NOVEMBER 2018
EXCLUSIVE Anglers demand:
What's in our bait?
Bait barrage
Continued from page 3
DISCLOSURE
The vast majority (86 per
cent) of respondents believe
that bait manufacturers
should publicly disclose
product ingredients on their
packaging.
Anglers said they would
It would also help to remove
bad practice (such as using
bulking agents like sawdust,
chicken feathers and ash);
prevent corner cutting
(sourcing cheap ingredients
with low nutritional value);
and regulate the plethora
of so-called ‘pop-up’ bait
producers.
INDUSTRY CONTROLS
Legislation and industry
codes of practice apply, for
example, to animal feed
production. Of surveyed
anglers over 89 per cent
believe the bait industry
should also be subjected to
similar controls.
Widespread uncertainty
exists on what bait
producers are currently
required to report by
law however if bait
manufacturers are
reporting what they
need to, to agencies such
as APHA (Animal and
Plant Health Agency),
DEFRA (Department for
Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs), CEFAS (Centre
for Environment, Fisheries
and Aquaculture Science),
then what has it to do with
the angling public?
Well, possibly a lot, as
the vast majority of anglers
taking part in the survey
certainly felt bait producers
need to be at the vanguard
of more responsible
production.
* You can read more from the
complete survey in an exclusive
report on pages 36 to 38.
www.tackletradeworld.com 05
would not want product
ingredients disclosed; these
included to protect ‘secret’
ingredients / recipes, or
prevent attention being
drawn to use of cheap
ingredients and bulking
agents, as this might
cause anglers to start
questioning prices and
shop elsewhere, yet it was
felt important that baits
containing allergens needed
to be clearly labelled, as
transfer from hands to
foodstuffs (eg sandwiches)
could potentially have fatal
results.
BALANCED DIETS
An overwhelming 95 per
cent of surveyed anglers
felt that baits should help
to balance a fi sh’s natural
diet and also benefi t the
fi shery’s wider aquaticlife,
identifying that they
have a responsibility to
choose baits benefi cial to
both fi sh welfare and wider
ecosystems.
This was a central feeling
towards both healthy
fi sheries and a sustainable
future for angling, as
opposed to cheap baits
and ingredients viewed
as potentially being
detrimental in this regard.
Anglers felt that a much
greater understanding was
needed on the aquatic fate
of baits, as well as controls
on what was permitted to
enter watercourses. This
was seen as being benefi cial
to water quality, fi sh health
and the wider environment.
that they are aware of the
inclusion of ‘use by’ dates
and some (mainly imported)
bait packaging displayed
ingredients.
But is this enough? Many
anglers think not, with
some saying that, since
baits typically contained
ingredients found in human
foodstuffs, animal feeds
and pet-foods, where public
reporting was already
required, this should also
be necessary for all fi shing
baits.
This would help address
spurious claims, as well
as help fi sheries control
unwanted bait inputs where
restrictions were in place.
On the other hand there
were some who understood
why bait companies
Feeding time, but is it good for the fish?
feel better informed to
make purchasing decisions
on environmental grounds,
as well as helping fi shery
owners to have an increased
understanding about what
ingredients are entering
waters.
As it stands at the
moment, anglers want
a greater transparency
surrounding this. A general
lack of clarity on what
reporting requirements are
currently placed on bait
producers was evident and
a number of anglers stated
Payloads of manufactured bait. Can fisheries sustain this?
/www.tackletradeworld.com