Food fraud in fish summary
- Fish and seafood supply chains are highly complex and therefore vulnerable
- Mislabelled species and adulterated products create serious health risks worldwide
- Fraud causes financial losses through recalls and unfair market competition
- DNA barcoding and isotope analysis help authenticate species and origins
- Industry needs traceability systems and routine testing to prevent deception
Food fraud is rising in frequency across global supply chains. Fish and seafood, however, has been highlighted as particularly vulnerable.
This is due to its complex supply chains, the large volume of trade involved, and the thousands of species traded.
One study suggests 21% of the fish sector may be subject to fraud, which is more than meat, fruit or vegetables. However, no official estimate exists.
Fish fraud can take a number of forms. Species can be mislabelled, products can be adulterated with other substances, and fake products can be created. Fish can be given the wrong ingredients, expiry date, sustainability information or organic certification, be distributed outside their intended market, or simply be stolen. Fish can also be caught beyond the established limit set out in official quotas.
Substitution of species and mislabelling of important information (e.g. expiry date) are the two most common type of fish fraud.
Food fraud in fish not only poses a financial risk to the fishing industry; it is a very real threat to the consumer’s health and wellbeing as well.
A report by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) outlines the risks posed by fish fraud, and what measures companies can take to combat it.
Seafood fraud driving industry losses
The main incentive for food fraud is profit. And fish fraud is no exception. When fraudsters make a profit, it often means fish and aquaculture are at a loss.
Losses can come through safety concerns provoked by fraud. Money can be lost by businesses through recalls, when products are taken off the market to ensure consumer safety.
Furthermore, by introducing cheaper fish posing as more expensive species, fraud undercuts the market and provides unfair competition to legitimate business. Often the differential between the price of a fish species and its substitute is large.
For example, substituting Pacific salmon for Atlantic salmon gives fraudsters around $10 benefit per kilogram.
Beyond these concrete losses, studies show that food fraud creates uncertainty among consumers, potentially affecting sales. Consumers are willing to pay more for traceability information.
What are the food safety risks?
Such fraud poses evident risks to human health, especially in the cases of either species substitution or mislabelling of important information such as expiry date.
A study by the NGO Oceana found that 58% of species substitutions involved species that had the potential to pose a health risk to the consumer.
Adulteration can also pose a risk to health when fish products are adulterated with harmful products. In the past, adulterations have included carbon monoxide to make fish redder, and formaldehyde to mask spoilage.
Even theft can pose risk to the consumer, as stolen fish is able to bypass safety checks.
The examples above are only a few ways in which fish fraud can put consumer health in danger. There are many others. “All forms of fraud can have food safety implications”, says FAO fisheries officer Esther Garrido.
Food safety detection systems, she says, are less well equipped for deliberate deception than they are unintentional safety breaches.
How to combat fish fraud
There are a number of scientific methods that can be used to combat food fraud in fish.
Wild and farmed fish have differences in their fatty acid composition, for example, which can be detected using gas chromatography, a type of chromatography (separation of a mixture into its components in the lab).
DNA barcoding can detect the difference between fish species themselves. DNA barcoding is a way to identify a species from its genetic sequencing, and has been claimed as the best way to identify living beings.
DNA-based methods of detection often have an advantage over protein-based methods, according to the FAO; DNA, unlike proteins, can be identified even in processed foods and usually contains more information.
Even the geographic origin of a fish can be determined by measuring its isotopes, which are affected by habitat. This is important, as many fish have geographical indications or protected designation of origin (PDO) markers.
Despite these scientific solutions, the sector needs more structural ones as well, aiming at prevention as well as detection.
“Businesses should implement due diligence, supplier verification, traceability systems, and routine authenticity testing as part of normal operations,” says Garrido.
“Fraud prevention works best when it is integrated into business risk management, not treated as an external enforcement issue”.
