Deceptive Dishes: Seafood Swaps Found Worldwide Table of Contents Authors
1 Executive Summary Dr. Kimberly Warner, Patrick Mustain, Beth Lowell, Sarah Geren 3 Introduction and Spencer Talmage 4 Global Review of Seafood Fraud Acknowledgements
6 Highlights The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their contributions 10 The European Union: during the development and review of this A Promising Case Study report as well as the map and analyses: Dr. Andrea Armani, Eric Bilsky, Christopher Carolin, Alicia Cate, Dustin Cranor, Carlos 12 Conclusion and Disla, Nicolas Fournier, Rachel Golden Recommendations Kroner, Dr. Kathryn Matthews, Dr. Dana Miller, Jacqueline Savitz and Amelia Vorpahl. 13 Building the Global Map Oceana is grateful for the investment 14 Endnotes of Oceans 5, the Paul M. Angell Family Foundation, the Robertson Foundation, the 16 Global Review and Map David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Pacific Life Foundation in our efforts to Bibliography reduce seafood fraud and end illegal fishing through improved traceability.
Steve De Neef Highlights of this Executive Summary review include:
• One in five of the more than eafood fraud is a serious global problem of overexploitation only increases when 25,000 samples of seafood tested that undermines honest businesses and considering the complexity and opacity S worldwide was mislabeled, on fishermen that play by the rules. It also of the global seafood supply chain, which average. The studies reviewed threatens consumer health and puts our is rife with illegal fishing, human rights found seafood mislabeling at oceans at risk. As global fishing becomes abuses, inadequate management, and with every sector of the seafood more expansive and further industrialized, the exception of a few model countries, supply chain: retail, wholesale, seafood fraud and its related impacts could little to no traceability. However, these distribution, import/export, get even worse. This update of Oceana’s problems can and should be addressed. packaging/processing and landing. 2014 review of seafood fraud studies Oceana maintains that with proper demonstrates the global scope of the management, the oceans’ wild fisheries • Seafood fraud was investigated in problem, but also reveals some promising could provide a responsibly caught, 55 countries and found on every trends due to recent regulations in the nutritious seafood meal to 1 billion people continent except for Antarctica. European Union (EU) that are increasing every day.1 But proper management transparency and traceability as well requires transparency and accountability. • Every study found seafood fraud, as addressing illegal, unregulated and except for one. unreported (IUU) fishing. An interactive In 2014, Oceana documented the global map of global seafood fraud cases and reach of seafood fraud in its review of • Asian catfish, hake and escolar studies compiled by Oceana can be found at the literature, identifying reports of were the three types of fish most oceana.org/seafoodfraudmap. fraud in 29 countries. At the time of its commonly substituted. Specifically, release, Oceana’s report was the most farmed Asian catfish was sold as 18 Seafood fraud comes in different forms, comprehensive review of seafood fraud different types of higher-value fish. including species substitution—often a publications ever, citing 103 sources, low-value or less desirable seafood item including investigations by journalists, • More than half (58 percent) of swapped for a more expensive or desirable peer-reviewed literature, and government the samples substituted for other choice—improper labeling, including hiding and non-governmental organization seafood posed a species-specific the true origin of seafood products, or (NGO) documents. A similar analysis of 51 health risk to consumers, meaning adding extra breading, water or glazing to peer-reviewed studies published since 2005 that consumers could be eating fish seafood products to increase their apparent found a 30 percent average rate of fraud that could make them sick. Acknowledgements weight. The focus of this review is seafood globally, a rate consistent with Oceana’s mislabeling and species substitution. own additional investigations into seafood • Eighty-two percent of the 200 fraud in the United States, which found grouper, perch and swordfish The majority of assessed fisheries around mislabeling rates for fish, shrimp and crab samples tested in Italy were the world are already being fished at or between 30 and 38 percent.2 mislabeled, and almost half of the over their sustainable limits. And the risk substituted fish that were sold This update to Oceana’s 2014 global fraud were species that are considered report reviewed more than double the threatened with extinction by the number of studies and cases as previous International Union for Conservation reviews, looking at seafood fraud globally of Nature (IUCN). and examining more than 200 peer-reviewed • In Brazil, 55 percent of “shark” journal articles, popular media sources, Seafood fraud is a samples tested were actually and public documents from governments largetooth sawfish, a species serious global problem and NGOs. considered by the IUCN to be that undermines A presidential task force has released a critically endangered and for which honest businesses and proposed rule to address IUU fishing trade is prohibited in Brazil. and seafood fraud, two problems that are fishermen that play by linked due to a global, complex and opaque • Ninety-eight percent of the 69 the rules, threatens seafood supply chain and that share a bluefin tuna dishes tested in Brussels common solution: full-chain traceability restaurants were mislabeled. consumer health, and for all seafood. The proposed rule includes puts our oceans at risk. traceability requirements that would only apply to 13 “at-risk” types of seafood, and
oceana.org 1 Credit Executive Summary
those requirements would be in effect only from the boat or farm to the U.S. border. While a valuable first step, the rule as proposed would be inadequate.
Extension of traceability requirements inside the U.S. border could help prevent mislabeling and fraud that occurs within the U.S. supply chain, instances of which have been documented and compiled in a recent Oceana report. Of the 60 different misidentified types of seafood in that report, only 26 percent would be covered by the rule. Seventy-seven percent of the legal cases reviewed (since 2001), in which seafood was found or suspected to be mislabeled, involved fraud that occurred within the U.S. In other words, the rule as proposed ends traceability at the border and would do nothing to prevent those particular cases of seafood fraud within the United States.
The EU offers a lesson on whether more transparency, traceability and seafood labeling requirements can help reduce fraud. At the turn of this century, the EU OCEANA | Jenn Hueting began developing legal provisions aimed at tracing seafood and providing more consistent information to consumers. labeling rules were implemented have The President’s Task Following these early legal provisions, indicated that, for the most part, where academic and government-sponsored regulations have been in effect and enforced, Force should: seafood mislabeling investigations rates of fraud have decreased. revealed weaknesses in the rules and their • Require key information to follow implementation and enforcement. These This in-depth examination into global seafood through the full supply studies, which gained attention in the seafood fraud shows that it is still a serious chain, from the boat or farm to media, likely helped sway the public and problem, hurting consumers’ health and the dinner plate. That information policymakers to strengthen rules governing wallets, and threatening marine wildlife should include species-specific the EU seafood market. In 2008, the EU and ecosystems. However, traceability and names, where and how a product established measures for combating illegal accountability, where in place and enforced, was caught, or whether it was fishing that included, among others, appear to reduce rates of fraud in the EU. farmed. catch documentation requirements for If the United States adopts comprehensive, all imported seafood in the EU market. full-chain traceability, it will be more • Expand traceability requirements These measures went into effect in January difficult for bad actors to mislead consumers to all seafood in the final rule or, 2010. Additional provisions that went and exploit our oceans. It could also serve as at a minimum, commit to a timeline into effect in 2012 and 2014 require even a model elsewhere. to do so. more stringent traceability and labeling requirements to ensure that fisheries The Presidential Task Force on Combating • Extend traceability requirements products can be traced back and checked IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud is at through the entire seafood supply throughout the supply chain. a critical crossroads. As the proposed chain. Seafood Import Monitoring Program rule • Provide consumers with more While many factors influence seafood fraud is being finalized and beyond, there are key information about the seafood rates, studies of seafood fraud that were opportunities to ensure that all seafood they purchase and eat. done both before and after the stronger EU sold in the U.S. is safe, legally caught and fisheries control, traceability and seafood honestly labeled.
