Page 15 - AWA Vol. 42-No.2 issue

FiSHERiES

Global fish fraud and the tools to combat it

Fish fraud, in a variety of guises, is widespread in markets
around the world, and there are a growing number of tools to
combat it, according to a new report published by the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
“Food fraud in the fisheries and aquaculture sector,” pro-
duced by FAO through cooperation between its Fisheries
and Aquaculture Division and the Joint FAO/IAEA Centre of
Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, offers an inci-
sive portrait of the complex field of fraud and a review of how
novel analytical techniques can help detect it.
There is no official estimate of how prevalent fraud is in the
$195 billion global fisheries and aquaculture sector, but em-
pirical studies suggest that 20 percent of the trade may be
subject to some type of fraud, notably higher than for meat
and fruits and vegetables, largely due to the vast diversity of Selling Atlantic salmon, almost all of which is farmed, as Pa-
species in the sector. cific salmon, most of which is wild caught, delivers a nearly
Fish fraud is defined in the report as “a deliberate practice $10 benefit per kilogram. Farmed seabass branded as local
intended to deceive others” and, depending on the type of to Italy sells for two to three times as much as the same fish
deceit it can pose risks to biodiversity, human health or eco- originating from Greece or Turkey, and even more if sold as
nomic systems. The main categories of fish fraud are adulter- wild-caught. Adding water to unprocessed fishery products
ation (adding coloring to make tuna look fresher), counterfeit to bolster weight and price is another common practice, also
(imitation shrimp made from starch-based compounds), sim- widespread in land-based meat production.
ulation (packaging surimi to seem like crab meat), diversion Some fish fraud is done to mask the geographic provenance
(distributing legitimate products outside of their intended of a product or to suppress evidence of above-quota landings.
markets), misbranding (such as incorrect claims about sus- Such practices may pose risks to the sustainability of fishery
tainability), overrun (involving overfishing), species substitu- stocks.
tion (selling tilapia as red snapper), tampering and mislabel-
ing (involving origins and even expiry dates), and theft. Tools and initiatives
The report advocates harmonized labelling requirements, Given its complexity, identifying fish fraud is not straight-
the mandatory inclusion of scientific names where possible, forward, but the report goes into considerable detail about
and better traceability systems. The use of advanced tech- how advances in science can contribute to tackling fraud. A
niques ranging from enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, standard method to determine whether and how many times a
stable isotope analysis and nuclear magnetic resonance can seafood product has been frozen has so far proven elusive, but
be effective, although not available to all, while portable X-ray differences in the fatty-acid composition of wild and farmed
fluorescence and machine-learning models are innovations fish may be used to detect fraud, as well as carbon and ni-
that can aid regulation. trogen ratios to determine the geographical origin of major
The evidence base commercial fish species.
The report also reviews a number of concerted efforts to
Although thousands of fish fraud studies have been carried
out, demonstrating the widespread nature of the problem in tackle cases of suspected fraud in Italy, and Argentina and the
every continent save Antarctica, there are no solid baseline United States of America.
studies to estimate its prevalence. The global scale of fish con- An investigation using DNA-barcoding to assess the scale of
sumption, targeting over 12,000 seafood species, the diversity mislabeling in Los Angeles, California found that while it is
of fraud types, and the lack of standardized regulatory or le- quite low in processing plants, it is moderate among grocers,
gal definitions of fraud, make global estimations difficult to and particularly prevalent in sushi restaurants. At the same
obtain. time, retail-level mislabeling was rare for tuna, albacore and
However, some studies suggest that up to 30 percent of sea- salmon, but common for red snapper and halibut. A local ini-
food products may be mislabeled in restaurants, and the re- tiative, partnering academia, industry and government stake-
port cites cases from around the world, from ceviche stands in holders, managed through an education campaign coupled
Latin America and seafood eateries in China to canned tuna with ongoing blind tests, managed to reduce seafood misla-
products in the European Union. While as much as a third of beling in the focus area by two-thirds over 10 years.
aquatic products sold in the United States may not be what is Prevention and enforcement, with the active participation of
written on the packaging, less than one percent of imports are the private sector, is critical to reduce and eventually elimi-
tested. nate fish and all food fraud. FAO and the Codex Alimentarius
The human welfare risks of some seafood fraud are evident, Commission are working on developing international stan-
as some fish pose risks when eaten raw, while re-freezing dards to combat food fraud, while FAO through the Joint FAO/
seafood increases the risk of bacterial growth. However, eco- IAEA Centre offers technical support to Members that need to
nomic incentives are the most widespread driver of fish fraud. bolster their testing capacities. Circle 15 on enquiry card
Vol. 42 No. 2 13