From 1,247 identified samples of fish purchased from retail outlets in the United States, 33 percent (401) were mislabelled. That has been the finding of a survey on seafood fraud by the conservation group Oceana (full report here, which has been running in the US press for the last few days.

Inevitably, papers such as the New York Times are drawing comparisons, this paper telling its readers that: "Many Europeans are fretting these days over horse meat, and whether it might have adulterated their shepherd’s pie. Over here, its all about the red snapper".

Read here... http://www.eureferendum....ogview.aspx?blogno=83661

Edited by user 27 February 2013 12:40:17(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

The labelling of fish gets even more complicated in the case of pacific salmon of which there are five distinct species ranging in commercial value from little/no value (Chum Salmon) through low value per unit weight (Pink/Humpy) to high value per unit weight (Sockeye). While the fish can be differentiated enough by their markings, and the meat by its colour and texture, once processed it would be easy to substitute one for another.

Compounding the problem, the range of most Pacific Salmon species extends from California to China, meaning that there is also vast scope for mislabelling the country of origin as Alaskan salmon (as an example) is probably worth more than Chinese salmon.

Furthermore, in Canada and the US, the salmon fishery has often been a means for new immigrants to get out of low paying employment and earn a good living for themselves. When my father owned a commerical gillnetter in the late 1980s there was a huge influx of Vietnamese into the industry who were notorious for never throwing anything back including commercially worthless species (to salmon fishermen at least) like hake, shad and dogfish. Probably most of these fish were sold to other Vietnamese and ended up served at home or in Vietnamese restaurants, but it doesn't require a great leap of the imagination to see that it could easily be processed and resold for greater profit as some other species.

The only way to guarantee the identity of the fish you eat is to catch it yourself or buy at the dock.

Here's another example of global food fraud - fake Ice Wine. No surprise when the genuine stuff is produced in limited quantities and can command prices of hundreds or thousands of dollars per half bottle.

Of course wine fraud isn't confined to niche products like this - it has a long history.

Edited by user 27 February 2013 14:23:34(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Thanks ... classic example of fraud.

When is a fruit not a fruit......



http://tv.naturalnews.co...B1A945BE85E7DA8483025962




Processed foods are a killer,substituting meat or fish for another species is bad enough,but it is the other stuff they are putting in our food that we should be worried about as well.

It's tough out there trying to find good wholesome food....why should it be this hard?It shouldn't be hard it should be easy,but the food industry has made it very difficult and the regulators have not helped whatsover.

Organic is OK on certain items,like grapes,blueberries and peppers where pesticides are absorbed through the skin and get into the fruit.Normal washing will not just not remove them, but on other items, yes it is a waste of money.

Edited by user 27 February 2013 17:15:28(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I don't buy 'at the dock', I buy 'on the beach'. I live on the South Coast where there still remains a small fishing fleet. The boats are launched from the beach (shingle) very early in the morning when the tide is right, with most returning before dark. The fishermen(and some women) are only too happy to sell some of their catch directly from the boat, side-stepping bureaucrats galore. I was fortunate to be 'introduced' by one known to the fishermen so I had no problems. Lemon and Dover sole, cod, plaice, hake and bass are amongst the fish regularly caught but the prime purchase is fresh crab. Gorgeous stuff and sold still alive.
I have no problems with MY sea-food!

???
You mean they were making Beaujolais Nouveau???
}:-]

It may be a problem in Britain with its petty bureaucrats acting out their Hitlerist fantasies, but not in more civilised lands.

Because the system is based on "plausible deniability". Everyone in the trade knows it is going on, but they have constructed an intricate system of paperwork which allows them to disclaim responsibility when the balloon goes up.

This sums it up ...

http://www.eureferendum....ogview.aspx?blogno=83648

But as long as the retailers have the necessary piece of paper that enable them to claim "due diligence", they don't give a damn.