Order Code RL34124
Seafood Marketing:
Combating Fraud and Deception
August 8, 2007
Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Seafood Marketing: Combating Fraud and Deception
Summary
Media attention has focused on recent incidents of economic fraud relating to
seafood. The flesh of many fish species is similar in taste and texture and, therefore,
it is difficult to identify species from fillets, especially after preparation for
consumption. Thus, it is relatively easy to substitute an inexpensive species for one
of higher value. Inaccurate (low) counts or net weights (“short weighting”) result in
consumers receiving less for their money than advertised and anticipated.
Overbreading may cause consumers to pay shrimp prices for excess bread crumbs.
Excessive amounts of glaze (overglazing) can deliberately be used to increase the
apparent weight, and therefore the apparent value, of the delivered product. In
addition, some new treatment procedures by the seafood industry are being
questioned for their potential to deceive consumers.
The extent of this fraud is not well documented and, in some cases, may not be
intentional. The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) has undertaken an initiative to
promote economic integrity within the seafood industry, concentrating on three
primary areas:
! transshipment of products subject to antidumping and countervailing
duties;
! mislabeling of products or species substitution; and
! mislabeling of weights or counts of products.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary agency responsible for
ensuring that food sold in interstate commerce is properly labeled. FDA’s
jurisdiction covers seafood and the agency operates an oversight compliance
program, the Seafood Regulatory Program, for fishery products. Responsibility for
a food product’s safety, wholesomeness, identity, and economic integrity rests with
the processor or importer, who must comply with regulations promulgated under the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Fair Packaging and Labeling
Act (FPLA).
This report reviews recent incidents of fraud and deception and examines
several policy issues. Congress may become involved in oversight of how federal
agencies are addressing these issues, and legislation related to these concerns may be
considered.

---

Contents
Fraudulent or Deceptive Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Mislabeling or Substituting Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Low Weights or Undercounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Over-Treating or Added Water Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Altered Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Transshipment to Avoid Import or Customs Duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Industry Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Applicable Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Fair Packaging and Labeling Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
State Regulation of Seafood Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Customs and Border Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
List of Tables
Table 1. Examples of Commonly Substituted Seafood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

---

Seafood Marketing:
Combating Fraud and Deception
Media attention has focused on recent incidents of fraud relating to seafood —
restaurants serving lower-priced fish than identified on menus, lower-priced species
marketed commercially as higher-priced species, packaged weights of seafood less
than labeled weights, and extra water added to seafood to increase total product
weight — raising public concern. In some instances, such fraud may not be
intentional and its extent is not well documented. These occurrences cheat
consumers and have the potential to erode consumer confidence in seafood generally.
Such reduced confidence could limit Americans’ consumption of seafood at a time
when public health officials are encouraging people to eat more seafood. Congress
is facing questions of whether the law applicable to fraudulent seafood sales and
marketing is clear and enforceable, whether agency enforcement efforts targeting
seafood fraud are adequate, and whether the penalties for seafood fraud are a
deterrent.
Fraudulent or Deceptive Practices
Mislabeling or Substituting Species. The flesh of many fish species is
similar in taste and texture and, therefore, it is difficult to identify species from
fillets, especially after preparation for consumption. Thus, it is relatively easy to
substitute an inexpensive species for one of higher value. Over the nine-year period
of FY1988-FY1997, routine examinations of seafood products by the National
Marine Fisheries Service’s National Seafood Inspection Laboratory found that 37%
of fish and 13% of other seafood (e.g., shellfish, edible seaweed) from randomly
selected vendors were mislabeled.1 The primary federal law that addresses
mislabeling is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FFDCA; 21
U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq.), which is administered by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA).
This fraud can be perpetuated several different ways. Unfair and deceptive trade
practices occur when restaurants misrepresent menu items to their patrons by
substituting other (often less desirable and inexpensive) fish for an item described as
a higher-valued species. This fraud also occurs at the manufacturing level, as in
American Samoa, where a dozen tuna cannery workers were accused of falsely
labeling cans as tuna when the cans were actually filled with less expensive wahoo,
and selling it to local stores.2 Some distributors appear to have knowingly sold
restaurants and retailers lower-valued species, claiming them to be of higher value.
1 See [http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu/22ndAnn/file08.pdf].
2 “Chicken of the Sea Embroiled in Labeling Scam,” Associated Press (March 21, 2007).

