* By FishProf
The FishProf believes everyone in the seafood industry has a responsibility to solve this. Over the years, it has been reported that several primary seafood fraud issues have been prosecuted, so there are many lessons to take on board.
Late last year at Codex Alimantarius CAC47 meeting in Geneva, Switzerland the Food Fraud work advanced to Step 5(*) – this is significant.
Fraud is linked up with issues of food safety, food integrity and authenticity and that is why Codex is involved. The text of new draft guidelines on the prevention and control of food fraud has been adopted and will provide guidance to competent authorities and food businesses on the cross-cutting issue of prevention, detection, mitigation, and control of food fraud, to help protect the health of consumers, and to ensure fair practices in the food trade, in line with the Codex mandate.
In defining what is meant by “food fraud,” the draft text provides a list of six diverse types of fraud, which consists of:
» Addition: Adding an undeclared substance to a food product that would not ordinarily be present, or present in that quantity, in the food.
» Substitution: Replacing a food or a food ingredient, in whole or in part with another ingredient, in whole or in part (most often of lower value) without declaring it.
» Dilution: Adding a material to make another ingredient present at a lower concentration than represented.
» Counterfeiting: Making an imitation of a food product with the intention to deceive or defraud.
» Misrepresentation: Labelling or marketing a food product in a manner that is false, misleading, or deceptive; and
» Undisclosed: Concealment, hiding or not disclosing information on the safety, suitability, or quality of food ingredients or food products.
There is a lot to remember in the above. The FishProf has devised a new way of thinking about this. If you take the first letter of each issue A/S/D/C/M/U and use them as an anagram you can achieve CADMUS. CADMUS coincidentally is a name with a rich background in Greek mythology symbolizing knowledge, civilization and the spread of literacy! Very relevant in the aim to educate and put an end to seafood fraud.
CAC works slowly and methodically which is respected, however, in the meantime cheats are prospering and as a global society we do not have to sit and wait for CAC when we can all be proactive and attack the areas we can to improve the situation.
FishProf believes everyone in the seafood industry has a responsibility to solve this. Over the years, it has been reported that several primary seafood fraud issues have been prosecuted, so there are many lessons to take on board.
There have been many studies on seafood substitution in Australia. It has been highlighted that the majority of consumers have little knowledge about the many species and are therefore reliant on the industry to ensure that the species they are selling is actually the species the consumer receives. We know that so few people are trained by industry so how do we ensure that the customer gets what they pay for?
In one of the early studies that The FishProf recalls (Ruello,1999) it was reported that 70% of consumers surveyed stated that they did not trust that what they had paid for was what they received. This was further investigated in the early 2000’s at the time that the Food Standards Australia & New Zealand (FSANZ) was creating the Primary Product & Processing Standard for Seafood (PP&PSS). The evidence was noticeably clear that consumers were being cheated.
Both the Australian Consumers Association (CHOICE) and seafood industry wanted to have fish names enshrined in the PP&PSS, but this was denied by the authorities engaged at the time primarily because they saw that if they did that for seafood it may mean doing similar for many other products.
The solution (middle ground) was that FSANZ would help the seafood industry develop an Australian Fish Names Standard (AFNS) which would be recognized as a guideline or voluntary approach with the promise that if it were still a concern after two years that the AFNS would be mandated in the Food Standards Code. FSANZ have not kept their promise to the industry or the consumers!
The AFNS is not a new idea. There is a long history of trying to create fish marketing names without real success so when the opportunity appeared to create an official strategic approach it was embraced. The problem had been festering for years and it is an issue the world over so to be able to create a genuine standard was seen as world leading.
The work required was immense, but success was achieved, when it was finalized and launched in 2007 by the Australian Government. Constant improvements have been made and it is officially referred to as Australian Fish Names Standard AS5300 – 2019 (AFNS).
Fish names in Australia cross many different government departments but most are involved either in the Fish Names Committee (FNC) or are around the edges of the process. The majority of the funds for the upkeep of the AFNS come from the government with much, no doubt, attributed to public good.
On their website FSANZ state “We seek to underpin confidence in our food supply by helping industry and regulators mitigate food-related risk while fostering innovation, competitiveness and trade at an industry and global level. FSANZ is committed to deterring and preventing dishonest or fraudulent behavior.”
