Barber, Paul H.

Cheng, Samantha H.

Greenberg, Jerry A.

Willette, Demian A.

English

Loyola Marymount University

Biology Faculty Works Biology 1-1-2018 Rethinking solutions to seafood fraud Demian A. Willette Loyola Marymount University, demian.willette@lmu.edu Samantha H. Cheng Jerry A. Greenberg Paul H. Barber Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/bio_fac  Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Willette DA, Cheng SH, Greenberg J, Barber PH (2018) Rethinking solutions to seafood fraud. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16: 499-500. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biology at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biology Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@lmu.edu. WRITE BACK  499© The Ecological Society of America Front Ecol Environ doi:10.1002/fee.1964to adhere to the single legal name “Amberjack” denies biological reality and Japanese culture, and constrains con-sumers’ ability to make informed choices. The latter issue is particularly salient as wild- caught Seriola rivoliana can harbor ciguatoxins, which may cause paralysis or death (Perez- Arellano et al. 2005). By encouraging the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition to propose scientifically and culturally based revi-sions to “The Seafood List”, the Project is working toward improving the list for fish species such as Seriola. By removing mislabeling that results from current guideline limitations, regulators can then focus on intentional seafood fraud.Second, in cooperation with seafood restaurant owners, the Project is using blind sampling and DNA barcoding to monitor fish that wholesalers sell to res-taurants. As part of undergraduate labora-tory classes, students from Loyola Marymount University, California State University Los Angeles, and the University of California Los Angeles are conducting monthly sampling at local sushi restau-rants, followed by DNA barcoding as described in Willette et al. (2017). Aggregate data are then reported to Project stakeholders in an annual work-shop and shared with the public through Another critical factor in ensuring posi-tive outcomes was engaging industry in the process of improving regulatory requirements. In the face of the persistent challenge of seafood mislabeling in res-taurants, these successes highlight the need for an integrated, comprehensive, local- scale strategy that engages the sea-food community in developing solutions.Composed of stakeholders from local universities, seafood restaurants, and non- profit organizations, as well as from local, state, and federal government agencies, the Los Angeles Seafood Monitoring Project (hereafter “Project”) aims to eliminate seafood mislabeling widely through the seafood sector using a two- tiered approach. First, the Project works to clarify ambiguity in govern-ment labeling requirements for vendors that result in the majority of mislabeling. In particular, the US Food and Drug Administration’s “Seafood List” (FDA 2018) defines acceptable market and common names that restaurants can use. However, this list is problematic for sushi restaurants. For instance, “Amberjack” is the only acceptable market name for five of six Seriola species, despite variation in both price and taste, and also that these species are traditionally sold under sepa-rate names in Japan. Requiring vendors Rethinking solutions to seafood fraudSeafood mislabeling is a pervasive prob-lem that economically defrauds consum-ers, weakens the stability of marine fish-eries, undermines food security, and potentially compromises human rights (Pauly et al. 2005; Mendoza et al. 2016). Research on seafood mislabeling in res-taurants follows a common pattern: pub-lication of results, immediate media cov-erage and calls for action, decreased media attention over time, and subse-quent publication of another study with renewed calls for action. For example, three recent DNA- based surveys of Los Angeles (California) restaurants found mislabeling rates of up to 52% (Warner et al. 2012; Khaksar et al. 2015; Willette et al. 2017), generating substantial media coverage. While helping to inform pro-posed legislation on counteracting sea-food fraud in the US (Upton 2015), including the implementation of new programs targeted at foreign imports (eg NOAA Seafood Import Monitoring Program 2016), these and other studies have unfortunately done little to reduce seafood mislabeling rates in restaurants in Los Angeles or elsewhere in North America, Europe, and Asia (Warner et al. 2013; Nagalakshmi et al. 2016; Christiansen et al. 2018).There are, however, success stories of labeling accuracy increasing in some sea-food sectors. For instance, mislabeling of cod declined from 34% to 0% in super-markets in Ireland after extensive media coverage raised public awareness (Mariani et al. 2014). Likewise, rates of mislabeling in traditional markets and by fishmon-gers in Europe have dropped precipi-tously to <5% as a result of improved reporting requirements for suppliers and processors (Mariani et al. 2015; D’Amico et al. 2016). A key difference between these successes and the aforementioned studies that fell short was the focus on engaging the general public in monitor-ing efforts to promote seafood awareness and literacy among consumers more broadly (Naaum and Hanner 2015). Figure  1. A conceptual model for eliminating seafood mislabeling in Los Angeles’ seafood restaurants by building a highly collaborative network of stakeholders with a vested interest in seafood sustainability and providing DNA- barcoding services to monitor for mislabeled seafood. Stakeholder involvement is indicated by colored ovals (Universities – white, Restaurants – light gray, Non- profits – dark gray, Government – black). 