---

CRS-2
In addition, food service entities can be victimized, if they pay several times
what they should due to bait-and-switch tactics of unscrupulous vendors. Legitimate
suppliers lose an equivalent amount of business to competitors who undercut them
by quoting one item and replacing the higher-valued species with a less-expensive
one.
In February 2007, WKRG-TV (Mobile, AL), using DNA testing, found that only
one in ten samples advertised as grouper actually were this fish, prompting state
agriculture inspectors to target 35 Gulf of Mexico restaurants and seafood markets
for sampling.3 Alabama state law makes a restaurant or distributor subject to a fine
of $5,000 per offense for selling falsely labeled seafood products. In a similar media
investigative report, 17 of 24 Tampa, FL, area restaurants were selling less-desirable
species as grouper.4 These media investigations have not been limited to the Gulf
area.5 These problems can arise from substitution at the restaurant level, misrepre-
sentation by the restaurant supplier, or product misidentification anywhere earlier in
the harvesting/processing process. It is often difficult to determine who is at fault,
especially if there is collusion. However, some of the databases the media have used
for this testing are not verified for accuracy, and there is debate within the seafood
scientific laboratory testing community about the accuracy of some of these media
reports.
Other instances of mislabeling include imported farmed salmon being falsely
identified as wild Alaska salmon and frozen seafood being marketed as fresh product,
as well as confusion over seafood being marketed as “organic.” Since large
quantities of seafood are imported for U.S. consumption, some portion of the
mislabeling problem undoubtedly originates with foreign suppliers. To address this
concern, FDA has issued an import alert on species substitution, providing guidance
to agency field personnel regarding the manufacturers and/or products at issue.6
Table 1 provides a list of some commonly substituted species.7 The problem of
species substitution not only occurs intentionally with certain species and products
because of their differing values, but also is pervasive unintentionally for species
with easily mistaken substitutes.
An additional concern is the correct use of names to identify seafood. Because
different species may be called by the same vernacular name and because the same
species may have different vernacular names in different regions, standard market
3 See [http://www.wkrg.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WKRG%2FMGArticle%2FKRG_
BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149193401779&path=%21news%21local].
4 See [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/1230334761.html?dids=1230334761:
1230334761&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+10%2C+2007&author=CURTIS+
KRUEGER&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&edition=&startpage=1.A&desc=%27Grouper
%27+costs+restaurants].
5 Others have been reported in Portland, OR, [http://www.kptv.com/print/11072970/
detail.html]; and in Phoenix, AZ, [http://www.kpho.com/print/10371007/detail.html], for
example.
6 For FDA import alert #16-04, see [http://www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ora_import_ia1604.html].
7 Modified from [http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/econ.html].

---

CRS-3
names for seafood products are necessary to avoid confusion. FDA and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have cooperated to develop “The Seafood List,”
compiling existing acceptable market names for imported and domestically available
seafood.8 A common or usual name9 is the “prevalent and meaningful name by
which consumers ordinarily identify the food”10 and is appropriate if the name of the
fish complies in other respects with § 403 of the FFDCA and with the general
principles set forth in 21 C.F.R. § 102.5. Use of either the acceptable market name
or the common name in labeling seafood products assures that identity labeling of the
seafood will comply with FDA and NMFS regulations. FDA discourages the use of
vernacular names as this practice may cause seafood to be misbranded.
Table 1. Examples of Commonly Substituted Seafood
(less expensive products are in column B)
A
B
Red Snapper
Rockfish
Mahi Mahi
Yellowtail (Seriola lalandi)
Swordfish
Mako Shark
Orange Roughy
Oreo Dory or John Dory
Cod
Alaska Pollock
Halibut
Sea Bass
Dover Sole
Arrowtooth Flounder
Red Drum
Black Drum
Snapper (Lutjanus sp.)
Tilapia
Grouper
Basa or tra
Lake or Yellow Perch
White Perch or Zander
Caviar (Sturgeon species)
Paddlefish or other fish roe
Walleye
Sauger or Alaska Pollock
Chum Salmon
Pink Salmon
Salmon
Steelhead Trout
Pacific salmon
Atlantic salmon
Blue Crabmeat
Imported Crabmeat
Wild-Caught Salmon
Farm-Raised Salmon
An example of this concern arose several years ago when increasing imports of
basa (Pangasius bocourti) from Vietnam were marketed in the United States as
“catfish,” causing confusion with domestically produced Ictalurid catfish. Prior FDA
guidance listed a number of fish other than those from the family Ictaluridae with the
8 See [http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/seaintro.html].
9 Common names of fish species have been standardized, often by professional societies.
For example, see American Fisheries Society, Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from
the United States, Canada, and Mexico, Special Publication 29, 6th edition (Bethesda, MD:
July 2004), 386 p.; and American Fisheries Society, World Fishes Important to North
Americans, Special Publication 21 (Bethesda, MD: 1991), 243 p.
10 63 Fed. Reg. 20,148 (April 23, 1998).

