Study finds seafood labels ripe for ‘misrepresentation’
‘Citizen scientists’ discover most stickers lacked key information for consumers
A nationwide study of grocerystore seafood found that seven per cent of samples were labelled improperly and most lacked information consumers need to make responsible choices.
Preliminary results also suggest that B.C. retailers are more prone to poor labelling practices than stores in other parts of Canada. Thirteen of 31 samples in which the DNA sample didn’t match the common name on the label came from B.C.
Seafood watchdog SeaChoice recruited 300 volunteer “citizen scientists” to collect 501 samples of fish along with photos of label information for DNA analysis at the University of Guelph in Ontario.
Regan McEachnie, a security equipment dealer, sent in samples from his local grocery store in West Vancouver after being recruited by the David Suzuki Foundation.
“We eat a lot of seafood, so I want to be sure that what I’m eating is actually what I think I’m eating,” said McEachnie. “I’m concerned about the sustainability of the fisheries, so absolutely I want to be sure that what I am buying isn’t causing harm.”
For his part, McEachnie bought rockfish and salmon at Loblaws.
“I bought rock fish, but it’s hard to tell from looking at it what I have,” he said. “If (retailers) don’t label things properly then how are you supposed to make an informed choice?”
Nova Scotia also appears to be a hotbed of poor labelling practices, while retailers in Central Canada were more likely to have acceptable labelling methods.
“Those variations probably reflect the different practices of retailers in each region,” said Scott Wallace, senior research scientist at the Suzuki foundation. “In each case it’s probably a single chain’s way of labelling that is being repeated at many different locations.”
SeaChoice is meeting with retailers to show them their results and determine the practices that may have led to a finding of mislabelling, he said.
The study also found that consumers hoping to buy seafood from sustainable fisheries will get little help from typical grocery-store labels, said Colleen Turlo, SeaChoice representative from the Ecology Action Centre.
More than 84 per cent of seafood labels lack country-of-origin, while 42 per cent don’t even say if the fish is wild or farm-raised. The scientific or Latin name of the fish — which is far more specific than the common name — was present on only five per cent of labels.
Canadian labelling requirements are so weak that retailers can get away with a “huge amount of misrepresentation within the legal guidelines,” Wallace said.
About one per cent of the samples collected were different species from the name on the label, often white fish, such as rockfish being sold as snapper. White-fish species are difficult to tell apart once they’re cut into filets.
Seven per cent of samples weren’t compliant with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s labelling requirements or were sold under generic names.
“There are 10 different fish you can sell as sole in B.C. alone, but there are differences in quality and sustainability,” he said. “Even if you want to support Canadian fisheries, you can’t do it. The label only has to say the country in which it is processed and it says nothing at all if that country is Canada.”
The incidence of seafood fraud has plummeted over the past decade, as many major chains have adopted sustainable sourcing in partnership with organizations such as SeaChoice and Ocean Wise. A 2008 study of North American grocers and restaurants found 25 per cent of samples were either mislabelled or outright substitutions.
“Large retailers can’t take the risk of doing product switches, the technology is too freely available to test for it and they can’t afford the reputational risk,” said Wallace. SeaChoice tested more than 500 samples, including postage and analysis, for about $10,000.