15409309, 2018, 9, Downloaded from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.1964 by Loyola Marymount University, Wiley Online Library on [22/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons LicenseFront Ecol Environ doi:10.1002/fee.1964 © The Ecological Society of America 500  WRITE BACKtrafficking and the seafood we eat. Albuquerque, NM: Associated Press.Naaum AM and Hanner R. 2015. Community engagement in seafood identification using DNA barcoding reveals market sub-stitution in Canadian seafood. DNA Barcodes 3: 74–79.Nagalakshmi K, Annam PK, Venkateshwarlu G, et al. 2016. Mislabeling in Indian sea-food: an investigation using DNA barcod-ing. Food Control 59: 196–200.NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Seafood Import Monitoring Program. 2016. 15 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 902; Federal Register 81; No 237; https://bit.ly/2o7XOJ7.Pauly D, Watson R, and Alder J. 2005. Global trends in world fisheries: impacts on marine ecosystems and food security. Philos Trans Roy Soc B 360: 5–12.Perez-Arellano JL, Luzardo OP, Brito AP, et al. 2005. Ciguatera fish poisoning, Canary Islands. Emerg Infect Dis 11: 1981.Upton HF. 2015. Seafood fraud. Congressional Research Service; Report for Congress 7-5700. http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp- content/uploads/assets/crs/RL34124.pdf.Warner K, Timme W, Lowell B, and Hirshfield M. 2012. Widespread seafood fraud found in LA. Washington, DC: Oceana. https://bit.ly/2MQEz4M.Warner K, Timme W, Lowell B, and Hirshfield M. 2013. Oceana study reveals seafood fraud nationwide. Washington, DC: Oceana. https://bit.ly/2Nex5FL.Willette DA, Simmonds SE, Cheng SH, et al. 2017. Using DNA barcoding to track sea-food mislabeling in Los Angeles restau-rants. Conserv Biol 31: 1076–85.1Biology Department, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA *(demian.willette@lmu.edu); 2Center for Biodiversity Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ; 3Sushi Nozawa Group, Los Angeles, CA; 4Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CAD’Amico P, Armani A, Gianfaldoni D, et al. 2016. New provisions for the labeling of  fishery and aquaculture products:  difficulties in the implementation of Regulation (EU) n 1379/2013. Mar Policy 71: 147–56.Christiansen H, Fournier N, Hellemans B, and Volckaert FAM. 2018. Seafood substitution and mislabeling in Brussels’ restaurants and canteens. Food Control 85: 66–75.FDA (US Food and Drug Administration). 2018. The Seafood List. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=sea-foodlist. Viewed 16 Mar 2018.Khaksar R, Carlson T, Schaffner DW, et al. 2015. Unmasking seafood mislabeling in US markets: DNA barcoding as a unique technology for food authentication and quality control. Food Control 56: 71–76.Mariani S, Ellis J, O’Reilly A, et al. 2014. Mass media influence and the regulation of ille-gal practices in the seafood market. Conserv Lett 7: 478–83.Mariani S, Griffiths AM, Velasco A, et al. 2015. Low mislabeling rates indicate marked improvements in European sea-food market operations. Front Ecol Environ 13: 536–40.Mendoza M, McDowell R, Mason M, and Htusan E. 2016. Fishermen slaves: human press releases and publications. Such workshops were held in 2017 and 2018, while sushi sampling – which started in April 2018 – is currently ongoing.As compared with typical reporting- only mislabeling studies, this new model has numerous advantages (Figure 1). To begin with, it is based on fostering part-nerships with stakeholders, from restau-ranteurs to regulators, who have a vested interest in the sustainability of the sea-food industry. Furthermore, it is proac-tive and constructive, rather than responsive and punitive; results from individual restaurants are communicated directly and confidentially to owners and management so that they can address any mislabeling and engage with regula-tors to concentrate on labeling accuracy that occurs earlier in their supply chain. In addition, this model is focused on increasing public awareness, and the joint release of aggregate data targeting consumers makes the restaurant indus-try a key partner in this outreach. Lastly, the use of students’ coursework for sam-pling makes this city- wide and longitudi-nal study feasible and sustainable, directly exposing students to real- world problems that lead to actionable science and policy. Altogether, this integrative approach should provide an impactful, replicable model to reduce seafood mis-labeling at the city- scale, and beyond.Demian A Willette1*,  Samantha H Cheng2, Jerry A Greenberg3, and Paul H Barber4 15409309, 2018, 9, Downloaded from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.1964 by Loyola Marymount University, Wiley Online Library on [22/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Rethinking solutions to seafood fraud

https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1175&context=bio_fac

Rethinking solutions to seafood fraud

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loyola Marymount University