2 OCEANA | Deceptive Dishes: Seafood Swaps Found Worldwide Introduction
he Food and Agriculture Organization that will implement some of its traceability increasingly popular farmed fish without Tof the United Nations (FAO) reported recommendations.7 The rule would even realizing it. Asian catfish, or this year that global seafood trade and require information to follow the product pangasius, a variety of catfish farmed consumption are at all-time highs.3 The from the boat or farm to the U.S. border, largely in Southeast Asia, farmed Atlantic FAO 2016 State of World Fisheries including how and where a fish is caught salmon and farmed tilapia are making and Aquaculture report described the or harvested, along with a species-specific their way onto dinner plates, but are “tremendous potential” of our oceans and name. These traceability requirements, frequently disguised as wild-caught, inland waters to provide nutritious meals however, would only apply to 13 types of higher-value fish. Not only do these swaps for a global population expected to reach seafood deemed “at-risk” of illegal fishing cheat consumers, but many aquaculture 9.7 billion by 2050. But with the majority of and seafood fraud. facilities damage surrounding ecosystems, assessed fisheries around the world already and use chemicals and antibiotics that can either fully fished or overexploited, wild- The limited scope of the proposed rule harm consumer health.8 caught seafood may not be able to reach leaves the door open for continued that potential by 2050. fraud and may even incentivize fraud The following pages contain an update to and mislabeling of the species covered Oceana’s 2014 global review of seafood Seafood fraud, specifically species by the rule. In order to avoid additional fraud, nearly doubling the number of substitution or mislabeling, is an old and scrutiny and documentation requirements, countries where fraud was investigated growing problem. It threatens consumer unscrupulous actors may decide to mislabel by including data from more than 100 health and safety, cheats consumers when seafood products that are covered by additional studies.9 To help capture the they pay higher prices for a mislabeled the rule as seafood products that are not scope of seafood fraud, Oceana created lower-value fish, and hides harmful covered. Oceana, other NGOs, some an interactive map that illustrates the practices like illegal fishing, poorly-regulated fishermen and seafood industry members, widespread and global nature of the aquaculture and human rights abuses. chefs and concerned citizens have called problem. for the traceability requirements in the Following the release of Oceana’s seafood proposed rule to extend to all seafood With a supply chain that remains largely fraud reports4 and growing public attention species, and also for the additional product opaque and unaccountable, the seafood to the issue, President Obama established information (such as a species-specific industry will continue to be susceptible to the Task Force on Combating IUU Fishing name, and how and where the seafood IUU fishing and fraud. However, the EU and Seafood Fraud,5 which released its product was caught or farmed) to be case study described in detail later in this final recommendations in March 2015.6 available through the entire seafood supply report suggests that these problems can While IUU fishing and seafood fraud are chain—all the way to the end consumer. be addressed through the enforcement of related but different problems, they share comprehensive requirements for increased a similar solution: traceability. In 2016, the Aquaculture has been playing a growing transparency and traceability. Task Force issued a proposed rule, creating role in seafood fraud. Seafood consumers the Seafood Import Monitoring Program across the world may be eating several
OCEANA | A. Ellis
oceana.org 3
Global Review of Seafood Fraud
o identify the scope of seafood fraud, mislabeling rate worldwide is 34 percent, lead to fraud per se, but probably result Tspecifically mislabeling and species the rate normalized to sample size is 19 in consumers thinking they are getting substitution, Oceana reviewed more percent. This means that the average was one seafood product when it is actually than 200 published studies, including weighted by sample size, so studies with another. Cases like these were not English language peer-reviewed journal a greater number of samples were given included in Oceana’s map or analysis, but articles, popular media sources, and public a higher weight. Nearly one in every five evidence indicates that seafood consumers government and NGO documents (see samples tested worldwide, on average, was are often misled even if it does not violate Bibliography and Appendix for more found to be mislabeled. In the U.S., studies local or regional seafood labeling