University of
Washington
It's no secret that
mislabeling is rampant around the world. Recent studies estimate up to 30
percent of seafood served in restaurants and sold in supermarkets is actually
something other than what is listed on the menu or label.
Why mislabeling
happens is a little squishier. Fraud, human error or marketing ploys --
combined with an often multicountry traverse from boat to restaurant -- make it
possible you are eating a different fish than what's on the menu.
A University of
Washington study is the first to broadly examine the ecological and financial
impacts of seafood mislabeling.
The paper, published online Nov. 2 in Conservation Letters, finds that in most cases, mislabeling actually leads people to eat more sustainably, because the substituted fish is often more plentiful and of a better conservation status than the fish on the label.
"One of the
motivations and hopes for this study is that we can help inform people who are
trying to exert their consumer power to shift seafood markets toward carrying
more sustainable options," said co-author Christine Stawitz, a UW doctoral
student in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences and the Quantitative
Ecology and Resource Management program.
The researchers, all
UW graduate students in aquatic and fishery sciences, aggregated data from 43
published papers that tested the DNA of fish at various locations, including
ports, restaurants, grocery stores and fish markets to determine whether
mislabeling occurred.
They then matched the conservation status and estimated
price for each of the mislabeled and true fishes listed in the studies.
They found a wide
range of conservation status and price differences, but two general trends
emerged: True fish sold are of a better conservation status and slightly less
expensive than the species named when fish are mislabeled.
"We found a lot
of diversity in conservation status across taxa," said co-author Margaret
Siple.
"Depending on what you order or purchase, you can get a fish that
is more endangered than what you ordered, or something that is actually of
better conservation status. What we want to emphasize is how diverse these
differences are."
Their analysis found
that true fish are valued at about 97 percent of the mislabeled seafood. That
means consumers are paying on average a little more for mislabeled fish.
The study didn't
examine the potential reasons behind this, but the researchers speculate that while
it could be intentional mislabeling to rip off consumers, it is just as likely
restaurants and markets are serving and stocking fish they think match the
label, but are cheaper, more plentiful options.
A white-fish filet can look
like any number of species, they explained, and substitutions could happen
anywhere in the supply chain.
The new study also
summarizes which fish are most likely to be mislabeled and of those which
varied the most in conservation status between true fish and mislabeled fish.
For
example, snapper is one of the most frequently mislabeled fish. Its
conservation status is vulnerable to endangered -- meaning its population isn't
doing well -- but the fishes most often substituted for snapper are considered
critically endangered.
Results from this
study could be useful in helping consumers make sustainable purchasing
decisions by avoiding fish that are most likely to be mislabeled. That list is
led by croakers, shark catfish (or "basa"), sturgeon and perch.
Consumers can also look out for fish commonly replaced with species that are
not from sustainable stocks. Examples include eel, hake and snapper.
These results could
also help seafood certification efforts such as the Marine Stewardship Council
and the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch focus efforts on fisheries that
are most likely to be mislabeled, the researchers say.
The Marine Stewardship
Council certifies fisheries for sustainable fishing practices and traceability
from the port to markets. A fish often travels from the port to processors and
several distributors before reaching the end market, and this change of hands
is likely where mislabeling happens, the new study found.
"We hope this
study can help certifiers understand where in the chain of custody they should
be putting their efforts," Siple said.
