A restaurant’s menu exudes confidence when it features items like locally caught hogfish or wild Atlantic halibut. Typically, the typography is sophisticated. Usually, the cost is high. And the diner seldom has a reason to doubt any of it, sitting in pleasant lighting with a beverage being delivered. Perhaps they ought to because a startling amount of those assured menu descriptions proved to be false when researchers actually bothered to test the fish that appeared on plates across the United States.
The nonprofit organization Oceana, which promotes ocean conservation, tested the DNA of 449 fish samples that were bought from eateries and shops in 24 states. The outcomes weren’t subtle. One in five samples had incorrect labels, such as incorrect species, incorrect origin, or an altogether false narrative. 55% of samples turned out to be something different, with sea bass being the most common culprit.
| Overview | Details |
|---|---|
| Study Conducted By | Oceana (U.S. ocean conservation nonprofit) |
| Samples Tested | 449 fish from shops and restaurants |
| States Covered | 24 U.S. states + District of Columbia |
| Mislabeling Rate | 20% of all samples |
| Most Mislabeled Species | Sea bass (55%), Snapper (42%) |
| Restaurant Mislabeling Rate | 26% of menu items tested |
| Testing Method | DNA analysis |
| Estimated Cost of Illegal Fishing | Up to $23.5 billion annually |
At 42%, Snapper was in second place. In several instances, diners who paid high amounts for a regional specialty were actually consuming an imported species that was cultivated thousands of kilometers away. For example, two restaurants in Florida replaced Indian Ocean grouper with hogfish, a local favorite that is more expensive and has cultural prestige. None of that was mentioned on the menu.
Not only is the fraud itself remarkable, but so is the locations where it occurs most frequently. With 26% of menu items failing the DNA test, restaurants took the lead. The percentage of smaller independent markets was 24%. Supermarkets performed better at 12% due to their more uniform supply chains, but better is a relative term when discussing food identity. It seems that the more well chosen and intimate a dining experience is, the easier it is to give a less expensive fish a better name. Between the appetizer and the main meal, no one is doing lab work on their entre.
Species swaps are not the only issue with mislabeling. Certain fish that were advertised as locally sourced or wildcaught were actually neither. Under descriptions that suggested a weathered fishing boat arriving at a neighboring harbor that morning, imported, farmed seafood was being offered.
Restaurants are particularly good at this type of storytelling, and it succeeds because customers want to believe it. The thought of consuming something that was taken from the river hours ago is romantic. It turns out that all it takes to create that romance is a printed menu and a straight face.
The results of Oceana contribute to a much broader worldwide trend. According to estimates from the World Economic Forum, illegal fishing costs the world economy up to $23.5 billion a year and accounts for almost onethird of all fish taken from the oceans. It’s not a rounding error. Additionally, the Forum has advocated for the replacement of the industry’s predominantly paperbased tracking with computerized catchmonitoring systems.
In many supply chains today, it is practically hard to track a piece of fish from the ocean to the plate. Bad actors hardly need to attempt because the gaps are so large.
In the meantime, authorities are beginning to pay more attention, or at least make indications that they might. The topgrossing seafood restaurants in the nation received letters from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission warning them not to give patrons the idea that they are eating wildcaught American seafood when, in reality, the product is imported and farmraised.
This kind of regulatory focus may eventually make things more stringent. However, the seafood supply chain is large, dispersed, and obstinately opaque, and letters are not enforced.
More attention should be paid to the menu text itself than most diners do. Though they frequently lack legal specificity, terms like fresh, local, and sustainable have emotional weight. Fish that has been frozen and then thawed can still be referred to as fresh fish. In the majority of seafood settings, local has no legally binding definition.
Furthermore, the term sustainable is used so widely that it might refer to nearly anything or nothing at all. It’s similar to the glutenfree versus glutenfriendly distinction that surprises diners at restaurants; one word has formal regulatory support, while the other is just marketing jargon. Customers who just rely on menu wording are effectively putting their trust in a system that has consistently shown itself to be unreliable.
What this affects to the ocean itself is another concern. Conservation efforts are subtly undercut when fragile species, such as Atlantic halibut, are mislabeled as being more numerous.
It’s possible that consumers who believe they are making ethical decisions are actually contributing to the depletion of stocks they meant to safeguard. When no one is aware of what is actually being sold, demand signals become jumbled and the market is unable to selfcorrect. This breaks the feedback loop.
It’s difficult to ignore how little has really changed as you watch this drama unfold over the last few years. Oceana has been releasing these results on a regular basis; the figures vary slightly, but the fundamental issue still exists. Restaurants continue to print menus using wording that appeals to both the customer and the food. Supply chains are still unclear.
Additionally, the majority of customers keep placing their orders for sea bass without question because they believe that the market, the chef, or someone else in the queue is being truthful. Perhaps they are. However, the statistics indicates that they are not around once in five times, and the menu will never indicate when that happens.
i) https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/08/a-seafood-fraud-investigation-dna-tested-fish-sold-in-the-us-here-s-what-they-found/
ii) https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/foodservice-retail/us-ftc-cautions-red-lobster-other-restaurants-on-seafood-marketing-efforts
iii) https://www.fodmapeveryday.com/15-restaurant-orders-chefs-warn-you-to-think-twice-about/
iv) https://www.eater.com/2015/6/1/8696161/the-worlds-50-best-restaurants-list-2015-what-is