With that statement and with Australian State Authorities like NSW highlighting their reliance on the AFNS for food safety and identification issues you would wonder why it is still a voluntary matter.
Biosecurity Australia state on their website “We update the fish names used in our systems for issuing export certification to ensure continued legislative compliance with the Australian Fish Names Standard” indicates that the government relies on the AFNS for exporting seafood.
The FishProf is firmly of the opinion that FSANZ are failing in their role to safeguard the Australian consumer by refusing to mandate the
AFNS under the Australia & New Zealand Food Standards (FSANZ) Code to protect consumers and assist in food safety management and to eliminate ‘cowboys’ who are either cheating or ignorant of their role in food safety and trust in seafood trade. Furthermore, it seemingly rates the export customer as being higher that its own domestic consumer!
Enshrining a voluntary code encourages and supports cheating the consumer!
The NSW Food Authority reports it has found that the most common types of seafood products being substituted in restaurants and takeaways
include Vannamei prawns or Tiger prawns being advertised as ‘King prawns’; imported scallops being advertised as ‘Tasmanian scallops’; Basa fillets being advertised as ‘Dory,’ ‘Perch’ and ‘Jewfish’ fillets and Tilapia fillets being advertised as Bream fillets.
In NSW, aquatic food products, such as scallops and prawns, must be advertised and described using their correct species or marketing name. The word ‘King’ refers not to the prawn size but a species of prawns. ‘Tiger prawn,’ ‘School prawn,’ and ‘Vannamei prawn’, etc., are distinct species of prawns and all have different values.
The Sydney Fish Market, the largest seafood market in the southern hemisphere, has incorporated the AFNS into its operations since 2007. This means they have a standard fish name for each species of fish produced or traded in Australia (including imported seafood) that goes through its market. Fish coming into the market auction and leaving the market is documented through its standard name.
The AFNS is a world’s first and the process can be transferred to any country because it has been based on global standard principles. The development and maintenance of this standard is the responsibility of the FNC and comprises representatives from crucial seafood industry stakeholders (seafood producers, marketers, retailers, wholesalers, restaurants, seafood processors and importers), government and fisheries taxonomists and fisheries scientists. End users and the general public are also consulted widely on applications under consideration by the FNC.
The AFNS solves many issues by covering aspects such as accuracy of trade descriptors and labeling, public and consumer confidence, efficiency in seafood marketing, effective fisheries monitoring and management, sustainability of fisheries resources, effective traceability and food safety management, and Industry viability and profitability. It is an excellent system but until it is mandatory it will not stop the cheats deceiving the public.
Globally there have been cases recorded:
» Spain 2013 authorities dismantled a significant network to label low-quality or expired fish as fresh – this was known as Operation Pescado Podrido (Rotten Fish). The operation led to numerous arrests and substantial fines.
» USA 2017 New York’s Nino’s Positano restaurant and its seafood supplier faced legal action for selling cheaper fish species, such as high-end ones like grouper and red snapper. The owner was reportedly fined, and the practice was publicized following a state investigation.
» USA 2002-2019 Quality Poultry and Seafood Inc. (QPS), a major distributor on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, along with two of its managers, were sentenced for federal crimes involving the mislabeling of cheap imported seafood as premium local fish. The scheme, which began in 2002 and lasted until 2019, resulted in QPS receiving five years of probation, USD 1 million in forfeitures, and a USD 500,000 fine. One manager was sentenced to eight months in prison, and the other received two years of probation.
» USA 2016, a massive seafood fraud case shook New Bedford, Massachusetts. It was perpetrated by Carlos Rafael, known locally as “The Codfather.” He eventually admitted to more than two dozen criminal charges.
» In 2018, an investigative report, U.S. vs. Sea to Table, exposed the seafood supplier Sea to Table for mislabeling farmed fish as wildcaught. This led to increased scrutiny and regulatory action but not a direct prosecution. However, it prompted legal reforms and stricter enforcement of labeling laws.
The list goes on and on… interestingly the USA regulatory head once told FishProf that the USA Fish List was working well! It is in fact a flawed system.
In a report by OECD, Evading the Net: Tax Crime in the Fisheries Sector Corruption it was highlighted that at the sales stage there are false descriptions of fish products to enable exporters and importers to pay less customs tax. Not only are catches falsely reported in terms of quantities and species but also by description. This falsification can have a significant impact on tax revenue in both importing and exporting countries.
