February 23, 2015 — The public perception of seafood’s fitness to meet health and sustainability goals is turning. The Dietary Guideline Report is a confirmation that what used to be only well known within the industry is becoming commonly accepted fact.
SEAFOODNEWS.COM [The Editor's View] by John Sackton — The US Government has handed the seafood industry a huge opportunity.
The newly released Dietary Advisory Guidelines (see Dietary Guidelines Advisory Report Strongly Urges More Seafood Consumption, Supports Aquaculture in today's stories) have unequivocally called for more seafood consumption to increase American’s health, and they have taken on three controversies that have consistently held back seafood consumption.
For the past twenty years, we can argue that seafood has been the most publicly controversial protein.
There is a whole NGO marine protection industry organized around the idea that fisheries are depleted, and that without radically cutting back on fishing effort, most marine fisheries will disappear. The most famous expression of that was a scientific article by Daniel Pauly, since recanted, that claimed commercial fisheries would be extinct by 2048.
It caused a media sensation, and made eating fish a moral hazard for a large proportion of high income young consumers.
Since then, organizations have tended to claim disaster by conflating fisheries the FAO calls fully exploited with those the FAO calls overexploited. In fact, the percentage of global fisheries overexploited is declining. The percentage of fully exploited fisheries is stable.
The advisory committee report says “wild caught fisheries that have been managed sustainably have remained stable over the past several decades. ” This is exactly the argument we have been making: that strong fishery management strategies can create stable and sustainable fisheries over generations.
A second controversy involves farmed fish vs wild fish. Because wild fisheries, when sustainably managed, approach a range and cannot support higher removals, growth in sustainable seafood must come from aquaculture.
In fact, the aquaculture revolution promises to continue to transform seafood consumption. But there is again a phalanx of NGO critics who claim that aquaculture itself is unsustainable, because it depends on inputs from wild fisheries for feed stocks. So once again, they return to the argument that aquaculture growth is unsustainable, and threatens global wild fisheries.
What has actually happened has been that aquaculture production has doubled while world consumption of fishmeal and oil has remained constant. The reasons are more efficient feeds that have lowered the fish in / fish out ratio to close to 1:1, and the huge growth in production of fishmeal from offcuts and waste from fish processing. In some countries, such as Thailand, this accounts for the majority of their fishmeal.
Another attack on aquaculture has been that aquaculture fish have less DHA and other essential Omega 3’s than wild fish.
The committee says “evidence demonstrated that farm-raised seafood has as much or more EPA and DHA per serving as wild caught. “
The attack on aquaculture fish both because of its production methods, and because it is imported, with campaigns that say such fish is over treated with antibiotics or other drugs, that it has lower health value, and that it contains contaminants like PCB’s, has depressed consumption.
Again, many younger consumers believe that aquaculture fish is unsustainable, and full of drugs and chemicals.
Finally, regarding mercury, a global contaminant in many foods that results from use of coal fired electric plants and volcanic sources, the panel stated unequivocally that the benefits of eating seafood far outweigh the risks from contaminants such as mercury, where potential exposure is far below the limits the FDA considers to risk harmful impact.
The committee said "the benefits of seafood far outweigh the risks of small amounts of contaminants. ”
What is the opportunity.
The Government’s Official Dietary Advisory panel has taken on and debunked the three primary reasons younger, highly educated, and affluent consumers are not eating seafood.
We are in the midst of a dietary revolution in the US, where meat consumption is declining, more people are choosing vegetarian options, and more people are trying to eat healthier foods.
Here is how that has affected Yogurt and Seafood.
In 1990, Yogurt consumption was about 4 pounds per person, or an annual volume of .95 billion pounds. That year seafood consumption was 15 lbs. per capita, or about 3.7 billion pounds annually.
Both Yogurt and Seafood have been identified as part of a healthy low fat diet.
By 2012, Yogurt consumption had increased to 14.4 lbs per capita, or about 4.5 billion pounds. That year, seafood consumption was also 14.4 lbs per capita, or about 4.5 billion pounds.
How did one of these foods show a 250% increase while the other was flat. Both foods are widely identified with a healthy diet and consumed by younger affluent consumers.
I think this disparity partly shows just how seriously seafood consumption has been depressed by the controversies discussed above.
The public perception of seafood’s fitness to meet health and sustainability goals is turning. The Dietary Guideline Report is a confirmation that what used to be only well known within the industry is becoming commonly accepted fact.
But I doubt we will be able to do anything with this opportunity, because it takes a communication and marketing effort far larger than anything done with seafood.
The Seafood Nutrition Partnership has show with pilot projects that educating consumers about health benefits and working with them on diet interventions can permanently increase their seafood consumption.
But they don’t have the resources for a national campaign.
There is a push to fund seafood marketing efforts though a congressional bill that would target S-K funds, and set up regional seafood market councils. But like all national marketing schemes, each region will only promote their own seafood, so you would have campaigns for oysters and shrimp alongside campaigns for scallops and wild salmon.
The real dollars in seafood advertising and awareness come from the largest branded foodservice companies, especially Red Lobster, but also companies like Long John Silver, Rubio’s and others who advertise fish dishes.
There is also advertising on retail products by Gortons, Trident, Pacific, High Liner and others.
But there is no room in all these campaigns for a simple basic message, fully supported and echoed by the Government:
Seafood is sustainable.
All Seafood is good for you.
To be Healthy, Eat More Seafood.
Our industry is too small and fragmented to ever counter the money spent by NGO’s and those fund raising off the ocean crisis, who have a vested interest in not assuring consumers seafood is totally safe and sustainable.
That is why I doubt we can repeat the history of yogurt, despite having a product that fits the same healthy life style and targets the same demographic.
But wouldn’t it be spectacular if we could.
This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.