rules. detail). These data were analyzed to identify released since 2014 found an average For example, a study in western India general trends in seafood fraud, including weighted fraud rate of 28 percent. found restaurants selling “crab,” which relationships to the presence or lack of was actually cheaper varieties mixed in regulation. Oceana also developed an Fraud was found at every level of the with more expensive ones.11 At the same interactive map to illustrate the global scale seafood supply chain, though the majority time, the EU allows each member state of seafood fraud. of the studies (80 percent) were conducted (or country) to adopt its own commercial at the retail level, such as restaurants or market names for seafood.12 In France, This updated review covers 55 countries grocery stores. The remainder of the studies “colin” is the single market name for on every continent except Antarctica. included samples from the wholesale and six different species, including hake The United States and Europe account for distributor level, the import level, or at a (Merluccius spp), saithe (Pollachius virens), three-quarters of the studies and cases in number of points in the supply chain. Less European pollock (Pollachius pollachius), this review, but seafood fraud has been than 3 percent involved cases or studies at marbled rockcod (Notothenia rossii), investigated in a growing number of the point of landing and/or packaging and Alaska pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) countries, including Egypt, India and China. processing, and just three studies focused and even Patagonian toothfish While documented seafood fraud stretches on online seafood markets, an emerging (Dissostichus eleginoides).13 back to 1915, the bulk of the studies have sector of the seafood supply chain where been conducted since 2005. One hundred labeling rules are still vague. Other studies identified vague market and forty-one of those studies included names that include a number of species, quantitative data, totaling 25,700 samples of The most frequent types of seafood some of which may have different prices, seafood analyzed for mislabeling. investigated for mislabeling varies across conservation statuses or health risks. A the globe. Snapper, grouper and salmon study in Greece found that hake, cod, The total number of samples analyzed in were the most studied in the United States; haddock and whiting were all labeled each study reviewed ranged from three cod, hake and sole in Europe; and cod, “bakaliaros,” despite some species posing to 4,652, but most of the studies analyzed shellfish and snapper were the most studied higher allergy risks than others.14 Sixty- fewer than 100 samples. While the average elsewhere (Appendix Tables 1-3). The most six different species are allowed to be sold common seafood substitutes identified as “grouper” in the U.S., making it nearly across multiple studies globally are impossible for consumers to know which Asian catfish, hake and escolar, or oilfish actual fish they are buying and undermining (Appendix Table 4). their ability to make seafood choices These issues are based on sustainability or other reasons.15 Seafood fraud was identified in all 200 plus Though laws were not broken in these especially problematic studies reviewed except one. The exception, cases, vague labeling rules potentially cheat when the ambiguity one small study in Tasmania, found no consumers, harm their health, or make explicit fraud but did highlight unclear them unwitting accessories to fishing or or mislabeling is seafood labeling practices.10 For instance, aquaculture practices that are illegal or intentional and laws hake was sold as “smoked cod,” which harm the environment.16 These issues are although misleading, is permissible under especially problematic when the ambiguity are deliberately broken. Australia’s seafood labeling rules. or mislabeling is intentional and laws are And indeed, laws are deliberately broken. And indeed, laws are being broken on a The Tasmania study resembles others in being broken on a global scale. countries where lax labeling rules may not global scale.
4 OCEANA | Deceptive Dishes: Seafood Swaps Found Worldwide Global Review of Seafood Fraud
Seafood fraud was investigated in 55 countries on every continent except for Antarctica.
Ninety-eight percent of the 69 bluefin tuna A student project at a dishes tested in Brussels university in Chicago restaurants were actually identified 16 mislabeled another fish. In the United Kingdom, a A 2015 German study samples out of 52— consumer watchdog group found about half of the mostly cheaper fish discovered a number of samples sold as “sole” misrepresented as more cases in which haddock to be lower-value fish expensive ones. were being sold as more upon testing. expensive cod, and whiting were being sold as more expensive haddock.
