially brings higher costs it is even harder.

I doubt I am the first to say it but I once said at a conference in

Bangkok that it is counterintuitive to tell farmers that they will see better profits if they increase their costs.

As one good thing is announced, several more depressing ones also hove into view.The advent of genetic engineering in all its manifest forms leaves me cold. Far worse it leaves me seriously scared. Let me define terms:

• Genetic modification involves the physical modification of genes, with the cutting and/or removal of segments of gene sequences and/or adding segments. Compared with gene editing, it is described as an imprecise method.

• Gene editing uses the cell’s own repair system to insert or change a gene sequence.The desired result is often health-related but also often for commercial advantage.

So why does this worry me? This technology omits the one basic check on the development of a species: time. No modern breeding programme would succeed if its investors were told that it will take 100 years to know if it has succeeded. But as we all know, the most successful farmed species were developed over centuries of slow breeding.

The ability to change a gene sequence is a fantastic development but it is unreliable.The problem lies in our understanding of genes. It is a true that a particular sequence of genes does define characteristics, but what is less well understood is the overlap between gene sequences and how one gene sequence affects another. So we cut and change without knowing the precise long-term effects. For human health the benefits may be hugely important, but for species that breed in large numbers and have fairly short lifespans the risks are very large.

I wrote some time ago an article called “You wouldn’t buy a car without a reverse gear”. I stand by it. Let’s make sure that we are keeping the old stock genes in currency so that we can get ourselves out of trouble when this particular ship hits the rocks, as it surely will!

In the news also is the push for recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS). I am a deep sceptic about how this will affect the fish, the investors and the final consumer but time will tell.There are several large fallacies on which projections for growth in RAS are based. One is the idea that somehow the fish delivered will be fresher than those delivered from elsewhere.With current delivery systems around the world this is about as untrue as a statement can be, not least because salmon is not at its best fresh out of the sea and is best left cool for several days.

All of these subjects are about the attempt of our industry to meet the criticisms that we hear every day. Some people think that if they try to meet the howls of a small group of vociferous protestors they will satisfy them, but their very existence is predicated on being heard howling.

Far more importantly, during the last 30 years there have been a number of periods where these people had huge traction and achieved global headlines,This is not one of those times. The industry grew so successfully that it was obvious that the public weren’t that interested.

Salmon is not the cheapest protein on the shelf. Our customers tend to be more middle class and in theory should react to these pressures.Why they don’t could be a subject for a book, but suffice to say that perhaps the critics don’t have the ear of the public after all. To achieve good PR you need to understand the audience you are talking to, but also whether that audience is really listening to anyone

else.