The USD 195 billion global seafood industry is “increasingly vulnerable” to fraud, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization has warned.
This fraud ranges from selling tilapia as red snapper and farmed fish as wild, to covertly creating imitation shrimp from moulded fish paste or starch‑based compounds, it notes in a new report.
The report finds that the global probability of a fisheries or aquaculture product being fraudulent is 20.6%, followed by meat at 13.4%, then fruits and vegetables at 10.4%. Technologies such as DNA barcoding that can precisely identify species are vital to tackling the problem, the study’s authors say.
“Food fraud in fisheries is a global issue. What is worrying is the scale and persistence of the problem, and the fact that it affects every region and every market segment,” Esther Garrido Gamarro, a fisheries officer at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), tells Dialogue Earth.
She adds that the work underscores how fraud is not just an economic crime. It can mask serious food safety issues that harm consumers. And by making it easier or more financially attractive to sell things that are not supposed to be sold, this fraud can also add pressure to endangered and threatened species.
Different ways of faking it
There are many ways in which seafood can be fraudulent. One that is thought to be particularly prevalent is the practice of serving a consumer one species while telling them they have been given another. This is most common in restaurants, where some studies suggest that 30% of seafood may be mislabelled.
| Fraud types | |
|---|---|
| Adulteration | “Addition of a non‑authentic or fraudulent substance to the final product” |
| Counterfeit | “All aspects of an original high‑value aquatic product are replicated in a fraudulent food product, and it is packaged to make it look like the original” |
| Simulation | “Creating a product that resembles a high‑value aquatic commodity without being an exact copy” |
| Diversion | “Sale or distribution of legitimate products outside of their intended markets” |
| Misbranding | “False or misleading information on packaging” |
| Overrun | “[Production of] a legitimate product in excess of established limits” |
| Species substitution | “Replacing a high‑value species with a cheaper one for economic gain” |
| Tampering and mislabelling | “A legitimate product and packaging are fraudulently used” |
| Theft | “Product is stolen and passed off as if it were legitimately procured” |
In some locations, the report notes even higher rates of fraud have been detected: work in Peru found 78% of ceviche was not what it claimed to be; scientists who tested seafood in China found 75.5% of it was a species not even in the same family as expected. (In taxonomic ranking, “family” is two positions higher than “species”.)
Gamarro says that in recent years several countries have strengthened regulations, expanded traceability requirements, and invested in laboratories for detecting fraud. International cooperation has also improved.
“At the same time, fraudsters adapt quickly, and the globalisation of trade in fisheries and aquaculture and the complexity of our sector translates into vulnerability,” she adds.
Follow the money
The reason for all of this fraud is money.
In the US, farmed salmon can sell for around USD 4 per fish, the report notes, while wild fish of the same weight fetch approximately USD 8. Expensive species such as cod, flounder and pink cusk eel are also prime targets. The latter can be USD 12 per kg; the temptation to mislabel endangered spotback skate valued at USD 3.80 per kg as pink cusk eel is obvious.
This is the first step. It is a warningEsther Garrido Gamarro, fisheries officer, UNFAO
There are a number of techniques fraud fighters can use to detect such substitutions. These include looking at the DNA of samples, chemical analysis, fish isotope analysis, and even X-ray analysis using a portable device.
The report, says Gamarro, is a summary of what the sector is facing: “This is the first step. It is a warning.”
But fraud is not just a technical issue, she stresses, it is a governance issue:
“Fraud thrives where oversight is fragmented, where traceability is weak, and where incentives for compliance are low. Policymakers should see fraud prevention in our sector as an investment in fair trade, public health and sustainable resource management.”
