Labeling compliance and species authentication of fish fillets sold at grocery stores in Southern California

Highlights

• 120 fish fillets were collected from grocery stores and examined for mislabeling.

• Species substitution was detected in 13.3% of fish samples.

• Unacceptable market names were observed in 9.2% of samples.

• 23.3% of samples were non-compliant with Country of Origin Labeling regulations.

• Overall, 39.2% of samples had at least one labeling error.

Abstract

Seafood mislabeling has numerous consequences, including economic deception and food safety risks. The focus of this study was to investigate fish species labeling, use of acceptable market names, and Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) compliance for fresh fish fillets sold at grocery store seafood counters in Southern California. A total of 120 fillets representing 16 different categories of fish were collected from 30 Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA)-listed grocery stores. Each sample underwent DNA barcoding to identify the species. Acceptable market names were confirmed using the FDA Seafood List. Samples were determined to be compliant with COOL if both the country of origin and the production method were declared in accordance with regulatory requirements. Species substitution was detected in 16 of the 120 samples (13.3%) and unacceptable market names were observed for an additional 11 samples (9.2%). The highest rates of species substitution were recorded for snapper (3/3), yellowtail (2/4), halibut (4/10), cod (3/10), and bass (2/7). COOL noncompliance was observed for 28 samples (23.3%): the country of origin was missing for 15 samples, production method was missing for 9 samples, and 4 samples were missing both. When all forms of mislabeling were considered, 47 of the 120 samples (39.2%) had at least one labeling error. The majority of grocery stores (25/30) had one or more samples with a mislabeling error. This study revealed species mislabeling as a continuous concern in the seafood industry, especially with higher-valued species. Furthermore, the lack of COOL compliance among retailers is concerning and suggests a need for increased focus on these regulations.

Introduction

Seafood is a valuable protein source worldwide, with global per capita seafood consumption at over 20 kg per year (FAO, 2018). In the U.S., an estimated 7.3 kg of fish and shellfish were consumed per person in 2017, an increase of 0.5 kg from the previous year (NOAA, 2018). The top commercial fish consumed in the U.S. are salmon, tuna, tilapia, pollock, Pangasius, cod, and catfish (Delaware SeaGrant, 2018). Many fish fillets are similar in appearance yet have different market values, leading to the potential for species to be substituted for the purpose of economic gain (Hellberg & Morrissey, 2011). In addition to economic deception, species mislabeling can lead to health hazards, such as exposure to toxins like gempylotoxin and tetrodotoxin (Unicomb, Kirk, Yohannes, Dalton, & Halliday, 2002; Cohen et al., 2009, Yancy et al., 2008). Mislabeling can also interfere with religious practices when kosher fish are substituted with non-kosher fish, and undermine the effectiveness of certification programs focused on reducing consumer demand for unsustainable fisheries (Willette et al., 2017).

In the U.S., intentional mislabeling of food is prohibited under 21 U.S.C. 343: Misbranded food. In order to avoid misleading consumers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends that fish should be labeled using an acceptable market name provided in The Seafood List; however, numerous studies have reported seafood species substitution and mislabeling on the U.S. marketplace (Bosko, Foley, & Hellberg, 2018; Cline, 2012; FDA, 2018a; Khaksar et al., 2015; Mitchell & Hellberg, 2016; Shokralla, Hellberg, Handy, King, & Hajibabaei, 2015; Wang & Hsieh, 2016; Warner, Timme, Lowell, & Hirshfield, 2013; Willette et al., 2017; Wong & Hanner, 2008). A series of market surveys conducted across the U.S. revealed 18% species mislabeling from 731 fish collected from grocery stores, with snapper and grouper having the highest rates of mislabeling (Warner et al., 2013). Within California, studies have reported mislabeling rates of 2.2% (San Francisco) to 42% (Los Angeles) for fish samples collected at grocery stores (Bosko et al., 2018; Khaksar et al., 2015; Warner, Timme, Lowell, & Hirshfield, 2012; Willette et al., 2017). Some of the most commonly mislabeled fish detected in these studies were advertised as red snapper, yellowtail, yellowfin tuna, and salmon.

DNA-based methods are widely used for fish species authentication due to their accuracy and increased accessibility (Naaum & Hanner, 2016). DNA barcoding is a sequencing-based method that is commonly used for fish species identification (Naaum & Hanner, 2016). This method is based on genetic variation within a standardized region, which in animals is typically a ~650 base-pair (bp) fragment of the gene coding for cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) (Hebert, Ratnasingham, & deWaard, 2003). COI generally exhibits high variability between species and conservation within species (Stern, Castro Nallar, Rathod, & Crandall, 2017). DNA barcoding has been adopted by the U.S. FDA for regulatory identification of fish species (Handy et al., 2011), and been successfully used to identify fish species in numerous studies (reviewed in Hellberg, Pollack, & Hanner, 2016). DNA barcode data for fish species is available through Fish-Barcode of Life (Fish-BOL), a global initiative to assemble a standardized reference sequence library for all fish species, and FDA's Regulatory Fish Encyclopedia (FDA, 2018b; Hebert et al., 2003).

In addition to accurate species labeling, certain fresh and frozen seafood products (described below) must also follow Country of Origin labeling (COOL) regulations (Country of Origin Labeling for Fish and Shellfish, 7 C.F.R. § 60, 2009). COOL is a labeling law that requires retailers under the Perishable Agriculture Commodities Act (PACA) to provide consumers with information on the geographic origin and production method for fresh and frozen fish fillets, steaks, and nuggets that have not undergone transformation or further processing (USDA, 2017a; 2017b). The information must be legible and displayed in a conspicuous location, such as on a placard sign, label, sticker, band, or twist tie. Abbreviations for countries are not acceptable unless the codes cannot be mistaken for any other country or are common (USDA, 2017b). Furthermore, COOL regulations prohibit phrases such as “or,” “may contain,” and “and/or” to prevent confusion to consumers (USDA, 2017b). In addition to these regulations, foreign articles imported into the United States must be labeled with the correct country of origin according to 19 C.F.R. § 134.11, unless exempt by law.

About 90% of the seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported (NOAA, 2017, NOAA, 2018); however, only a couple of peer-reviewed studies have investigated COOL compliance among retailers. One study conducted in Baltimore, MD, reported that 3.8% of the 628 fresh/frozen seafood products examined from 14 stores were not COOL compliant (Lagasse, Love, & Smith, 2014). Among the products, 1.1% did not state a country of origin and 2.7% did not state a procurement method (Lagasse et al., 2014). Another study surveyed catfish samples in Southern California and reported that 59% of the 32 catfish products collected from 31 grocery stores were not compliant with COOL regulations (Bosko et al., 2018). Among the 32 samples, 50% had incomplete or absent production method information and 31% were non-compliant for country-of-origin information. The higher levels of non-compliance observed by Bosko et al. (2018) may have been due to a number of factors, including differences in the number of retail locations visited, the fish types targeted, and the geographic locations for each study.

While numerous studies have been carried out on fish species substitution in the commercial marketplace, there is a lack of research that considers additional types of fish mislabeling. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine fish fillets sold in Southern California grocery stores for species authentication, use of acceptable market names, and COOL compliance.