Toward an Improved Seafood Nomenclature System
ROY E. MARTIN, WILLARD H. DOYLE, and JAMES R. BROOKER
Introduction variety ofproducts can be made from the failure. recovered meat (Martin, 1972, 1974, The seafood industry produces a more The Complexity Problem 1976,1980,1981; Federal Register, 1975; bewildering array of species and prod Historically, names have been given USDC, 1975). This is one ofthe areas of ucts than any other food industry, with to certain fish through centuries-old greatest potential expansion for fishery new species and products finding their biological or local populace identifica products. way into the marketplace at an ever tion procedures (Leudtke, 1973). Names The marketplace for food products has increasing rate (Fig. 1). such as ratfish, hoki, croaker, and whip changed drastically in the past few de The nomenclature of other groups of tail were attributed to certain species cades. Based on improved processing animals that provide muscle protein are with no regard for consumer appeal or capabilities, there has been tremendous simple, because they involve fewer the edibility characteristics of the fish growth in the number of processed food species (Fig. 2). However, food fish in (Goode, l884). Reliance on this type of products in the marketplace, with sea the United States alone encompass some identification and its transfer to products food products representing about 10 per 500 different species and worldwide, which contain these species, has been cent of the total. more than 1,000 species have been mar the practice in considering "common or Methods for marketing food products keted, each one with its own indi usual name" designations in the labeling have also changed. The food industry vidual "common or usual" name (Fig. regulations of the U.S. Food and Drug has moved from the cracker-barrel age to 2). Not infrequently, the same species Administration (USDI, 1954). a point where almost all products are will have different names depending Until recently, fishermen have had to processed, packaged, and highly adver upon its geographic location. For sort by hand the most desirable fish from tised. The marketplace has evolved from example, the species Morone saxatilis the others netted in the same catch. Ad "mom and pop" grocery stores to chain is called "rockfish" in Maryland, and vances in on-board processing tech stores, supermarkets, hypermarkets, "striped bass" in California (Cohen, niques in removing the edible meat have and shopping malls. Every new product 1969). increased the value of many species that must fight for recognition. Effective The Regulatory Problem were formerly discarded because of product names and product identifica small size and bones. At present, edible tion are a necessity, with the nomencla The U.S. Food and Drug Administra meat can be removed from a mixed catch ture of such products playing a signifi tion (FDA) has the authority to interpret directly without hand sorting. A wide cant role in their commercial success or and enforce food labeling provisions which are contained in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDA, 1979). These provisions cover seafood, but no specific section applies to seafood products. As a Marketability of these species is difficult ABSTRACT- The world demandfor pro result, legislation, procedures, interpre lein is conlinually increasing, and seafoods, because many ofthem have names that are which are high in prolein as well as other unfamiliar and inappropriate for advertis tations, and advisory opinions of the essential nUlrients, are being sought in ing purposes. For this reason, a comprehen agency applied to seafood are the same greater numbers. However, many tradi sive project is being developed to implement tional species are in short supply, and new a new system for establishing market names for fishery products based on their edibility Roy E. Martin is with the National Fisheries fishery management plans must be im Institute, Washington, DC 20036, Willard H. plemented to preserve and rebuild the re characteristics. This system will have a Doyle is with the Brand Group, Chicago, IL maining resource for future use. But this major posilive impact on fishery products in 60610, and James R. Brooker is with the Na shortage also helped to expand the market the marketplace, with benefits to consum tional Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, for underutilized ~pecies. ers, the industry, and regulatory agencies. DC 20235.
July-August-September 1983, 45(7-8-9) 1 Fishery Product Inventory I Plant Animal Based Based
Flesh By-products Industrial products products
_I
( Fresh ) I Frozen Canned Cured I(Dried ~ /~ /~
Made from Drawn fish Dressed fish Fish in sour cream Marinated fish Klipfish whole fish Dressed and Fish steaks Fish chunks Spiced fish Freeze-dried boned fish Breaded fish Fish in soybean oil Silver-cured shellfish Whole fish sticks Rolled fillets of fish Fish flour Butterfly fillets Fish fillets fish with capers Pickled fish Freeze-dried Fish steaks Kippered snacks Smoked fish fish Live shellfish Deveined shellfish
Made from Fish sticks fillet blocks Frozen and breaded portions
Made from Fish sticks Fish balls in Shellfish minced flesh Fish portions bouillon sausage Shrimpos Salted fish cakes Fish wieners Shellfish Fish pies with Fish ham sticks mixed potatoes Fish pudding Fish dumplings Shellfish cakes
Figure I.-Product versatility.
2 Marine Fisheries RevieH· Commercial Meat• Species
..~J.~,Beel Lamb
Goose ~D"Ck
Seafood Species: More than 1,000 worldwide
Figure 2.-Pictorial complex of the basic problem.
July-A ugust-September J983, 45(7-8-9) 3 as those for most other food products Common or Usual nothing to either the consumer, proces (Federal Register, 1975). However, due Name ofthe Food sor, or food scientist. Their use of com to the large number of species, the forms parative anatomy has been as a reference of presentation, and formulated prod This phrase is part of the Food, Drug, in the biological identification of ucts, industry development and market and Cosmetic Act. Its intention is to species, and that designation is ulti ing efforts are frustrated in the absence relate to names familiar to consumers. mately used in an attempt to find a com of clear, consistent labeling and com As interpreted relative to seafood prod mon name from a particular part of the pliance guidelines. ucts labeling, it is frequently and incor historical zoological literature. The intent of the Act is to ensure that rectly confused with the common name Lists labels carry sufficient and accurate in of a fish or shellfish. The common name formation to enable consumers to shop of a fish is not the same as the "common The National Marine Fisheries Ser intelligently, and to protect consumers or usual name of a food." For most sea vice (NMFS) has, since the mid-1930's, from economic deception (U.S. Su food products there is no common or published a glossary of common species preme Court, 1924). The FDA has, as a usual name. names for finfish, crustaceans, and mol result of past court decisions, formed lusks (USDC, 1978a). The American Traditional names some general guidelines, though not Fisheries Society (AFS) has also pub clearly defined, as to which factors are The common name of a finfish or lished lists of fishes along with their important in considering the common or shellfish is the name used in day to day common names (Robins et aI., 1980), usual name of a product. Significant conversation by fishermen, consumers, and the Organization for Economic among these factors are: "(1) The name sportsmen, etc. Some fish have as many Cooperation and Development (OECD) should have traditional usage, that is, it as 50 common names from almost as has an excellent multilingual dictionary should be customary, prevailing, uni many different locations (Fig. 3). Many of fish and fish products (OECD, 1968). versal, and popular; (2) a strongly estab popular commercial fish have several FAO is also generating lists of names of Iished name cannot be changed and has a common names, and this creates much fishes for the various fishing areas of the 'proven right' over a proposed new one of the confusion in the marketplace world. It is important to note here that (a name is considered to be strongly es (Schoning' ). In most cases, common none of these, and other independent tablished if it has gained general accep names provide little or no useful infor lists, have received official recognition tance through 'long usage'); (3) when an mation to consumers; in others, unat by the FDA, relative to use in labeling established name exists, a new name tractive names (i .e., ratfish, wolffish, foods. However, the FDA does consult should not be such that it gives the man etc.) prevent marketing of an otherwise the AFS list from time to time when ufacturer an unfair competitive advan desirable species. questions arise regarding the labeling of tage or upsets a well established balance Some states, such as California, Ore some species. of competition in the marketplace; (4) gon, and Washington have adopted, Nomenclature problems relate to a the name should take into account cul through their state legislatures, names wide variety of labeling and regulatory tural and aesthetic incl inations of the for marketing certain species of fish issues that have been a continuing im American public, as well as consider common to their coastline for intrastate pediment to the seafood industry for ations of health, value, and qual ity; and use (CDFG, 1974). These names are quite some time, and present significant (5) the name should not create confusion not recognized outside California, and obstacles to future fisheries development in the marketplace." present FDA regulations allege that (Federal Register, 1973; USDC, 1979b; Presently, common names for fish products so labeled would be deemed Jernudd and Thuan, 1980). Without species contain little or no useful infor misbranded if marketed outside of Cali satisfactory solutions, confusing mation for the consumer. They are used fornia. However, Canada has approved nomenclature impedes workable com in reference to the species in a product, some market designations of West Coast munications and understanding, thereby not the product itself. Consequently, the species which are similar to those foiling effective marketing efforts 2 consumer knows very little about the approve::! by the state of Cal ifornia (Brooker )• edibility or physiological characteristics (Campbell, 1979). The actual number of fishery products of the product and the large variety of available is well beyond the grasp of the Scientific names seafoods available to them. They con average consumer. No other food cate fine their purchases to a few famil iar Scientific names are assigned by gory involves such a diversity of product items, burdened by many negative mis means of systemat ic zoology, and cannot variations dealing with nomenclature. conceptions that their confusion has be used for market identification since The problem of naming products for created. their Latinized versions (International The basic concepts used in making Congress of Zoology, 1964) convey seafood nomenclature decisions are con 'Brooker. J. R. 1977. Memo of meeting with fused and unclear (FDA, 1970). Some of FDA officials to consider a name change from 'Schoning, R. W 1974 National Marine Pacific Hake to Pacific Whiting. U.S. Dep. these which have been particularly Fisheries Service, NOAA. Washington. D.C. Com mer. , NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., troublesome are outlined below. Pers. commun Wash .• D.C.
4 Marine Fisheries Review Scientific Name Common Name
Zoological family Genus and species
YELLOW PERCH RIVER PERCH AMERICAN PERCH RINGED PERCH PERCH Perches Perca flavescens RACCOON PERCH Stizostedion vitreum vitreum RED PERCH Stizostedion vitreum g/aucum STRIPED PERCH PIKE PERCH Scorpion fishes Sebastes marinus WALLEYED PIKE Sebastes a/utus PERCH PIKE BLUE PIKE HARD PIKE OCEAN PERCH ~ REDFISH PAC IFIC OCEAN PERCH
Temp. Bass Morone americana WHITE PERCH
Surfperches Hyperprosopon argenteus WALLEYE SURFPERCH Brachyistius frenatus KELP PERCH Cymatogaster aggregata SHINER PERCH Cymatogaster aggregatus VIVIPAROUS PERCH Embiotoca jacksoni SPARADA PERCH Micrometrus aurora BLACK PERCH Micrometrus minimus REEF PERCH Rhacochi/us vacca DWARF PERCH Hystercapus traski PILE PERCH TULE PERCH
Drum Ap/odinotus grunniens FRESHWATER DRUM Bairdiella chrysura GRAY PERCH SILVER PERCH
Sea bass Oip/ectrum formosum SAND PERCH Oip/ectrum bivittatum ~ YELLOWTAI L PERCH DWARF SAND PERCH
SACRAMENTO PERCH Sunfish Archop/ites interruptus WHITE CRAPPIE Proximis annu/aris ::;2§ BRIDGE PERCH SPECKLED PERCH Sea chub Hermosilla azurea •• ZEBRA PERCH Trout perch Percopsis omiscomaycus •• TROUT PERCH Cichlid Chich/asoma cyanoguttatum • • RIO GRANDE PERCH Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus •• PI RATE PERCH Wrasses Tautogo/abrus adspersus CUNNER ~ BLUE PERCH
Figure 3.-Confusion between scientific and common names.
JU/y-Augu51-Seplember 1983.45(7-8-9) 5 both regulators and the industry be or product will be known for labeling flavor, color, odor, boniness, texture, comes exceedingly difficult and confus purposes. This concept has not yet ac and moistness), but no broad framework ing considering the size of the system to quired full recognition under present was available from which to perceive be managed and understood. This com labeling laws. similarities among species. An plexity makes it extremely difficult to Within our present nomenclature ma exploratory study found that the con market new fishery resources and prod trix, we have one or more of the follow sumer is unable and unwilling to ucts effectively and inhibits domestic ing problems: I) Too many terms memorize "common names" beyond a development as well as world trade in more than one term for a particular pur small number of species, and focus seafood products. Based on improved pose, 2) not enough terms-an essential group research reinforced these findings processing techniques and increased ac compor.ent which has not been given (USDC,1974c). cess to resources, there is significant po appropriate terminology, 3) unfamiliar This primary search uncovered what tential for expanding seafood industry terms--the same term used for different are now designated as "Comparative markets and per capita seafood con purposes, 4) misleading terms-causes Edibility Factors" (USDC, 1974d). It sumption. Without a logically and prop attention to be diverted in the wrong will generally be recognized that more erly developed nomenclature system for direction, and 5) unattractive terms than one biological species of fish offer seafoods, the benefits of increased land aesthetically unpleasant in context of similar characteristics. Various proper ings and consumption cannot reach their food products. ties taken together comprise a grouping full potential. There is a Iimit to the number of and species commercially under Interpreting the Act has resulted in names the consumer can assimilate. It is developed could fall into groups that a multitude of intricate problems for necessary to reduce the number of com exhibit similar natural and physical both the seafood industry and the FDA mon names if we are going to try and characteristics ("comparative edibility" (Schnably3). Traditionally, nomencla bring a greater number of underutilized rather than "comparative anatomy"). ture problems have been handled on a species into the protei n and food needs Figure 4 represents an illustration of that case-by-case basis and decisions are of the world. This could be ac point. "Semantic noise" has to be slow in promulgation (Anonymous, complished if similar food fish could be simplified because as common names 1947, 1979a; Federal Register, 1968, legally identified with a group name for have accumulated over the years, so 1970, 1979a,b; Farrell, 1972; Brooker', marketing and labeling purposes. have words and phrases which describe footnote 2). It has become clear that a "Nomenclature" is defined in "Web their product forms and modifiers. case-by-case approach offers no solution ster's Third New International Diction An identification system is based on to the problem. A more comprehensive ary" as: "A system or a set of names or sorting different species (i .e., cod and approach is necessary. designations used in a particular sci flounder) into several groups by using From the sources identified abuve, the ence, discipline, or art and formally chosen base criteria (characteristics). It seafood industry must create a unique adopted or sanctioned by the usage of its is a different kind of scheme with dif nomenclature system that can be effec practitioners" (Gove, 1969:1534). ferent objectives than other sorting/ tive in marketing seafood products while This definition includes three impor labeling programs such as food grading. not violating the requirements of the tant principles: I) The need for an or Grading programs are more concerned Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In keep ganized, comprehensi ve system of with classification based on quality at ing its product development and market names; 2) the development of a nomen tributes rather than edibility characteris ing efforts consistent with consumer clature system for the convenience of its tics. Product identification is the most interests and the law, the industry is fre users; and 3) the formal adoption of such basic labeling function because it tells quently faced with resolving nomencla a system. The seafood industry, food you the "what" of your intended pur ture conflicts and finds its efforts frus regulators, and consumers constitute a chase. Design of an identification sys trated in the absence of clear guidelines body of practitioners who need their tem is made difficult by the need to or standards appropriate to the com own nomenclature system. Since an ef confine information on the label to the plexities of fishery nomenclature. An fective system does not currently exist, minimum necessary to do an effective objective in resolving this problem one must be constructed. job of conununicating the identity of would be to reduce the number of com The first task in building a model the product to the consumer. mon names so that each seafood species nomenclature system was to delineate A three-tier model was developed for has only one market name. A "market that information which is essential for testing. Fishery products fall into three name" refers to the name by which a fish accurately identifying fishery products. broad groups: I) Those which require Various kinds of information which are identification of an individual fish, 2) necessary for product identification can those which require identification of a be grouped into three broad categories similar group of fish, and 3) those which 'Schnably, J. R. 1972. Bureau of Foods, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Washington. for convenience: I) Species, 2) product require identification of dissimilar or D.C. Pers. commun. forms, and 3) product modifications. mixed group of fish (Fig. 5). 'Brooker, J. R. 1975. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Washington, D.C. Pers. com When distinctions are made among fish, Current identification is a single tier mun., 22 Dec. important characteristics emerge (i .e., system, evolved around the traditional
6 Marine Fisheries Review A ~ 0":" .~O; ~ Po . <0 <0 <0 ~ U ('-!u ~<) tJo (VO 100 ('-lo (\10 Cooking-bake rJo fJv tJo tJv rv tJo "';0 rJO tJO NO (VO Cooking-boil/steam ~O tJ0 ~O fJO tJo tJo rJo tol° Figure 4.-Fish factor matrix-a basis for sorting. July-Augu5t-September /983. 45(7-8-9) 7 Mixed Group MSP-Mixed Species Products • Mixed Finfish • Mixed Shellfish Products based on several - • Mixed Finfish species with dissimilar and Shellfish edibility characteristics. Typical Product Identity = Finfish Similar Group SSP-Similar Species Products Edibility Groups Fish • Edibility Group A Products based on several Component • Edibility Group B species with similar of • Edibility Group C edibility characteristics Product • E::dibility Group 0 Typical Product Identity = Sole One Species Species 1 ISP-Individual Species Products Species 2 Products based on a single species. Species 3 Species 4 Typical Product Identity = Lemon Sole Figure 5.-Three-tier identity framework based on the mix of product and edibility characteristics. common name ofa single fish approach. more than one group (dissimilar) and be Tier I level and relatively unimportant at Under the experimental model, Tier I identified by an appropriate generic the Tier III level. would include products made from one term. The number of generic terms An added economic benefit to the in fish or one species, a pattern which would, ofnecessity, be kept small. Other dustry became apparent early in the closely resembles that of the existing regulatory requirements would be met study since packaging inventory re common name approach. With this by including in the label ingredient in quirements would be reduced and model, precise identification of indi formation about the mixture if deter brought into better control under this vidual fish is possible. mined to be necessary. new scheme. The nature of the seafood Tier II would identify products which Edible differences among species industry often presents itself with species contain meat from fish within a similar tend to average out and become less im of fish that temporarily become unavail group. Fish within this group are ba portant when going from the Tier I to the able because of bad weather at sea, sically similar in sensory properties. Tier III level. Differences among indi foreign upheavals, reduced fishing Each separate group would have a dif vidual species are most important at the quotas, and unavoidable environmental ferent name and the total number of accidents. Using a grouping concept groups would be limited to 20 or 25 would eliminate the need for a multitude 'Britt, S. ~1. 1'175. School of Marketing, (Britt'). Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill. Pers. of single species labels and packages Tier III products would contain fish of commun. that now exist under present common or 8 Marine Fisheries Review usual name regulations. Product forms and modifiers were Product Product also considered in the initial phase of Identification Identification study since their terminology related to a Format Components particular class of information about fishery products (Fig. 6). Product iden tification can be related to a combination Mixed group ofelements from three structured groups 1 Finfish of nomenclature: Species, product - Fish forms, and their modifiers (Fig. 6). We Similar group can then begin to align common names I Sale with properties ofthe fish which relate to their food qualities. One species The matrix of this system is flexible 1 Lemon sale enough to encompass every type and variation offishery product while simple enough to be learned and used easily and quickly. We view the results of this re Fish - Denved from search in the following forms. natural form 1 Steak A. Benefits for Consumers: Form Form Constructed I. Makes shopping for seafood spe form cies and products easier. Modifier - 1 Sticks 2. Provides useful information. 3. Chances of satisfaction with a pur chase are increased. 4. Opens up many more choices and Preservallon al ternatives. 5. Simplifies understanding of pre Frozen paratory methods. Additional 6. Implementation of a seafood iden - Modifier ingredients tification system will provide con fBatter-dipped sumers with a system that will significantly increase the use of aquatic species as a primary source of food. Figure 6.-Product identification components. B. Benefits for Industry: I. Enables industry to provide alter native species, when necessary, which reduces pressure on stocks image for the industry. vides a basis for improvement in of familiar fish. 7. Enables the seafood industry to key aspects of legislation/reg 2. Simplifies quality control, import compete more effectively with ulations. and export specifications, and other food industries for consumer 3. Provides a model for product iden compliance with government dollars. tification in other categories. regulations. 8. Problems are eased for retailers 3. Reduces regulatory restrictions who can provide better informa Each section of the identification sys and improves relations with those tion to shoppers, for stock clerks, tem will have a distinct series of agencies. and for buyers and brokers in or nomenclature associated with it. For 4. Simplifies the introduction and dering and shipping. example, a set of "market names" will marketing of new species and be developed to identify "individual products. C. Benefits for Regulatory Agencies: species" of fish. Each element of 5. Reduces inconsistencies and con I. Having a comprehensive system nomenclature will have to be clearly de fusion in industry communica and guidelines simplifies the reg fined and guidelines provided to stan tions and labeling; and saves time ulatory process. dardize its use. Clear definition and con and costs. 2. Helps clarify labeling issues that sistency in application will resolve many 6. Helps enhance a positive public are currently confused and pro- of the problems which currently exist. July-August-September /983, 45(7-8-9) 9 21.ctora Color 01 cooked meat Consistency 01 cooked meat 3 r.tinga lor each = 9 groups ollish I Finfish I rlrimeat Ailmeat ~meat Lemon sale Witch flounder Summer Atlantic Buffalo fish Butterflsh Coho salmon Hickory shad Dover sale Lake herring flounder halibut Carp SkipJack Maine sardine English sale White perch Sea trout Rainbow Turbot luna (weakfish) trout Figure 7.·-Color and texture factor complex. would find itself on the top of the hold 1) Developing a basic set of princi 1. Are bones a problem? after the boats had been out 10 days ples for product identification. () Yes cod, haddock or pollock. Since menus 2) Constructing and evaluating a () Sometimes (Depends on product use) () No were printed a day in advance, "scrod" model system. 2. Is the fish dillicultto bone? 3) Designating a format for present () Very was coined to make sure the very best () Somewhat from the latest catch was served. ing names in an organized manner. () Not very 3. Are the bones edible alter cooking? NMFS, in its role ofproviding techni 4) Preparing procedural and imple () Yes cal and marketing assistance to the menting plans to make a system opera () Depends on process () No fishery industry and conducting con tional. 4. How many bones are present? sumer education programs, proposed to () Few () Medium organize and coordinate an effort to A feasibility study was conducted by () Many 6 clarify existing marketing nomenclature the Brand Group, Inc. , a consulting or 5. How large are the bones? () Very small and provide improved procedures for es ganization specializing in planning, de () Small () Medium small tablishment or change of seafood nam sign, and marketing, under U.S. Gov () Medium ing. If successful, this effort would ex ernment Contract 4-36730 (USDC, () Medium large )) Large pand the use of underutilized resources 1974b). To understand the scope of the 6. How hard are the bones? from the sea and reduce market impedi problem required a comprehensive look () Soft () Medium ments to future industry growth (Federal at the industry, its structure, marketing () Hard Register, 1973). In public response to practices, the consumer, and the reg this NMFS proposal, consumers across ulatory environment. Exploratory inter Figure 8.-Bone factor complex. the nation overwhelmingly agreed (Fed views were conducted by the contractor eral Register, 1974; USDC, 1974a). This with NMFS and FDA personnel, indus current research study by the MFS try representatives, scientists, and con may place the market name as the offi sumers. Survey questionnaires, bib When completed, the identification cial common or usual name for future liographic searches, past regulatory system will provide a simple and effec labeling consideration. decisions and focus group sessions were tive method of product identification and used to gather a preliminary base of in Materials and Methods labeling. Detailed guidelines for use formation. will be provided to the industry. The Commerce Department's Na The research suggested that efficient To quote from tradition: "There's no tional Marine Fisheries Service ( MFS) sorting of this mass of information in such fish as scrod in the ocean." Scrod proposed to organize and clarify existing volved development of a comprehensive was dreamed up by a Boston maitre d'. nomenclature and provide a system for He was determined to serve the freshest the establ ishment or changing of 'Mention of trade names or commercial firms daily catch from returning schooners, nomenclature (Federal Register, 1974) does not imply endorsement by the alional but it was anybody's guess which fish by: Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA. 10 Marine Fisheries Review Product Form Definitions Whole fish: Fish as captured, ungutted. Headed: Fish from which the heads have Made from Made from Made from been cut or broken off. one fish similar group mixed group Fresh Red snapper Drawn: Marketed with only the entrails re moved. Fillets Drawn and headed: Drawn fish from which Fresh the heads have been cut or broken off. Frozen Rainbow trout Shrimp Ocean fish Dressed: Drawn and headed fish with scales, fins, and tails removed. Butterfly fillets Sticks Sticks Fillets: Strips of flesh cut parallel to the IOF Breaded and cooked Breaded and cooked central bone of the fish and from which fins, main bones and sometimes belly flap have Canned Brisling sardines Codfish Shellfish been removed; presented with or without skin. Fillets Dumplings Bisque Butterfly fillets: Flesh cut from both sides Packed in oil With potatoes In heavy broth of the same fish, the two pieces remaining salt added and peas joined together along the belly or back. Cured Atlantic cod Tuna Seafood Fillet sticks: Uniform rectangular sticks of fish cut from frozen white fish fillets. Steaks Sausage Wieners Fillet portions: A piece of fillet cut to rea Smoked sonable size for the individual for retail sale Dehyd. Bigeye scad Whitefish Fish Steaks: Cross-section slices from large, dressed fish. Gutted and headed Meal Flour Sun dried Steak portions: A piece of steak cut to a reasonable size for the individual for retail sale. Chunks: Cross-section of large, dressed fish either including a cross-section of the backbone or cut to convenient sized pieces. Flakes: Cross-section oflarge, dressed fish Figure IO.-Examples of product identification. cut into smaller pieces than the chunk style. Minced: Minced, shredded, or grated flesh of uniform size and texture. Paste: Fish flesh ground to a fine consis tency. a fish/factor matrix for further analysis probably be unnecessary in the product (Fig. 4). To relate these factors to the list Servings: Rectangular "portions" formed name while any less would leave out to convenient individual sized pieces, of fish, many individuals experienced in important data. formed from fillet blocks or minced flesh. the seafood industry were interviewed This research also extracted from rel Sticks: Term used alone designates fish and an experimental matrix of43 factors evant reference sources (International sticks made from either fillet blocks or minced flesh. and 122 fish easily fell into natural Congress of Zoology, 1964; OECD, groupings when related to the matrix 1968; Jordan and Evermann, 1969; criteria; other fish judged by the same set USDC, 1978a; Robi ns et aI., 1980) all Figure 9.-Standardized definitions of factors were more difficult to distin that could be found on the: 1) Common of product forms. guish. By more careful factor analysis, name; 2) alternate common name; 3) however, they too could be sorted effec common name reference sources; 4) tively. These early results indicated that common name historical data; 5) com factor list. Figures 7 and 8 indicate the the factor list had to be more carefully mon name geographic usage; 6) com complex nature of dealing with all but analyzed, delineated, and weighted for mon name dates of origin and use; 7) three ofthose factors: Color, texture, and relative importance. scientific name; 8) scientific name ref bones, respectively. A computer pro A set of 12 base terms was established erence sources; and 9) scientific name gram was developed to assist in the or for the "form" that identifies most sea modifiers. The data was stored in com ganization of similarities among these food products: Whole, headed, drawn, puter banks for easy cross reference, ad large numbers of independent bits of in dressed, fillet, steak, chunks, flakes, ditions, deletions, and a variety of other formation. The sorting had to become minced, paste, servings, and sticks. A useful search and sort operations. Since automatic and objective. Factor list basic standardized definition list was no single comprehensive list of useful questions were derived from the inter developed (Fig. 9) and appl ied names exists at present, these data may views conducted as mentioned earlier schematically (Fig. 10). All this infor speed the future development of an offi and these results were incorporated into mation is essential; any more would ciallist of common names. luly-August-September 1983,45(7-8-9) 1I The conclusions from this exploratory things as price and value, but rather in Table 1.-Number of species initially on questionnaire and the number added by respondents. phase of the research indicated that: factors that are natural and predictable, No. of No. of I) A comprehensive factor list was and have to do with their edibility" species species originally added possible to develop, but had to be further (Anonymous, 1976). on ques- by reo refined; 2) a matrix had to be developed The specific research objectives were Factor category lionnaire spondents Total' to relate the factors to food fish and es to: 1) Identify those species most impor External charac- teristics of the tablish tentative standards of compari tant to a model retail identification plan; species (Le., son; 3) a procedure had to be established 2) identify those edible characteristics anatomical) 10 83 93 for automatic sorting of food fish into factors that are significant; 3) determine Internal charac- groupings; and 4) a structure had to be the priorities and relative importance of teristics of the species 16 48 64 developed to administer, maintain, these factors; and 4) develop a model pol ice, and operate the proposed based on key factors to demonstrate how Environmental fac- tors that affect nomenclature program (Anonymous, effective species identification can be edible charac- 1975a). accompl ished. teristics 7 38 45 A prototype identification plan could The survey questionnaire (page Processing factors: Conditions im- be developed from this data base and a example, Fig. 11) was mailed to 760 posed by industry system designed to assure proper prospects who represented a cross processing 3 47 50 nomenclature responses for the future. section of the seafood industry, Federal Preparation fac- This proposed reorganization of com and state agencies, educational institu tors: Retated to consumer pur- mon names would provide direction for tions, and appropriate miscellaneous chase, prepara- improving the problem at a phased-in groups. The 159 completed and returned tion, and serving 23 27 pace, reduce the burden of dealing with questionnaires constituted the first 40 239 279 lTola15 include factors that are specific to finfish and so many names and develop a framework analytical phase of the study. shellfish and factors that are common to both. for administrative decision making Factors were rated by respondents on (Anonymous, 1975a, b). a 5 (very important) to 0 (not important Upon acceptance of this feasibility at all) scale. The questionnaire also ob study, the National Marine Fisheries tained a list of species that were com Service moved into phase I of a long mercially relevant and a commitment by sented in Table 1. A detailed analysis of range program to put into place a system a respondent to rate those he was most the responses was made to assess the to I) develop a data bank related to the familiar with, relative to edibility inclusion and/or deletion of factors edible characteristics of seafood species; characteristics, on future surveys. Data based on frequency of response. It was 2) analyze the data bank to determine were collected and computerized for determined that a majority of the factors species that have similar characteristics; mean rating of factors and priority rank added by respondents fell into two 3) develop a model identification plan ing of species. categories: that is based on communicating edible The original determination of poten I) They were redundant, i.e., the characteristics; and 4) review the model tial edible characteristics that should be same as or similar to factors originally plan with an independent panel of ex profiled was developed under contract listed on the questionnaire. perts to identify ways to implement the 4-36730 (USDC, 1974b). The objective 2) They were not characteristics of plan most effectively, under U.S. con of this next phase of the research was to the species, and therefore would not fit tract 6-35338 (USDC, 1978b). qualify those factors and expand them if into the profile. In December of 1976, a factor list mail enough members of the survey so indi The significance of the original list of survey questionnaire was sent to user cated. factors selected for inclusion in the ques groups to better identify the edible It was determined that the criteria for tionnaire is demonstrated by the atten characteristics of commercial aquatic including a species in further research tion given to their ratings by respon species. A typical page from this part of would be I) a minimum of 10 percent of dents, i.e., 1) ofthe 159 respondents who the research is shown in Figure II. In the respondents stating that it should be rated any factor, 152 (95 percent) rated structions to recipients stated "our pri included and 2) a minimum of five re over 70 percent of the original list of mary concern is with characteristics that spondents stating that they could rate the factors; 2) 137 respondents (86 percent) are natural to the species (such as taste, species