Due to its high price and the difficulty in identifying its In a 2014 study, lower-value source, caviar is especially South African hake was susceptible to fraud. Of 27 A Santa Monica restaurant revealed to have been sold as In Brazil, 55 percent of caviar samples tested from a and two sushi chefs were higher-value European hake “shark” samples tested were variety of vendors around the charged for selling whale in Spain. actually largetooth sawfish, Black Sea and the Danube River, meat, including meat from a species considered by 10 were identified as something the endangered sei whale. the IUCN to be critically other than what the label The restaurant, which has endangered and for which claimed. Three of the “caviar” since closed, had labeled trade is prohibited in Brazil. samples tested contained no the whale as fatty tuna animal DNA at all. It is unknown to hide its true identity Researchers in Italy found what exactly these counterfeit when it was shipped to the that 82 percent of the 200 caviar samples were made of. restaurant in order to sell grouper, perch and swordfish whale sushi. samples they tested were mislabeled, and almost half of those mislabeled species are considered threatened with extinction by the IUCN.
Interactive map: oceana.org/seafoodfraudmap oceana.org 5
OCEANA | Jenn Hueting
Highlights
his review not only demonstrates the and aquaculture drugs, and other natural can cause symptoms ranging from Tglobal scope of seafood fraud, but also toxins, including those described below:18 numbness and tingling to paralysis and brings up a number of serious concerns that death; and illustrate the need for prompt and decisive • Histamine or scombrotoxin , produced in the • Gempylotoxin, a natural toxin found action to combat these illegal activities. poisoning decomposition of certain tuna-related in escolar and oilfish, which can cause The examples below represent just a species, which can cause tingling or oily bowel discharge, nausea, vomiting sampling of many ongoing practices that burning of the mouth or throat, rash and stomach cramps. threaten consumer health, hurt consumers’ or hives, low blood pressure, itching, One commonly mislabeled fish with a wallets, cheat honest fishermen and seafood headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, species-specific health risk is escolar. businesses, and contribute to the depletion diarrhea, fluttery heartbeat and trouble Escolar and its close cousin oilfish are of ocean resources. breathing; species that contain naturally occurring gempylotoxin and have been associated , a natural toxin in certain Health • Ciguatera with outbreaks of severe gastrointestinal reef fish from affected waters, which problems. Oceana’s seafood fraud can cause long-term debilitating More than half (58 percent) of the samples investigations revealed more than 50 cases neurological symptoms, including identified as substitute species in this of escolar being sold as “white tuna” in sushi temperature reversal (not being able to analysis carried a species-specific health risk restaurants in the U.S., while a study in distinguish between hot and cold) and to consumers, meaning these risks could South Africa found oilfish being substituted painful tingling; not be adequately screened or mitigated for swordfish and steenbras.19 A number due to the mislabeling.17 These health risks • Tetrodotoxin, a toxin found in of outbreaks of gastrointestinal symptoms include parasites, environmental chemicals certain pufferfish species, which were reported in two Australian states
6 OCEANA | Deceptive Dishes: Seafood Swaps Found Worldwide Highlights
after customers ate what they thought was Taiwan, and monkfish in Chicago.22 Many Wallets “rudderfish,” but what was likely actually species of pufferfish can harbor the natural escolar.20 Escolar sold as “butterfish” also led toxins tetrodotoxin and saxitoxin, which The global seafood trade is substantial. to outbreaks in Spain and Australia, as did can be deadly at the right dose. The Millions of tons of seafood are caught or oilfish sold as cod or seabass in Hong Kong Chicago case sickened the couple who harvested, processed, packaged, shipped and Canada.21 purchased the mislabeled fish and sent the and sold every year, valuing $148 billion woman to the hospital with numbness, in 2014.24 It is uncertain what the cost of Pufferfish have been found substituted tingling and chest pain. She required weeks seafood fraud is to this global value, but for squid in Italy, cod in China, filefish in of rehabilitative care.23 it is no doubt substantial. The estimated value of annual losses due to illegal fishing worldwide is between $10 billion and $23.5 billion.25 Regardless of the Case Study: Asian Catfish exact annual value of seafood fraud and IUU fishing, there are plenty of economic Imposter Syndrome: What You Thought You Bought incentives and opportunities for deception When You Were Served Pangasius in the opaque global seafood market. This hurts consumers as well as honest fishermen and businesses.
