When it comes to seafood, what you see is not always what you get.
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.
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 enjoys a better conservation status than the fish on the label.
“One of the motivations and hopes for this study is that we can help people who are trying to exert their consumer power to shift seafood markets toward 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.
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.
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.
(Source: University of Washington)
Click To Share This Fishy Story With Your Friends