Tuna labels matter in Europe: Mislabelling rates in different tuna products.

Carmen G Sotelo,Ute Schröder,Kristina Kappel,Stefano Mariani,Ricardo I Perez-Martin,Rogério Mendes,Amaya Velasco,Marc Jérôme,Véronique Verrez-Bagnis,Helena Silva,Andrew Griffiths,Aldo Corriero

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196641

Abstract

Tuna fisheries and processing represent economic activities of paramount importance around the world. Most of these products are traded for human consumption and in general are highly demanded commodities. However, not all tuna products achieve the same market price, some consumers are willing to pay a huge amount of money for certain species (i.e. Japanese market for Bluefin tuna) while other species are rather affordable (i.e. Skipjack tuna), therefore mislabelling has been observed frequently. We collected and analysed 545 tuna samples in six European countries, including fresh, frozen and canned products, and we have investigated whether or not these products were correctly labelled under European and national legislations. We found an overall mislabelling rate of 6.79%; in particular, 6.70% of the fresh and frozen tuna products and 7.84% of canned tuna were mislabelled, and only in the case of fresh and frozen tuna samples significant differences among countries were found. Mislabelling rates for Atlantic Bluefin tuna labelled products were very high, ranging from 50 up to 100%. In general, mislabelling was higher when specific names were included in the labels. The “tuna” umbrella term is a very popular one with consumers, but also one that remains vulnerable to ambiguity, hampering efforts towards market transparency and with potential negative consequences to the adequate management of tuna species stocks.

Highlights

Seafood fraud is more common than most consumers think and many studies have highlighted the fact that species substitution is especially frequent in certain seafood products, such as those labelled as Atlantic Bluefin tuna, European hake or Atlantic cod [1,2,3]
Commercial samples of tuna products were purchased in markets of 18 different cities in Europe belonging to 6 countries (France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and United Kingdom) between 2013 and 2014
This study is the largest sampling effort reported for tuna products and one that involves six different European countries

Summary

Introduction

Seafood fraud is more common than most consumers think and many studies have highlighted the fact that species substitution is especially frequent in certain seafood products, such as those labelled as Atlantic Bluefin tuna, European hake or Atlantic cod [1,2,3]. Recent studies suggest that seafood mislabelling has generally decreased in European countries due to the existence and enforcement of these labelling regulations and the use of appropriate species identification methodologies [1,8] This can be linked to the EU involvement in funding projects dealing with this problem from the very beginning of the EU framework programme [9], putting Europe at the forefront of the authenticity tests development, especially regarding seafood [10]. The analysed factors included the influence of processing and species labelling in mislabelling rates, and the type of substitution which characterizes the fraud in tuna products

Materials and methods

Results and discussion

13. The spectre of uncertainty in management of exploited fish stocks