Perch Rock Cod Across the world, our review reveals Grouper Hake that seafood mislabeling appears to be motivated primarily by economic gain Sole Pollock through intentionally misleading buyers Plaice Snakehead (channa) at every level of the seafood supply Halibut Panga chain. About 65 percent of the studies
Catfish Rawas reviewed include clear evidence of economically motivated adulteration of Cod Red Snapper seafood products. In case after case, Flounder Gurnard cheaper or less desirable fish were Basa Anglerfish mislabeled as more expensive varieties.
Pangasius, the most commonly substituted fish worldwide, is frequently disguised as Figure 1. In 141 instances, pangasius was swapped for 18 different wild, higher-value fish. In total, pangasius types of fish around the world, but mostly for perch, grouper and sole has stood in for 18 types of fish worldwide (See Appendix Table A4 for citations). (Figure 1). Investigative journalists first publically uncovered pangasius as a substitute for wild-caught fish in the U.S. Asian Catfish Counterfeits Expanding Around the Globe in 2006,26 but fraud involving pangasius substitutes appeared as early as 2002 in 27 8 the U.S. Since then, the substitution of pangasius for more valuable products 7 has increased. The next earliest cases of 6 pangasius substitution were in Canada and Europe in 2008,28 followed by Egypt29 5 South Africa and South Africa in 2013-2014,30 Brazil in 4 India 2015,31 and India in a 2016 study32 (Figure 3 Egypt 2). Although Europe now accounts for most of the cases of pangasius substitutions in our 2 Brazil global analysis, the most recent large, pan- 1 Europe European study found pangasius replacing 33 0 US/Canada only 3 percent of the 3,900 samples. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Figure 2. Timelines of pangasius substitution around the world using the number of studies, cases or reports finding pangasius fraud. Fraud involving pangasius substitutes appeared as early as 2002 in the U.S. Since then, the substitution of pangasius for more valuable products has increased. oceana.org 7
Highlights
OCEANA | Keith Ellenbogen
Mislabeling is by no means restricted to around the Black Sea and the Danube To help certain species recover and to pangasius. Consumers across the world River, 10 were identified as something prevent their local or total extinction, are being cheated in cases involving a wide other than what the label claimed. some governments have put protections in variety of seafood, as illustrated in the Three of the “caviar” samples tested place that limit the amount of those species examples below: contained no animal DNA at all. It is fishers can catch or prohibit the killing of unknown what exactly these counterfeit especially vulnerable species.42 But some • A 2015 German study found about caviar samples were made of.39 unscrupulous poachers flout these rules half of the samples sold as “sole” to be and then mislabel their catch to hide their lower-value fish upon testing.34 Fraud occurs throughout the seafood illegal practices. • In the United Kingdom, a consumer supply chain, not just at restaurants and watchdog group discovered a number supermarkets. One case reported in The studies compiled here bear troubling of cases in which haddock were Oceana’s 2013 “Seafood Sticker Shock” statistics. Sixteen percent of the species being sold as more expensive cod, report described the prosecution of a U.S. identified as substitutes are considered to and whiting were being sold as more seafood processor for the mislabeling of have some level of elevated conservation expensive haddock.35 160,000 pounds of coho salmon as the more risk (either threatened or close to 40 expensive Chinook, a value of $1.3 million. becoming threatened with extinction in • Lower-value South African hake was An investigation underway in New England the near future) by the IUCN.43 Most of revealed to have been sold as higher- alleges that the owner of multiple fishing those (nearly 12 percent of all the species value European hake in Spain in a 2014 vessels and seafood processing facilities was substituted) are considered critically study.36 able to hide roughly $154 million in illegally endangered, endangered or vulnerable. • In 2015, European researchers found caught and mislabeled seafood in a decades- More than half of the species identified as 41 that 14 percent of the products they long scheme. substitutes were species that are categorized tested labeled as European anchovies as “data deficient” or “not