I’m lucky.
I live in a coastal town, I own an offshore-capable boat and
I’m a decent enough angler that I can usually find a fish or two when I go out
on the water. That means that when I
want to eat fish, I either have something just-caught and fresh sitting on ice,
or have enough vacuum-packed memories of previous trips waiting for me in the
freezer, so I don’t have to admit defeat and buy fish caught by someone else.
Most folks aren’t quite as fortunate.
They end up buying fish, either in stores or in restaurants. And their luck doesn’t get too much better
there, because labels can be deceptive, and what they think that they’re buying
isn’t necessarily what they actually get.
Back in 2012, the conservation group Oceana conducted a
study designed to quantify the level of marketing fraud inherent in the retail
fish business. What they discovered came
as a shock to many people. According
to Oceana,
“Everywhere seafood is tested, fraud has been found. In fact, Oceana and others have recently
found shocking levels of mislabeling in the Boston (48 percent), Los Angeles
(55 percent) and Miami (31 percent) areas.
Oceana also investigated seafood labeling in the New York City area…Oceana found that 39
percent of the 142 seafood samples collected and DNA tested from grocery
stores, restaurants and sushi venues were mislabeled, according to the United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines.”
The mislabeling ranged from a few occasions of merely using
a colloquial name not approved by the FDA (e.g., calling tautog “blackfish,”
the name that prevails along the waterfront in the New York City metropolitan
area) to more egregious examples, such as using the misleading term “white
tuna” when marketing escolar, a sort of snake mackerel that is frequently
caught as bycatch by pelagic longliners and which, when
eaten in any quantity, can cause folks to suffer sudden, unexpected,
uncontrollable bouts of projectile diarrhea as orange as Donald Trump’s hair.
You’d probably want to know if you were buying something
like that…
The Oceana researchers also found a lot of more mundane
dishonesty, where low-priced fish were held out to be more expensive varieties.
Lesser fish sold as “red snapper” and “wild salmon” provided
the most common examples of this sort of scam.
A variety of fish was sold as red snapper, ranging from Pacific
rockfish, called “red snapper” in California, to less desirable species of
Atlantic snappers to such things as farmed tilapia and various inexpensive
bottom fish. Ersatz “wild salmon” was
some sort of farmed salmonid, generally either Atlantic salmon or rainbow
trout.
Such dishonesty in labeling has consequences, both to the
consumer, who might be getting a lower-quality and perhaps less than wholesome
product, and to the resource itself, as mislabeling allows illegally-harvested
seafood to be slipped into the chain of commerce. Unscrupulous fishermen will often pass off a
protected species as something else, just to be able to sell it, or find a way
to get illegally-harvested fish into the market, where they will be
indistinguishable from fish caught by honest harvesters.
Recent law enforcement actions in New
York and Massachusetts
provide examples of both problems.
On a larger scale, so called “IUU”—illegal, unreported and unregulated—harvests
plague fisheries throughout the world.
Fish from dubious sources is “laundered” by unscrupulous dealers and,
once integrated into the stream of commerce, is foisted upon an unsuspected
public.
Thus, for reasons of both commerce and conservation, it
makes sense to track shipments of fish from the ports where it’s landed to the
shops and restaurants where it is sold at retail.
That’s why Ocean has followed up its earlier work with a new
report. Entitled “Fish
Stories: Success and Value in Seafood
Traceability”, it notes that
“The first step in ensuring that seafood is safe, legally
caught and honestly labeled, is traceability.
Traceability increases transparency and accountability in the seafood
supply chain by ensuring that information such as how and where fish are caught
or farmed follows the fish from boat to plate.”
The report goes on to describe a number of existing
traceability programs, including one that I’ve seen in action, the “Gulf Wild” certification developed by the
Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholder’s Alliance.
Not too long ago, I stood on the dock at Katie’s Seafood Market
in Galveston, Texas, watching commercial boats land their day’s catch of red
snapper.
As soon as the fish were
delivered, each one was marked with a “Gulf Wild” tag, which bore a unique
number and scannable QR code. At any
time of the day or night, a
consumer who purchased any of those fish could enter the tag’s data into a
computer and learn all of the pertinent details, including the species of fish,
the captain and boat that landed it and the port where it was landed.
We can only surmise what things would be like if all
fisheries were subject to a similar system.
Certainly, the antics of the “Codfather” up in New Bedford,
who was recently arrested for allegedly shipping illegal New England
groundfish, could not have occurred. As
described in the Boston Globe,
“He called all the fish haddock, even if they weren’t. The dab fish.
The gray sole.
“If the fish inspectors weren’t watching when his boats came
into the docks at New Bedford, according to the authorities, fish mogul Carlos
Rafael labeled every species of the fish he caught as the cheaper, more common
haddock—while secretly trading hundreds of pounds of more coveted species for
bags of cash.
“The goal: evade the
federal quota on the more coveted fish.”
Closer to home, I can only think how such a catch-tracing
system would benefit our local tautog population. The fish used to be common on every rockpile,
wreck and reef off Long Island; they supported a relatively small, yet active,
recreational fishery, but had little commercial value. Then, perhaps 35 years ago, live blackfish
began being sold in urban ethnic markets; prices for live fish spiked, and
spawned an active illicit fishery that quickly decimated the population.
Ever since, law enforcement has been fighting a largely
unsuccessful battle to rein in the illegal tautog harvest. Recently, the Atlantic States Marine FisheriesCommission has begun seriously considering a program that would requirefishermen to tag their tautog when caught.
Such tags, if made part of a broader traceability program, might well
prove the critical first step to rebuilding the stock.
Traceability is an idea whose time has definitely come. It has no downside for honest fishermen or
fish dealers, and can provide some real benefits to both consumers and the
resource itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment