Does fish, particularly oil-rich fish, form the ultimate detox diet? Menu planners at Searcys, one of the most established catering companies in the U.K., seem to think so. In an email circulated at the end of last week, the company extolled the virtues of its new Detox Menu, which is available throughout January at the St. Pancras Grand. “We can help you watch your waistline without compromising on flavor with all dishes packed full of healthy, yet tasty ingredients,” it said.
On downloading the very short menu, there is one oil-rich fish starter — grilled sardines with chargrilled lettuce, lemon and thyme dressing — amongst the three on offer, and one oil-rich fish main course — salmon with butterbeans, kale and parmesan — again one of the three dishes on the menu. The remainder of the dishes on offer contained chicken or were vegetarian.
So, marketing executives at Searceys obviously think that people who eat in their restaurants believe that oil-rich fish is healthy. This backs up research carried out by YouGov last year as part of the Fish is the Dish “Feed your mind” omega-3 campaign when 75 percent of respondents knew that omega-3 fats are linked to health benefits such as a healthy heart.
The message about the benefits to human health from consuming the long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids present in fish oil is now recognized by consumers, but it has taken about three decades to get through.
It was a good 30 years ago when SeaFood Business magazine hosted a conference in Seattle at which medical experts from around the world extolled the benefits to human health bestowed by what have simply become known as omega-3s. This was probably the first time that so many renowned professional medical scientists had been brought together to present their research on this topic.
Will it take another 30 years for consumers to get up to speed with the second major finding of the YouGov study? Apparently just 27 percent of U.K. consumers know that they should be eating two portions of fish a week, one of which should be an oil-rich fish like salmon.
Various reasons have been put forward for why the British government recommendation is not being followed, or that people are even aware of it.
Cost is undoubtedly a major factor. At about the time the research was published, an article appeared in the Daily Telegraph stating that eating a healthy diet costs three times as much as one consisting of “junk food.” The newspaper quoted from a University of Cambridge study which found that not only is there such a gap, but that it is also widening.
Researchers examined 100 of the most popular foods defined under government criteria as being healthy or unhealthy. They found that in 2102, 1,000 calories made up from healthy items such as salmon, yogurt and tomatoes cost GBP 7.49 (USD 11.48, EUR 9.57), while the same calories made up from less healthy items cost just GBP 2.50 (USD 3.83, EUR 3.19).
The gap of GBP 4.99 (USD 7.64, EUR 6.37) has widened since 2002 when it was GBP 3.88 (USD 5.94, EUR 4.96).
Dr. John Middleton of the Faculty of Public Health said rising prices of healthy foods were pushing too many families toward unhealthy foods and contributing to a worrying increase in obesity and diabetes.
Salmon was the most expensive protein on the list provided by the Daily Telegraph, but Dr. Martin Jaffa, writing in his reLAKSation newsletter said he “wondered whether this was a truly representative figure.” He therefore looked at the nutritional information on pre-packed salmon on sale in the U.K. and found that the price range was spectacular with salmon from one store costing as much as GBP 13.17 (USD 20.16, EUR 16.86) per 1,000 calories, down to fresh salmon fillets for as little as GBP 4.65 (USD 7.12, EUR 5.95) per 1,000 calories, at another.
So will consumers shop around to find the cheapest salmon or, because it’s perceived to be expensive, buy another protein food instead such as chicken which also features on Searceys detox menu because it’s a “healthy” choice?
According to Jaffa, “the fish and seafood industry have largely forgotten about the consumer” and instead are “pandering to the environmental sector regarding the sustainability message.”
He probably has a point. If the industry spent as much money on trying to persuade the consumer that fish is a tasty as well as healthy option, as it does on ‘proving’ that its fish has been responsibly sourced, we might well see consumers eating more fish meals a week than the recommended two.