for their edible characteristics. rated 100 percent of the original list; and texture, etc.) and with outside factors Out of an initial listing of 187 species, 3) no more than 12 respondents (8 per that may affect these characteristics. In 153 met both the characteristics and fac cent) rated any single write-in factor. addition, we are concerned with how tors that were common and/or specific to Respondents rated 40 original edibil aquat ic species are processed, pur finfish and shellfish, and which could be ity factors on a 5 (very important) to 0 chased, and prepared. We are trying to grouped into major categories. Respon (not important at all) scale. The remain look at these characteristics and factors dents were also asked to add other ing factors, including those that respon from the viewpoint of the consumer. In characteristics and factors under each dents wrote in, were then subjected to an this study, we are not interested in such category. The initial findings are pre- analysis of the "importance" ratings 12 Marine Fisheries Review <..... ~" :l.. 0<>" ~" Please rate each of the following items using ~ the scales for both finfish and shellfish. ~ You may ask yourself, "How important is each ~.., item in terms ofpurchasing, preparing or ....'" eating finfish or shellfish?" ~ Please indicate your opinion by circling one number on each scale. If you wish to express -I:>. Vi no opinion, circle "X". -:::J 60 ~ Please use these ratings for finfish Please use these ratings for shellfish Not Not Very important No Very important No important at all opinion important at all opinion 5 4 3 2 1 0 X8 EXTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SPECIES 5 4 3 2 1 0 X16 5 4 3 2 1 0 X9 Color and markings on the body 5 4 3 2 1 0 X17 5 4 3 2 1 0 XlO General body shape 5 4 3 2 1 0 X,8 (i.e., shapes of eel vs. flounder vs. sea bass vs. lobster) 5 4 3 2 1 0 X11 Characteristic anatomical features 5 4 3 2 1 0 X19 (i.e., barbels, fins, type of jaw, etc.) 5 4 3 2 1 0 X,2 Overall average size of the species 5 4 3 2 1 0 X20 5 4 3 2 1 0 X,3 Size of the scales on the species (when marketed whole) Not applicable 5 4 3 2 1 0 X14 Number of the scales on the species Not applicable (when marketed whole) 5 4 3 2 1 0 X15 How difficult it is to remove scales from the species (when marketed whole) Not applicable Not applicable Configuration of the shell of the 5 4 3 2 1 0 X21 species (when marketed in the shell) .... w Figure 11.-Page example of survey questionnaire. :t;: Vl'IH Apl'rov,ll '41-S770~8 Expires December, 1978 Edibility Profile for Commercial Aquatic Species BF'1606 ,.,. ,., s:> Please check one. QiARACTERISTIC ODOR OF ll-lE HEAT finfish 0 shellfish 0 other 0 Please fill in the cornmon name and scientific n31llc of the species you arc Characteristic odor before rating on this form. Include any alternative names in common use. cooking mild 00000 strong " Common Name _ Characteristic odor after cooking JUild 00000 strong Al ternate Common Names _ " C1laracteristic odor before not unique 4 unique cooking distinctive 00000 & distinctive " Scientific Name Characteristic odor after not unique & unique COOking distinctive 6 dist incti ve Alternate Scientific Names _ 00000 " Tendency to smell "fishy" before cook i ng not "fishy" 00000 very "fishy" 2S In the foI lowing sections, please check the box in each row that Tendency to smell "fishy" most represents the characteristics of this species. ITIJ after cooking no t "fishy" 8 9 10 00000 very "fishy" ,. 1 Characteristics of the Meat In this section we are interested in the characteristic edible qualities CHARACTERISTIC COLOR OF ll-lE flEAT of the meat of indivi.dual species of finfish and shellfish. Assume the meat is fresh and clean; that it has been properly handled and prepared; and, in evaluating the flavor, only consider the natural flavor of the Co 10 r 0 f the mea t be fore cook i ng ""hi te 00000 brown or grey species and not of any sauces or seasonings that may be used in the or " preparation. pinkish 00000 red " Color of the meat after cooking white 00000 brown or grey ,. CHARACTERISTIC FLAVOR AND TEXTURE OF ll-lE ,'IEAT or pinkish 00000 red JO Flavor of the meat (intensity) mild 00000 strong Shade of the meat before cooking light 00000 dark " not unique f, unique I Shade of the meat after cooking light 00000 dark Flavor of the meat distinctive 00000 & distinctive 12 " mot tIed, Flavor of the meat not sweet 00000 sweet " I Uniformity of the color uniform 00000 veined, etc. " Flavor of the meat not sharp 00000 sharp Flavor of the meat not sal ty 00000 sal ty " I OVERALL QUALITY Texture of the meat mushy 00000 finn 16 Overall quality of the meat poor 00000 exce llent ,. Texture of the meat not flakey 00000 flakey 17 ~ Overall quality of the flavor poor 00000 excellent J> Texture oi the meat smooth 00000 coarse " 36 :::. OVerall qual i ty 0 f the texture poor 00000 excellent ~ :-loi5ture content dry 00000 moist " ::!1 Overall quality of the odor poor 00000 excellent Fat content not fatty 00000 fat ty 20 " '"~ ;. '"::<:l '";" '" Figure 12.-Page example of individual species rating questionnaire. Table 2.-Major survey findings for finfish. which revealed that internal characteris to use for sorting studies. Number of factors in each tics and preparation factors were their A visual profile (Fig. 13) has been range of importance ratings most important concerns also. developed for each of the 158 species 1.00- 200- 300- 4.00- Factor category 1.99 2.99 3.99 500 As a result, the number of factors in rated in the study. This graphic rep External (phys- the second industry mail survey were resentation could also be used in future ical appearance) 2 3 reduced from 55 to 8. Flavor, fat content consumer education programs (USDC, Eating charac- teristics (after cooking), odor, color, flakiness, I978b). Environmental (effects on moisture, firmness, and coarseness were Edibility profiles provide a consistent edibility) 1 considered to represent the most percep basis for comparing the edible charac Processing 3 Preparing tible differences, and to offer the most teristics of the sample species. In addi (serving by fundamental information to the con tion, they provide a great deal of useful consumer) 3 sumer. information to consumers. Knowing the In summary, this phase of the research edibility profile for a fish can reduce the filled in gaps relative to species and fear of trying new and unfamiliar sea characteristics for further study, and food species and products. This is in Table 3.-Major findings for shellfish. prioritized critical areas for more effec formation that is not currently available Number of factors in each tive structuri ng ofa meaningful edibi Iity for selecting edible species. range of importance ratings profile. The edibility profiles were then com 1.00- 2.00- 300- 4.00- The next mail survey carried us to the pared to determine which species had Factor category 1.99 299 3.99 5.00 respondents who indicated that they similar patterns of edible characteristics External 3 Internal 6 4 would be willing to individually rate so a determination could be made on an Environmental 1 1 certain species based on each of the objective method of organizing species Processing 2 Preparing 3 selected factors. The second study (Fig. into distinct groups. Seven studies, 12) (Anonymous, 1977), was based on using computer analysis, were con 297 species and 870 questionnaires ducted to determine this grouping. completed by 245 respondents. The ob Edibility characteristics for shellfish jective was to gather data from 3-5 dif were included in some of the early given to them by respondents. The pur ferent respondents for each species and studies. This helped to confirm that, al pose here was to establish a ranking of determine a mean rating for each factor though shellfish and finfish can be com- factors and/or categories relative to profiling edible characteristics. The major findings for finfish are given in Table 2 and the primary findings for shellfish are listed in Table 3. Research among seafood specialists and consumers indicates that the follow ing are the most important factors: I) Intensity of flavor, 2) flakiness of the meat (after cooking), 3) fat content, 4) Atlantic halibut Hippogfossus hippogfossus firmness of the meat (after cooking), 5) natural odor of the meat when raw and fresh, 6) coarseness of the meat, 7) color 2 3 4 5 of the meat (after cooking), and 8) Flavor intensity Mild Strong moistness of the meat (after cooking). •• Fat content These findings make it obvious that Low • • High the seafood industry considers the Noticeable aroma when cooking Mild • • Strong "consumer-related" factors of or Color of cooked meat White Dark ganoleptic characteristics (i. e., the na •• ture of the meat of the species) and pre Flakiness of meat Flaky • • Not flaky pari ng and serving considerations the Firmness of meat Firm Not firm most important in compiling a profile of • • individual species as the basis for com Smoothness of meat Smooth •• Coarse parison, and as the basis for a potential Moisture content of cooked meat Dry Wet identification system. •• These data reinforced the findings of additional qual itative focus group re search conducted with consumers, Figure 13.