Toward an Improved Seafood Nomenclature System

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).

Load more