A recent investigation of the seafood market in Calgary has revealed high levels of mislabeling and liberal use of ambiguous market names, used to obscure species that might be of conservation concern. It is the first Canadian study to broadly address invertebrate and finfish mislabelling with considerable cross-sector implications for sustainable seafood consumption.
Mislabeling Mayhem
The research, published in PeerJ Life and Environment, looked at 109 invertebrate and 347 finfish products being offered for sale in Calgary from 2014 to 2020. The investigators reported that about 1 in 5 (21%) seafood products were mislabeled, with mislabeling rates of 20.2% for invertebrates and 21.3% for finfish.
The study identified many instances of problematic substitutions, including the critically-endangered European eel (Anguilla anguilla) being sold as the more plentiful (in North America, at least) freshwater eel (Anguilla rostrata), and cuttlefish products that were actually threadfin porgy (Evynnis cardinalis), which faces continued overfishing. The results sound alarm bells for the sustainability of seafood sourced through less monitored supply chains, and suggest trouble ahead for some sensitive marine ecosystems.
“None of us would ever purchase something with the name mammal sandwich or bird salad, but for some reason we are happy to buy items with names like rockfish, tuna or cod,” said Assoc. Prof. Matthew R.J. Morris of Ambrose University. Previous work has demonstrated that this grey area surrounding market names is problematic for identifying species (you would think the problem here would be solved long ago, because one product name applies to 10 different species), but even worse, it conceals endangered species.
The problem with ambiguous name
Apart from detectable fraud, the study reveals both clear examples of ambiguity and enforcement problems with market names — terms such as snapper or grouper that encompass a variety of species — that make it difficult to enforce sustainable seafood management regulations.
The confusion generated by names such as overfished and susceptible became synonymous with threatened species, highlighting the necessity for accurate nomenclature to prevent the exploitation of marine life. The authors maintain that doing away with vague market names is a far more vital endeavor to conserve endangered species than keeping track of misidentification alone.
Assoc. Prof. Morris said, “If we purchase seafood products that are not identified to species level we may well be facilitating the consumption of animals we would prefer to protect.” But as the DNA-based identification tools advance, clearer labeling standards could be feasible and are required to enable consumers to make more informed sustainable choices.
Conclusion
Our results highlight the critical importance of both regulatory reform and consumer education with respect to seafood fraud and ambiguous market names. Through setting examples on how serious the problem is for ourselves, so far Among other things, the researchers are pushing for more transparency and accountability within the seafood industry. With conservation efforts becoming increasingly important we need consumers to be more active and smarter by demanding clear, direct labeling to get the information needed to make healthier, sustainable decisions. This is the only way to effectively save actual marine life of concern masked by mislabeling and obfuscation.