-A lypical edibility profile. JlIly-AlIgusl-SeplemiJer /983. 45(7-8-9) /5 pared on some factors, each represents a sion of weights, sets were divided along almost 400,000 separate groups. A more different kind of eating experience and lines established by the first two (highest practical approach led to a selection of a should be classified separately. Later weighted) factors: Flavor and Flakiness. pair of key factors as a primary basis for studies were confined to finfish. Subgroups were determined by each determining groups of similar species. In earlier studies, various combina subsequent pair of factors, according to A pair of factors based on a five-point tions of up to 40 factors were tried. In the weighting assigned. rating system provided a framework later studies, edibility profiles based on These studies showed that establish with 25 manageable groups. Two factors eight factors and a 5-point rating scale ing factor priorities is a necessity. The are adequate at the similar species level were determined to be a more conve factor sorting approach produced results (Tier II) for product identification and nient, effective basis of comparison for that are far easier to communicate to two factors can be communicated in the 123 species of finfish used in the consumers. In addition, by using this simple visual diagrams. This is ex model. approach, species can be classified tremely important in communicating Different factor-weighting strategies without !he need for computer pro with consumers through pamphlets, were explored in the analysis. In one set cesses. handbooks, and posters which will help of studies, all factors were weighted A framework now had to be built explain the product identification sys equally. In others, various priorities of around the data that had been accumu tem. factors were tried. Based on these lated so it could be handled effectively. Figure 14 describes the framework studies, the following observations were To develop an identification system that developed for the Tier II level. It is based made: included all eight factors and a 5-point on "Comparative Edibility." Each block rating scale would require an array of represents a category of finfish that are I) Changes in weighting strategies affected the clarity of groupings without producing serious changes in the place ment of species in groups. 2) Changes in the number of species used affected where fish were placed as relationships became available or were removed. 3) Excluding anatomical features (i.e., bones, body shape, etc.) from early studies caused almost all correla tions with zoological groupings to dis appear. 4) Reduction ofthe number of factors from 40 to 8 produced greater clarity without radically affecting the general groupings produced by the factors. 5) A wide variety of edible profile patterns exist among species when they are compared on the basis ofmultiple (8) equally weighted factors. This results in a great number of small groups being formed, each of which has a different profile for the eight factors. 6) Strong weighting ofcertain factors resulted in fish being sorted into groups More More that were similar to groups formed on delicate intense the basis ofequally weighted factors, but flavor 2 3 4 5 flavor which were easier to adapt to a simple More 2 3 4 5 More organizational framework. pronounced homogeneous flakiness texture In the final studies, these eight factors were given a geometric progression of weights in the following order: Flavor, 8; Flakiness, 8; Fat, 4; Firmness, 4; Odor, 2; Moistness, 2; Color, I; Coarseness, I. With this assigned geometric progres- Figure 14.-Edibility framework for finfish based on two most important factors. /6 Marine Fisheries Review similar for two key factors. The numbers ( I) First Priority Factors 6) Should MFS develop interim in each block represent the rati ngs for the Flavor marketing directions? pair of factors. All finfish species that Flakiness have identical ratings for the pair of fac More than 1,000 requests were re tors will be located in the same block. (2) Second Priority Factors ceived for the study and 80 percent of the One block is provided for each combina Fat public response enthusiastically sup tion, whether or not there are any com Firmness ported the effort and urged continuation mercially marketed fish that have the of the research (Brooker, 1979). Interna combination of characteristics. Thus, a (3) Third Priority Factors tional support was also received through place is maintained for future classifica Odor the Food and Agriculture Organization tion of any species which is not now Coarseness (FAO) of the United Nations (Krone'). marketed. The Food and Drug Administration, The blocks and the framework are ar (4) Fourth Priority Factors in their response to the Federal Register ranged along a horizontal line, drawn Color release, still maintained "serious res from left to right and having a range Moisture ervations" about the nomenclature sys from I to 5. The blocks are arranged so tem (Anonymous, 1978c; Randolph"). that the values for both factors rise when Trial runs at this point in the program The news media was quick to pick up reading from left to right. When reading yielded the following observations: I) this unique deve.lopment also (Kramer, from top to bottom or bottom to top, the There are a great variety of edible pro 1978a,b,c; Steinman, 1978; Gordon, value of one factor drops while the other files, 2) there is no direct correlation 1979; Heurdejs, 1979; Miller, 1980a,b). rises. Vertically, the sum of the values with zoological categories, 3) there is The importance of the program was also are equal. The three blocks having the little relation hip between edibility fac emphasized by the Department of values of 5/3, 4/4, and 3/5 each add up tors, and 4) the majority of species con Commerce's National Oceanic and At to a value of8, but remain distinct from sumed in the United States tend to cluster mospheric Administration when, in a one another in the framework. This pro around the mild and flaky area of the policy and program statement, it said vides a scale which, reading from left to design. Only a few are near the extremes "NOAA will accelerate and complete its right, progresses evenly from one ex of strong tasting and nonflaky meat. work on fish nomenclature to assist the treme of the rating scale (1/ I) to the To gai n broader acceptance and re industry and the U.S. consumer. When other (5/5). view of the research effort to this point, completed, this work will provide com Using this framework, all fish can be the NMFS published in the Federal prehensive information on the edibility classified into the 25 primary groups by Register (Federal Register, 1978; Anony characteristics of fish, particularly non the following method: mous, 1978b) the availability of the traditional species, so that distributors Model Retail Identification Plan for pub and consumers can make better use of I) Two edibility factors are chosen as lic comment. NMFS asked the following available fish protein from U.S. do the basis for comparison. six basic questions: mestic fishing efforts" (Anonymous, 2) For each fish, a standard rating is 1979b). determined on a scale from I to 5 for 1) [s the model identification plan a Responding to question three from each of the two factors. logical approach for the construction of a public comment concerning the need for 3) On the basis of these ratings, the complete identification system for objective methods to measure the edibil fish is assigned to the appropriate group. finfish and products therefrom? ity factors quantitatively, the NMFS Flexibility has also been included in 2) Are the edibility factors (8) iden awarded a research contract (No. 01 this system that will allow subcategori tified in the model plan the most sig 8-MOI-6320, January 1979) to Natick zation within any block if it should be nificant and useful in determining prod Laboratories, Natick, Mass. The objec come overburdened with a large number uct edibility? Are they too numerous or tives of this project were to I) develop of fish. Each of the 25 groups can be too few? And are they listed in the ap and evaluate standardized subjective and "magnified" independently to include propriate order or priority? objective methods for assessing the edi an additional pair of edibility factors 3) Should objective methods be used bility of fish products and 2) evaluate a which would yield as many as 25 addi to measure the edibility factors quantita correspondence between instrumental tional subgroups and thus further refine tively? and sensory indices of edibility so that the sorting process. 