evaluated” were replaced with lower-value fish.37 Conservation by the IUCN, meaning it is not known whether or not these species have healthy • A student project at a university in The oceans are in trouble. Overfishing, populations.44 Chicago identified 16 mislabeled destruction of essential habitat (due to samples out of 52, mostly cheaper fish damaging bottom trawls), and bycatch It is very important to have accurate misrepresented as more expensive ones.38 (the killing of non-target species) have all seafood labels. Seafood buyers already have • Due to its high price and the difficulty in led to severely depleted fish stocks, and difficulty differentiating the responsibly identifying its source, caviar is especially more and more marine animals are ending caught snapper since species-specific susceptible to fraud. Of 27 caviar up on a growing list of species threatened names are often not offered, and even samples tested from a variety of vendors with extinction. more concerning is the threat to at-risk
8 OCEANA | Deceptive Dishes: Seafood Swaps Found Worldwide Highlights
species when they are caught and then even though there was no known species sold as a more abundant variety. Oceana’s identified by this name. Suspicious, past investigations found that 87 percent researchers collected samples of douradinha, of snapper sampled nationwide were as well as other dubiously labeled market mislabeled.45 In fact, 33 different species samples of “douradinho,” “piratinga” and Overfishing, destruction of fish were found to be substituted for “dourado.” It turned out that 60 percent of essential habitat and the snapper sold. The majority of species of these fish were actually the undesirable sold under the name of “snapper” in the “vulture” catfish. Because of its low price, bycatch have all led to U.S.46 have not had the population status public schools, hospitals, penitentiaries and severely depleted fish of their stocks evaluated, so it is unclear the army may be major markets for this fish, whether most snapper species are actually which is alarming as it has been found to stocks, and more and sustainably fished or in jeopardy. Of the contain high levels of mercury.53 more marine animals are minority of the snapper species that have been assessed, 20 percent face a high risk of In China, sablefish is a popular product. ending up on a growing extinction in the wild.47 A large majority of products marketed as list of species threatened sablefish in online Chinese seafood shops The FDA also allows 66 different species were found to actually be Antarctic or with extinction. of fish to be sold under the acceptable Patagonian toothfish. Both of these long- market name “grouper.”48 In contrast to lived toothfish species are commercially the snappers, most of the species marketed valuable worldwide and have catch limits OCEANA | A. Ellis under the name grouper in the U.S. have enforced via international conventions.54 been evaluated by the IUCN for their risk For these reasons, toothfish are targeted by of extinction. Roughly 36 percent are at IUU fishermen, who then market the catch risk, and 3 percent of those are critically as sablefish to allow them to hide their endangered.49 Oceana’s DNA tests identified misconduct.55 a lower fraud rate of grouper compared to snapper (26 percent), but the types of fish In some cases, when a cheaper, more being misrepresented were much more abundant fish is mislabeled as a more disconcerting. For example, gulf grouper, expensive, less-abundant fish, it can give an IUCN endangered species, and speckled consumers a perception that the stocks hind, an IUCN critically endangered are healthier than they actually are. A species, were both misrepresented and sold 2014 study in Spain found that the more as more sustainably managed fish.50 abundant ling were being mislabeled as the highly overfished cod.56 Two other studies Researchers in Italy found that 82 percent since then have found similar ling-for-cod of the 200 grouper, perch and swordfish substitutions.57 In Brussels, bluefin tuna, a samples they tested were mislabeled, and strictly managed fishery with a quota capped almost half of those mislabeled species under a 20-year recovery plan, nevertheless 2008 study, 16 out of the 40 samples of are considered threatened with extinction appears on menus year-round. Of the anglerfish purchased in Spanish markets by the IUCN.51 Similarly, researchers in 69 bluefin tuna dishes tested in Brussels were mislabeled.59 A similar mislabeling Brazil