Consumer Reports Investigation: More Than One-fifth Of Tested Seafood Mislabeled, Incompletely Labeled, Or Misidentified By Store Or Restaurant Employ

Results Impact Consumer Costs, Food Safety, and Species Protection

Consumers Union Supports Legislation to Prevent Seafood Fraud, Standardize Labeling, Strengthen Seafood Safety

YONKERS, N.Y. - A Consumer Reports investigation reveals that more than one-fifth of 190 pieces of seafood bought at retail stores and restaurants in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut were not what they claimed to be - either mislabeled as different species of fish, incompletely labeled, or misidentified by employees. The report can be found in the December 2011 issue of the magazine and online at www.ConsumerReports.org.

Consumer Reports sent the fresh and frozen fish samples to an outside lab for DNA testing. Researchers extracted genetic material from each sample and compared the genetic sequences against standardized gene fragments that identify its species in much the same way that criminal investigators use genetic fingerprinting. Among the findings:

� Only four of the 14 types of fish bought-Chilean sea bass, coho salmon, and bluefin and ahi tuna-were always identified correctly.
� Eighteen percent of the samples didn't match the names on placards, labels, or menus. Fish were incorrectly passed off as catfish, grey sole, grouper, halibut, king salmon, lemon sole, red snapper, sockeye salmon, and yellowfin tuna.
� Four percent were incompletely labeled or misidentified by employees.
� All 10 of the "lemon soles" and 12 of the 22 "red snappers" weren't the claimed species.
� One sample, labeled as grouper, was actually tilefish, which averages three times as much mercury as grouper. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advises women of childbearing age and children to avoid tilefish entirely.

"Americans spent $80.2 billion on seafood last year, $5 billion more than in 2009, but they aren't always buying what they think they are," said Kim Kleman, editor-in-chief, Consumer Reports. "Whether deliberate or not, substitution hurts consumers three ways: in their wallet, when expensive seafood is switched for less desirable, cheaper fish; in their health, when they mistakenly eat species that are high in mercury or other contaminants; and in their conscience, if they find out they've mistakenly bought species whose numbers are low."

Consumer Reports testing revealed that three of the 21 "catfish" samples were Pangasius hypophthalmus, or sutchi catfish. None of the three bore country-of-origin labels (they were bought in small fish markets, where such labeling isn't required), but sutchi catfish are largely imported from Vietnam, where some fish farmers use drugs that are unapproved in the U.S. The rest were Ictaluridae, the only family that can be marketed in the U.S. as "catfish," according to a law Congress passed in 2002.

Federal law requires seafood to be labeled in a way that's truthful, not misleading, and in accordance with federal regulations. If the FDA, which oversees seafood labeling, discovers fish fraud, it has the authority to slap companies with warning letters, seize seafood, and prevent businesses from importing fish. But FDA experts say it's primarily the responsibility of state and local agencies, not the FDA, to regulate retail food stores and restaurants. In New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, where the tested fish was purchased, state officials told Consumer Reports that their inspectors aren't trained to differentiate among fish species and that they focus their limited resources on food safety.

FDA says that all imports are screened before they enter the country and that a subset are inspected based on their potential risk. All investigators are trained to identify and document evidence of fraud and will detain seafood mislabeled with fictitio