4) Should NMFS proceed to develop As in all organizations of this type, fully and implement a new seafood iden some priorities must be established and tification system, based upon a com a determination made as to which pair of prehensive data bank ofedibil ity charac 'Krone, W. 1978. Model retail identification factors will be considered primary. Con teristics for a seafood species? plan for seafood species. FD 52/1.1. FAO. sumers and industry provided the fol 5) Should NMFS develop guidelines Rome, Italy. Pers. commun. 'Randolph, W. F.. 1978. Department of Health, lowing factor priorities derived from the and procedures for interim changes in Service, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. focus groups and questionnaires. existing nomenclature? Rockville, Md. Pers. commun. July-Augusl-Seplember /983.45(7-8-9) /7 TEXTURE PROFILE BALLOT FOR FIN FISH DATE: _ PANElIST: _ SAMPLES A B C 0 E Hardness Flakiness (tongue against palate) FIRST BITE Chewiness Fibrousness Moistness MASTICATION Cohesiveness of moss (at 10 chews) Adh esiv en ess Oily mouthcoating RESIDUALS Astringent-like moulhcoating lightness: Skin side Skeleton side COLOR Uniformity of lightness: Skin side Skeleton side Figure 15.-Texture profile ballot for finfish. fish species can be grouped according to be statistically tested (King et aI., 1979). Instrumental texture measurements their similarities. For each species selected, analysis were based on an Instron tester using The sensory methods included an ex was based on fish in the fresh state (ice uniaxial compression to 60 percent of pert flavor profile panel, a texture profile chilled for 48 hours after harvest). the fish sample's original thickness panel, and consumer panels. The objec Cooked fish samples were evaluated (Johnson et aI., 1980b). tive methods included Instron (texture) based on procedure 18.0036 of the As To compensate for lack of parallelism and gas chromatography-mass spec sociation of Official Analytical and surface flatness, because the boil trometry (flavor) measurements. Sen Chemists (boil-in-bag) (AOAC, 1980). in-bag method distorts the fillets to a sory scaling data were obtained using Cooking time periods for the various point where no suitable flat surface can the method of magnitude estimation. thicknesses offish were established from be found, a swivel-head compression These data. were submitted to mul heat penetration measurements in order plate was mounted on the moving tidimensional scaling analysis. Advan to cook all samples uniformly and pro cross-head of the Instron. Samples could tages of these techniques are: I) They do vide reproducibility from batch to batch. then be easily cut into uniform cylinders not require a specific reference species, Both trained and consumer panels were and tested (Johnson et aI., 1980a,c). 2) they provide ratio data for comparison used for sensory evaluation. Sensory As a result instrumental and sensory with objective measure, 3) they result in evaluation oftexture (Fig. 15) was based methodology has been developed for the data that can be summarized in a graphi on the General Foods Texture profile objective measurement of the edibility cal format, and 4) the magnitude ofsimi method (Civille and Liska, 1975; Civille characteristics of finfish and applied to larity or difference between species can and Szczesniak, 1973). the grouping of underutilized species /8 Marine Fisheries Review according to their similarities in edibil work of the nomenclature system, Con The results of the quantitative re ity characteristics. This quantitative data tract NA-79SAC-00804 was issued to search phase provided information from fine tunes the analysis that preceded the the Chicago-based brand identification which a "Manual of Test Methods and beginning of this study. and design consulting group, for an Procedures" has been prepared which Studies of four instrumental methods analysis of the "Forms" and "Mod lays down official laboratory procedures for measuring texture, using compres ifiers" portion of the program (USDC, for testing fish and generating edibility sion, shear, and tension, resulted in the 1979a). This search produced a list of data in a consistent uniform manner. It development of a rapid, simple proce nearly 600 terms used in various ways in also identifies the characteristics to be dure. the seafood industry. These terms were tested and recommended scales for Through a unique application of the then organized alphabetically, and quantifying the data (USDC, 1983). descriptive/analytic technique of texture grouped according to similarity with a Other research results provide specific and flavor profile analysis, combined dictionary-type index that provides def recommendations for constructing no with consumer methods of sensory initions and explanations for the terms. menclature pertaining to seafood prod evaluation, a method for evaluating the Analysis of this bulk of information uct forms and modifiers which are "edibility characteristics" of fish has yielded the following observations major components of the seafood iden been established. This comprehensive (USDC, 1981): tity system (USDC, 1981). approach permits the evaluation of sub I) There was too much semantic This brings to a conclusion the entire tle, but important, textural and flavor noise presently in the marketplace. research phase essential to the develop differences over a wide range of species, 2) There was, on occasion, too many ment of a practical and effective seafood using terminology that can be easily un terms for one concept (i .e., eight dif identification system. derstood by consumers and which pro ferent ways to say "fish with the head Future developments must address the vides a basis for direct comparison of removed"). following steps to put the new seafood similarities and dissimilarities among 3) A single term that was being used identification system into place and use: species. in several unassociated ways. 1) Develop an edibility data bank of Using this method a data bank of sen 4) Terms that have more than one major foods species using the estab sory profiles for 17 species of fish was spelling or structure. lished analytical methods and following established. An analysis of various 5) Terms that had no clear meaning. an established testing protocol. techniques of grouping fish was con 6) Terms where the position of words 2) Develop a data management sys ducted, and a method based on mul affected the meaning. tem and control documents to assure that tivariate cluster analysis was found to be 7) Terms used elsewhere in the food only reliable high-quality data are used. both internally consistent and reliable industry in one context, but which in the 3) Develop a model format for com for establishing similar and dissimilar seafood industry carry a different mean municating to users about the edibility groups. Three major edibility groups ing. characteristics of individual species. and several subgroups were identified. This basic text could be developed as 4) Formalize the seafood identifica The results are contained in a 620-page one more tool to help educate consumers tion system for introduction, and a man report, referenced below. when the program is ready for im agement plan for its continued use and Analytical determinations have been plementation. maintenance. made on a variety of finfish fat content, 5) Educate consumers and all seg Results and Discussion color, moisture, and fatty acid composi ments of the industry by publishing both tion. These data, in conjunction with A major research effort has been suc a comprehensive Consumer Shopping sensory panel investigation of the same cessfully completed that lays down a Guide and an Industry/Retail Identifica species indicate that fish are amenable to scientifically sound basis for construct tion Standards Manual. classification (Kapsal is and Maller, ing a practical and effective nomencla 6) Implement the system nationally. 1980). ture system for communicating highly During this same period, another organized information about seafoods in Literature Cited unique test of the developing nomencla simple ways to users of fishery products Anonymous. 1947. Federal Trade Commission ture scheme was begun. Anthony's Sea through market names and labeling. The ruling, Commer. Fish. Rev. 9(2):65. ____. 1975a. A plan for market names of food Grotto Restaurant, San Diego, information to be used in constructing fishery products-executive summary. U.S. Calif., began developing prototype seafood product names is derived from Dep. Commer.. NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. menus using edibility profiles to in qualitative and quantitive laboratory Serv., 17 September, 1975. ____.1975b. Consumers are at sea about troduce customers to new products or analysis of the edibility characteristics fish; names meaning food are suggested. unfamiliar seafood selections (Anony of the fish flesh, coupled with other es Natl. Provisioner, 19 April. mous, 1979c). Early results of this proj sential information about the physical 1976. Seafood industry survey on the comparison of edible finfish, crustaceans ect show good patron acceptance and form of the product itself, how it is pre and mollusks. OMB Approval No. 41 understanding of a visual means of pre served, and the presence of other food 576087. The Brand Group, Chicago, [II. ____. 1977. Edibility profile survey for senting edibility profiles. ingredients that characterize the end commercial aquatic species. OMB Approval To complete the conceptual frame- product. No. 41-577048 (BF No. 1606). The Brand Ju/y-Augusr-Seprember 1983, 45(7-8-9) /9 Group, Chicago, Ill. tus. Fed. Regist. 44:5901. 1981. First national conference on ____. 1978b. FDA to seek input to NMFS 1979b. Common or usual name for modified and controlled atmosphere packag common names for seafood. Food Chern. nonstandardized food-Merluccius Produc ing of seafood products. Natl. Fish. Inst., News 20(32):13. tus. Fed Regist. 44:46515. Wash., D.C. 1978c. FDA clai ms responsibil ity Goode. G. B. 1884. The fisheries and fishery Miller, G. S. 1980a. When bureaucrats cast for for establishing seafood names. Food Chern. industry of the .S., Sect. I. U.S. Comm. fish names, be prepared to wait. Wall Street News 20(39): 13. Fish Fisr., US Gov. Print. Off., Wash., J. CXCV(86): I. 1979a. FDA asks comments on D.C. 1980b. What's in a name? Fish. "Hake" versus "Whiting" nomenclature. Gordon, L. 1979. Gag and chips sound fishy. Wash. Post 12 June, p. E I Food Chern. News 20(47):28. The Record-Bergen, Passaic, Hudson Coun OECD. 1968 Multilingual dictionary of fish 1979b. Toward a partnership for the ties, N.J .. 15 Jan. and fish products. Organ. Econ. Cooperation development of the United States commercial Gove, P. B. (editor). 1969. Webster's third new Dev. Paris. G. B. Whitefriars Press, Ltd., fishery industry. Policy and program state international dictionary of the English Lan Lond, 430 p. ment (May 23, 1979). U.S. Dep. Commer., guage. Unabridged G. & C Merriam Co., Robins, C. R., R. M. Bailey, C. E. Bond, J. R. NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Wash., D.C Springfield, Mass., 2662 p. Brooker, E. A. Lachner, R. N. Lea, and W. B. 1979c. New names, taste profiles Heurdejs, J. 1979. A bargain: Fish with funny Scott. 1980. A list of common and scientific aid seafood images. Food Prod Dev. names. Chicago Tribune, I Mar. names of fishes from the U.S. and Canada, 13(6): 18. International Congress of Zoology. 1964. Inter 4th ed. Spec. Publ. 12, Am Fish. Soc., AOAC. 1980. Official methods of analysis of national code of zoological nomenclature Bethesda, Md., 174 p. the Association of Official Analytical adopted by the XV International Congress of Steiman, H. 1978. Learning to love strange Chemists. Cooking seafood products Zoology. Int. Trust Zool Nomencl., Lond., fish. San Franc. Sunday Exam., 17 Dec. procedure 18.003b. 176 p. USDC. 1974a. Hundreds comment on standard Brooker, J. R. 1979. Summary and status of Jernudd, B. H., and E. Thuan. 1980. Naming izing fish names. U.S. Dep Commer., improved seafood nomenclature system. fish: Problem exploration and materials col NOAA News Release 74-85 U.S. Dep. Commer. , NOAA, Natl. Mar. lection. Cult. Learn. Inst., East-West Cent., 1974b. Contract awarded to help Fish. Serv., Wash., D.C. Honolulu, Hawaii. plan standardization of fish names & prod CDFG. 1974. Common names for market fish. Johnson, E. A.. R. A Segars, J. G. Kapsalis, ucts. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA News Re Title 14, Sect. 103. Calif. Dep. Fish Game, M. D. Normano, and M Peleg. 1980a. lease 74-139. Sacramento. Evaluation of the compressive deformability 1974c. Nomenclature Workshop II. Campbell, C. C. R. 1979. Acceptable common modulus of fresh and cooked fish flesh. 1. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. names for fillets and prepared products pro Food Sci 45: 1318. Fish. Servo Proj. 0501-4176-36730. Was 11. , duced from Pacific rockfish. No. 5515-10. D.C Dep. Fish. Oceans, Insp. Technol. Branch, ____, and 1980b. Textural 1974d. Nomenclature Workshop Ottawa, Ontario. variability in fish fillets. Proc. Fifth Annu. Report I. U.S Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Civille, G. Y, and I. H. Liska. 1975. Modifica Trop. Subtrop. Fish Technol Conf Amer. Mar. Fish Servo Proj. 0501-4176-36730 tions and applications to foods of the general Tex. A & M Univ. Publ TAMU-SE-81-101, Wash., D.C. food sensory texture profile technique. J. Tex CoIl. Stn 1975. Final report, retail identifica ture Stud. 6: 19. ____, , and M tion plan for fishery products. U.S. Dep. ____ , and A. S. Szczesniak. 1973 Peleg. 1980c Some rheological characteris Commer. , NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Servo Guidelines to training a texture profile panel. tics of fish flesh. Proc 33rd Annu Conf Proj. 4-36730. Wash., D.C. J. Texture Stud. 4:204. Eng. Mecl. BioI., Wash, D.C 1978a. Fishery statistics of the Cohen, D. M. 1969. Names of fishes. Commer. Jordan, D. S., and B W. Evermann. 1969. U.S., 1975. U.S Dep. Commer., NOAA, Fish. Rev. 31(5): 15. American food and game fishes. Dover Publ., Natl. Mar. Fish. Servo Stat. Dig. 69. Farrell, 1. F. 1972. An evaluation of the effects N.Y., 574 p. 1978b. A model retail identifica of nomenclatural procedures for fish or Kapsalis, J G., and 0 Maller 1980. Final tion plan for seafood species-a description of fishery products on the industry and on con report-consumer and instrumental edibility the project and recommended principles of sumers. Contrib. 1482, R. I. Agric. Exp. measures for grouping of fish species. Natl identification. U.S. Dep. Commer. , NOAA, Stn., 75 p. Mar. Fish. Servo Contract 01-8-MOI-6320. Natl. Mar. Fish. Servo Proj. 6-35338. FDA. 1970. Requirements of the U.S. Food, NTIS Rep. PB82-150921. Springfield, Va. 1979a. Project to develop recom Drug, and Cosmetic Act. U.S. Dep. Health, King, F. J., J G. Kapsalis, AY Cardello, and mendations for clarifying and standardizing Educ., Welfare Publ. 2: 19. JR. Brooker. 1979 Consumer and nomenclature related to seafood product 1979. Federal Food, Drug, and instrumental edibility measures for grouping forms and modifiers. U.S. Dep. Commer., Cosmetic Act, as amended. U.S. Code Fed. of fish species. Int. Conf Fish Sci. Technol NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Servo Proj. Regulations, Title 21. U.S. Gov. Print. Off. Torry Res. Stn., Aberdeen, Scotl. NA79SAC-00804-BN 1204, Wash., D.C. 623-783-861. Wash., D. C. Kramer, L. 1978a. U.S. pays $65.000 fora fishy ____. 1979b. Toward a partnership for the Federal Register. 1968. Labeling of food fish of story. Chicago Sun Times, 30 Dec development of the United States commercial the species Reinhardtius Hippoglossoides. 1978b. A fish is a fish is a .. Wash. fishing industry. Final report-Task Force on Fed. Regist. (33): 19007. Post, 30 Dec. Fisheries Development, U. S. Dep. Commer. , 1970. Snow crabmeat decision, 2 1978c. A fish by some other name NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Wash., D.C. September 1970. Fed. Regist. 35: 13880. may seem more edible. Trenton Times, 28 198 I. Fi nal report - a model retai I 1973. Nomenclature of fish, shell Dec. ident ification plan for forms and modifiers. fish, and products for purposes of marketing Luedtke, P. 1973. Snapper's got fishermen in U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. and label ing. Statement of interest and intent. tempest. San Pedro, Calif.. News-Pilot, 20 Fish. Servo Contract NA 79SAC-00804, Fed. Regist. 38:34682. Mar. Wash., D.C. 1974. Nomenclature of fish and Martin, R. E. (editor) 1972. Mechanical re 1983. Final report- protocol for shellfish and their products for purposes of covery and utilization of fish flesh. Oak sensory and instrumental testing of the edibil marketing, a statement of findings. Fed. Brook Seminar, Natl. Fish. Inst., Wash., ity characteristics of finfish. U.S. Dep. Regis!. 39:20711. D.C. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Servo 1975. Common or usual names for 1974. Second technical seminar on Contract NA82AAG04204, Wash .. D.C. nonstandardized foods; onion rings, seafood mechanical recovery and utilization of fish USDI. 1954. Compliance with the Federal products and potato chips. Fed. Regis!. flesh. Natl. Fish. Inst .. Wash., D.C. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in the market 40:54536. 1976. Mechanically deboned fish ingoffisheryproducts. U.S. Dep.lnter. Fish. 1978. Seafood species-announce flesh. Food Technol. 30(9):64. Leafl. 172. ment of nomenclature project. Fed. Regist. 1980. Third national technical U.S. Supreme Court. 1924. United States VS. 95 43:46888. seminar on mechanical recovery and util iza barrels, more or less, alleged apple cider vin 1979a. Common or usual name for tion of fish flesh. Natl. Fish. Inst., Wash., egar. 265 U.S. 438; N.J. No. 12367.2 June nonstandardized food-Merluccius Produc- D.C. 1924. 20 Marine Fisheries Review