The example they gave was a major case, exported dried codfish, which should have attracted import duty of 20%, was described in the accompanying paperwork as dried cod heads, upon which import duty of only 10% is payable. This case became known following a series of joint investigations involving the Fisheries Inspectorate, the Tax Administration, and the Police economic crime unit, which took place when it was found that significant payments described as ‘consultancy services’ were being made to an offshore jurisdiction. It had been expected that both illegal fishing and tax evasion would be found.
Following the joint investigations, no illegal fishing was uncovered, but evidence was found of evaded import duties, VAT and other taxes in the exporting country totaling approximately USD 500,000. In the importing country the inaccurate description of the goods being imported could also have resulted in the evasion of customs duties totaling USD 2.5 million. The audit also uncovered indications of possible embezzlement of approximately USD 30,000 involving an official at the exporting company which ultimately led to a successful prosecution.
In a United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNIDOC) document ‘Rotten Fish’ they make it clear that transparency can and should be improved at the consumer stage, especially with regards to labelling. Whilst UNIDOC say this can present a complex problem since labelling often engages several different private entities, it is a critical area to target, even at the most basic level, by setting clear, transparent requirements for the correct labelling of fish products.
Governments need to set standards for the accuracy of consumer product labelling, especially those for human consumption and by making the process of obtaining authorization or approval for these labels more transparent, administrations can reduce the risks of bribes being offered to, for example, falsely label one fish product as another more expensive one. Increased transparency in obtaining certifications for sustainability or ethical fishing can also help ensure that those certifications are properly applied, and that corruption risks in obtaining them are reduced.
These fraud issues, no matter how small you think they are, mislead consumers and undermine sustainable and ethical seafood production efforts. While regulatory agencies and industry watchdogs continue to work on improving traceability and enforcement to combat these frauds, the issues become complicated because there are so many systems. The industry needs to get proactive rather than let NGO’s run the agenda –time is not on your side.
This information highlights the legal consequences for companies and individuals involved in seafood fraud. Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and international bodies continue to combat seafood fraud through stricter regulations and enforcement actions.
Customs authorities have a crucial role in policing food on the borders, and criminal investigations can identify illicit actors, uncover fraud, and expose risks to public health. The industry has a role in highlighting unusual activities as they are closer to them than you could expect authorities to be.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) mentions public-private collaboration and international cooperation as necessary to design preventive solutions to food fraud and illegal food trade. Prevention is more costeffective and protective of consumers than reacting to illicit trade and fraud after it occurs, hence the need for collaboration spanning stakeholders and the international community.
A pertinent WTO agreement covered in the publication includes the “Trade Facilitation Agreement,” which could help members eliminate excessively cumbersome customs procedures and red tape at borders that present opportunities for exploitation. The FishProf applauds this area and believes we need to highlight these procedures and push for changes. This will impact costs that flow onto consumers. We can build trust and eliminate expenses by collectively attacking this area.
Finally, the “Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights” may be helpful to members in tackling counterfeit food and beverages.
Let us work together and create trust and eliminate fraud!
(*) The Codex step procedure for elaborating standards has eight steps. At Step 5, the proposed draft standard is submitted through the Secretariat to the Executive Committee for critical review and to the Commission with a view to its adoption as a draft standard. In taking any decision at this step, the Commission gives due consideration to the outcome of the critical review and to any comments that may be submitted by any of its members regarding the implications which the proposed draft standard or any provisions thereof may have for their economic interests.
The first manual on fish culture, “The Classic of Fish Culture,” was written by Fan Lai around 475 B.C. While this was not a manual by current standards, it was the first recorded instance of fish culture. It included descriptions of ponds, methods of propagation, and described the growth of fry. Besides China, many other countries have been participating in aquaculture for a myriad of years.
References and sources consulted by the author on the elaboration of this article are available under previous request to our editorial staff.
Regular contributor The Fishmonger has now morphed into FishProf and will continue contributing to AQUACULTURE but also welcomes all the readers to connect through www.fishprof.com and join in our promotions to increase seafood consumption globally.
The post Fraud Impacts Trust (Part2) appeared first on Aquaculture Magazine.
