Fish allergy risk derived from ambiguous vernacular fish names: Forensic DNA-based detection in Greek markets

The seafood supply chain from a fraudulent perspective

“…Thus only 1% of imported seafood in the US is reportedly inspected for mislabelling, despite the fact that 90% of the imported fish originates from countries with inferior regulations, such as Thailand, Indonesia, China and Vietnam (Lou 2015). It is therefore unsurprising that seafood substitution is reported to be widespread within the global marketplace (Roos et al 2007;Triantafyllidis et al 2010;Mohanty et al 2013;Stamatis et al 2015; at rates ranging from 25-50% in broad retail market surveys (Jacquet and Pauly 2008;Wong and Hanner 2008;Buck 2010;Heyden et al 2010;Hanner et al 2011;Hellberg and Morrissey 2011;Cawthorn et al 2012;Warner et al 2013) and 25-60% in commonly substituted species such as red snapper, wild salmon and Atlantic cod (Marko et al 2004;Consumer Reports 2006;Miller and Mariani 2010). Oceana released the most comprehensive review of publications on seafood mislabelling.…”

“…Worryingly, seafood substitution poses a significant public health threat associated with the exposure to allergenic foods and fish with high toxicity and contaminants in the substituted species (Pascual et al 2008;Sheth et al 2010;Triantafyllidis et al 2010;Chen et al 2012;Stamatis et al 2015). One such case involved pufferfish, (Lagocephalus scleratus) which contains a potentially deadly neurotoxin, tetrodotoxin, being mislabeled as monkfish to lower the cost of production and evade import and other restrictions (Johnson 2014).…”

“…In the food industry, food fraud creates economic and sustainability concerns, evident in food businesses which are hit with the cost of recalling products and the subsequent impact on brand reputation (Jacquet and Pauly 2008), and places pressure on smallto-medium sized enterprises to purchase cheaper ingredients in order to compete and sustain their business. Although the intention is for profit and not to cause harm, the availability of potential contaminants and allergens introduces the unknown into the supply chain and can lead to severe illness or death depending on the potency of the materials used and the susceptibility of the consumer (Pascual et al 2008;Sheth et al 2010;Triantafyllidis et al 2010;Spink and Moyer 2011;Chen et al 2012;Dennis and Kelly 2013;Paiva 2013;Stamatis et al 2015;Tähkäpää et al 2015).…”

DNA barcoding reveals a high incidence of fish species misrepresentation and substitution on the South African market

“…Furthermore, just as ichthyologic nameswapping can prevent consumers from making choices in favour of conservation, it also infringes on their right to safeguard their own health. Certain fish species can cause fatal allergic reactions (Triantafyllidis, Karaiskou, Perez, et al, 2010), while others contain potent toxins or high levels of contaminants. Reports have emerged on the mislabelling of pufferfish and oilfish as 'monkfish' and 'cod', respectively, where both cases have caused serious illness (Cohen, Deeds, Wong, et al, 2009;Lam, 2007).…”

DNA barcoding reveals high substitution rate and mislabeling in croaker fillets (Sciaenidae) marketed in Brazil: The case of “pescada branca” (Cynoscion leiarchus and Plagioscion squamosissimus)

“…In addition, substitutions may affect food safety when species are replaced by others that exhibit potential health risks (Cline, 2012;Galimberti et al, 2013;Handy et al, 2011;Triantafyllidis et al, 2010).…”