Shocking amount of seafood is not what the label says, study finds: ScienceAlert

If you eat seafood, you could be unknowingly consuming an endangered species without realizing it due to improper fish labeling. Mislabeling is a global problem, and it happens when the species of fish you think you’re buying are not the ones you actually receive.

Tracing fish from capture to consumption is logistically complex, as fish products often pass through multiple countries. Along the way, products may be misidentified as another species or intentionally renamed to generate more profit.

For example, an inexpensive fish like tilapia may be named after a more expensive fish, like red snapper, or an endangered species may be touted as a more successful alternative.

Mislabeling seafood not only threatens vulnerable marine populations, but also makes it more difficult for people to make informed and ethical choices about the foods they eat.

Mislabeling Investigation in Calgary

To study this problem in Canada, our recent research paper examined mislabeling and ambiguous market names in invertebrate and fish products – finned fish, such as cod, salmon and tuna – in Calgary between 2014 and 2020. This was the first study of its type in Canada. Canada will compare shellfish to fish.

University students sampled 347 fish and 109 seafood products – including shrimp, octopus and oysters – from Calgary restaurants and grocery stores. These samples were then genetically tested using a species-specific marker called a DNA barcode.

In Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency maintains a list of fish that provides common names acceptable for fish labeling in Canada.

A seafood product was considered mislabeled if it was sold under a name not on the fish list for the species identified by DNA. For example, there is only one species that can be sold as salmon: Atlantic salmon. If sockeye salmon was sold as salmon without any other qualifier, it was considered mislabeled.

1 in 5 seafood products have been mislabeled

We found that mislabeling is common in Calgary and that certain product names are more likely to hide species of conservation concern. Result: one in five fish and one in five shellfish did not correspond to what was advertised. These findings are consistent with predicted global rates of seafood mislabeling.

It was not difficult for students to come across examples of mislabeling. Notable results include:

• 100 percent of snapper and red snapper products were mislabeled. It was either tilapia (79 percent) or a species of redfish or snapper that cannot be sold under those names (21 percent).
• Nine salmon products were determined to be rainbow trout, which is less expensive.
• Three Pacific cod were determined to be Atlantic cod, classified as vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
• Two eel products have been deemed critically endangered by the European eel.
• Cuttlefish, squid and octopus were often incorrectly labeled as one another.

However, some products fare better than others. All Atlantic salmon, basa, halibut, mackerel, sockeye salmon and Pacific white shrimp were as advertised.

Bad etiquette hurts

Calgary’s mislabeled seafood has far-reaching and well-documented public health, conservation and economic consequences.

For example, a student purchased “white tuna” at an all-you-can-eat sushi buffet that turned out to be escolar. Escolar is sometimes called the “laxative of the sea” for the effects its fatty acids can have on digestion. People have ended up in the hospital because of this fish.

Several examples of mislabeling involved the substitution of an expensive product for a cheaper species: tilapia for snapper, rainbow trout for Atlantic salmon. Although companies in places like Miami and Mississippi have been fined for such fraudulent practices, the global nature of fishing makes prosecution difficult.

The European eel is critically endangered, but students discovered this species twice in the Calgary market. There is a global black market for European eel and a Canadian company was fined in 2021 for illegally importing it.

Although red snapper fares poorly in the wild, replacing it with tilapia does not help its conservation. Instead, it gives the illusion of an abundance of snapper.

The situation is even murkier when it comes to invertebrates like shrimp, squid and octopus. Unfortunately, so little is known about their conservation status that we have not been able to assess their risks.

What you can do

If you eat seafood, you risk being misled as a consumer and end up eating endangered species. You can narrow down these possibilities by doing the following:

1. Buy whole fish with the head on whenever possible, as they are more difficult to mislabel.
2. Buy certified sustainable seafood, as it has been shown to have lower rates of mislabeling.
3. Buy products that clearly name the exact species purchased.
4. Write to your MPs to support laws to trace fish from boat to table. Canada has improved its regulations, but it can do better.

This will require you to hone your fish identification skills, but it’s a small price to pay to protect our fish, save on groceries, and limit unexpected and urgent trips to the bathroom.

Ambiguous names hide protected species

To assist sellers, the fish listing allows the use of ambiguous names, meaning the same name can be applied to more than one species. Snapper could refer to 96 different species, tuna to 14 and cod to two. This helps sellers when related species are difficult to distinguish and should reduce mislabeling.

We noticed that seafood with ambiguous names was just as likely to be mislabeled as those with precise names. We asked ourselves: what is worse for conservation, mislabeling or ambiguous names? After all, tuna could legally include yellowfin tuna (least concern) or southern bluefin tuna (endangered).

A statistical test found that ambiguous names were more important than mislabeling in hiding endangered species. This is a good thing, because it suggests there is a way for consumers to help.

Just like you wouldn’t go to a restaurant and order a “mammal sandwich”, why settle for “fish and chips”? If we consumers can vote with our wallets by buying Pacific cod instead of cod, or yellowfin tuna instead of tuna, we can be more confident that we are not eating the ocean equivalent of panda giant.

Matthew RJ Morris, Associate Professor of Biology, Ambrose University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.