Mislabeled seafood in the U.S.

Measuring the scope of the studies referenced by using the interactive map proved difficult. The amount of studies for each mislabeling rate category, corresponding to the color and design of each pin, was not listed. Thus, the only way to quantify each category would be to laboriously count each pin. Even if each pin was counted one by one, multiple pins were often used for a single study, if that study occurred in multiple geographic locations. There were 210 studies cited, but I found over 150 pins in the US alone. For example, 14 pins were used to map the metropolitan areas from a single Oceana study from 2014. Yet for some reason pins were not included for rural areas in this same study, so the pin placements on the map seemed arbitrary. Showing multiple pins for a single study gave the map a much more congested look, suggesting more mislabeling instances than were actually found. Depicting mislabeling results on a map was an interesting idea, but the execution was sloppy and makes me wonder what the motivation for this map is, if not to provide useful data.

The analysis of this map study mirrored the three-point analysis of health, economics and conservation put forward in the 2018 Canadian study. The health section focused heavily on escolar again; the economic section displayed the best analysis and the most compelling data, primarily on pangasius substitutions this time; and the conservation section again contradicted the good arguments in the economic section and changed the topic to illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (another major campaign of Oceana’s).

The most important point to remember when considering the results and analysis from in this map study is that these numbers were derived from news stories, reports, peer reviewed literature and legal cases seeking mislabeling. Many of these studies were conducted by Oceana itself—we explained in detail in our previous post that Oceana sought out fraudulent seafood species in its research. Almost all the other cited studies were conducted in order to investigate reports of fraud—not to measure the rate of fraud across all sectors or species. That is a critical distinction Oceana muddled in its press releases and conclusions. A 28% rate of mislabeled seafood in the US is derived from findings inspired only when mislabeling was significant enough to warrant an investigation. This begs the question—what is the true rate of seafood mislabeling in the US, across all species consumed?

To begin answering this question and put Oceana’s results in proper perspective, I sorted through the 86 studies found on Oceana’s interactive map within the geographic boundaries of the US. I did my best to avoid counting twice for any repeated pins, but again, since multiple pins were used for a single study if that study took place in multiple metropolitan areas, it was challenging.

For each of the 86 studies I determined what the species of focus was (were). I determined this by examining the abstract (if applicable) and the paragraph describing the story provided by Oceana when a pin was clicked on the interactive map.