found 55 percent of “shark” samples restaurants, 98 percent were actually another rate among frozen anglerfish products was tested were actually the IUCN critically species.58 The appearance of these struggling found in Italy in 2012.60 endangered largetooth sawfish, a trade- species on menus could make it harder to prohibited species in Brazil.52 argue for increased protections for cod and Even marine mammals get mislabeled to bluefin tuna when consumers think that the hide their identity, avoiding laws prohibiting In Brazil, pink river dolphins and caimans populations are healthy and abundant. their sale. In an especially egregious example, (a large reptile) are coming under threat according to a government report, a Santa because they are illegally killed for use as Consumption of anglerfish has increased Monica, California restaurant and two sushi bait for an unpopular catfish (Calophysus in the European Union over the last chefs were charged for selling whale meat, macropterus), known as “water vultures” by few decades. To protect the species, the including endangered sei whale meat.61 locals. Despite its undesirability, researchers European Union set Total Allowable The restaurant, which has since closed, noticed that landing data reflected an active Catches (or TACs) that limit the number had labeled the whale as fatty tuna to hide fishery. At the same time, researchers that can be fished each year. IUU fishing, its true identity when it was shipped to noted that a “new” fish named “douradinha” as well as mislabeling at landing, makes the restaurant and then sold to diners as started appearing in Brazilian markets, enforcing these TACs difficult. In a whale sushi.
oceana.org 9
The European Union: A Promising Case Study
he European Union has enacted some The mandatory information now available or prepared food (i.e., cooked, steamed, Tof the world’s earliest and strongest to EU consumers about most of their breaded, fried or marinated) like caviar, legal provisions to stop IUU fishing. In seafood includes: several types of aquatic invertebrates (like 2000, the EU began developing legal jellyfish, sea urchins and sea cucumbers), • .the commercial and scientific names of provisions aimed at tracing seafood and and canned seafood. Also excluded from the the product; providing more consistent information to rules are entire sectors of the seafood supply consumers,62 and then strengthened the • the production method: wild-caught chain, such as restaurants (both dine-in IUU provisions in 2008.63 Since coming (at sea or in freshwater) or farmed; and take away), canteens, hospitals, schools into force in 2010, these increased IUU or catering enterprises, where higher • the catch or production area where the provisions include a catch certification mislabeling rates have been observed, yet fish was caught or farmed; scheme for all imported and exported are poorly studied.68 seafood, a third-country carding process • the fishing gear used; that imposes import restrictions on • whether the product is fresh, frozen or Are the rules working? countries that are not actively addressing had been previously frozen; IUU fishing, and penalties for EU The EU’s increased transparency and nationals who engage in or support illegal • the “best before” and “use by” date; and traceability in the supply chain, along with fishing around the world. Additional EU • information about allergens.66 its measures to combat IUU fishing, offer regulations that went into effect in 2012 an opportunity to observe whether these and 2014 require tracing of all seafood While these provisions have increased efforts are having a measurable effect on from catch or harvest to the retail level (i.e. fisheries control and the transparency of seafood fraud levels. Oceana examined the grocers and restaurants).64 Requirements seafood information, certain weaknesses in data on seafood mislabeling in the EU to expanding consumer information required the scope, implementation and information see if any changes in the level of fraud could on seafood products began in 2001 and available to consumers remain.67 For be detected over time. The quantitative have since been strengthened in the 2012 example, certain seafood products are analysis used in this review includes 70 and 2014 provisions. 65 exempt from the provisions: most processed studies looking at fraud and mislabeling in
Example of label for an unprocessed and prepacked fresh product
Commercial designation and scientific name Production method
Catch area