---

CRS-4
term “catfish” in their names. This prior guidance reflected what FDA believed were
names for seafood that could be used by importers and domestic distributors and sellers
consistent with the food naming provisions of the FDCA. To address this confusion,
§ 10806 of P.L. 107-171 (Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002) amended
§ 403 (the food misbranding provision) of the FFDCA (21 U.S.C. § 343) to provide that
a food shall be deemed to be misbranded “[i]f it purports to be or is represented as
catfish, unless it is fish classified within the family Ictaluridae.” A current concern
relates to the use of “lobster” in describing items generally identified as “langostinos.”11
Another concern is mislabeling of the country of origin. Importers may falsely
claim their seafood product is from, for example, Norway, because Norwegian seafood
products may be recognized as of high quality. In October 2004, the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) promulgated an interim final rule requiring certain retailers
and their suppliers to notify customers of the country of origin of wild and farm-raised
fish and shellfish.12 AMS reopened this rule for additional comment in June 2007.13
Without labeling, consumers would rarely be able to distinguish a product’s country of
origin; labeling fish falsely as to country of origin removes the cachet from more-
desirable products, driving down the more desirable products’ market price. Some have
pointed to the advantages of a complete traceability program for seafood from producer
to the customer so that the source of and liability for any mislabeling can be more easily
identified.
Low Weights or Undercounting. Inaccurate (low) counts or net weights
(“short weighting”) result in consumers receiving less for their money than advertised
and anticipated. These instances, although commonly reported, also constitute
mislabeling offenses under the FFDCA. The seafood community feels this to be a much
greater problem than species substitution, costing legitimate businesses sales and
reduced confidence in their true-packaged products.
Over-Treating or Added Water Weight. Overbreading may cause consumers
to pay shrimp prices for excess bread crumbs. The FDA standard for breaded shrimp
requires that such a product contain at least 50% shrimp. Frozen fillets, shrimp, crab
legs, and other products are normally protected from dehydration (freezer burn) while
frozen by the application of a light glaze of ice; a packer then includes more product in
the package to compensate for the weight of the glaze. Excessive amounts of glaze
(overglazing) not compensated for in this manner can deliberately be used to increase
the apparent weight, and therefore the apparent value, of the delivered product.
Sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) is a legitimate means for aiding production, when
used properly. However, STP can be misused to retain excess moisture in seafood
products. Prolonged soaking of seafood in an STP-water solution can result, for
example, in Atlantic sea scallops or shrimp with excessive water. Such excess water
adds to the product’s total weight, resulting in economic fraud when seafood prices are
charged for water and, in the case of shrimp, the product is bumped into a larger weight
11 See [http://www.lawfuel.com/show-release.asp?ID=3593].
12 69 Fed. Reg. 59708-59750 (October 5, 2004).
13 72 Fed. Reg. 33851 (June 20, 2007).

---

CRS-5
class where a higher price per pound can be charged. Seafood treated with STP or other
water-retaining chemicals must be accurately labeled to identify this treatment. FDA
has set percent-moisture guidelines and labeling requirements for treated scallops, but
no moisture guidelines or standards exist for shrimp.
Altered Color. Fish fillets can be treated with carbon monoxide (CO) to give fish
flesh a fresher-appearing reddish tint.14 The growing use of CO (also referred to as
“tasteless smoke” or TS) as a “pigment fixative” has alarmed some consumer advocates
who say it deceives shoppers who depend on color to help them avoid spoiled fish. An
additional consumer safety issue occurs when the flesh of certain species such as tuna
develops toxic levels of histamine through time and/or temperature abuse — with CO
treatment there are no visual cues to indicate when such flesh may be decomposed and
toxic. Consumer advocates have urged FDA to conduct a formal evaluation of this
treatment’s impact on consumer safety. FDA considers tuna to be misbranded if it is
treated with TS/CO but not labeled to indicate that it contains a preservative, and thus
purports to be unprocessed, fresh, or fresh-frozen tuna.15 All processed seafood
involving CO/TS requires label declarations under 21 C.F.R. part 101.
Some aquaculture operations use the color additives canthaxanthin and/or
astaxanthin in feed to impart a more orange color to fish flesh of salmon and/or trout.
The flesh of the farmed varieties of these fish would, if not for these color additives, be
a less-appealing paler white. Use of these additives is legal as long as fish are properly
labeled to identify that this treatment has been used. However, farmed salmon and trout,
where these additives have been used to enhance color, have been deceptively and
fraudulently sold as “wild” fish.
Transshipment to Avoid Import or Customs Duties. Transshipment
occurs when foreign producers ship goods to a second country en route to the United
States. Although transshipment is generally legal and commonly used in the ordinary
course of business, it is illegal if it is done for the purpose of circumventing duties and
other applicable trade restrictions. It has been reported that shrimp from China have
been shipped to the United States by way of Indonesia to avoid paying antidumping
duties of 112% levied by the United States on shrimp imported from China, but not on
shrimp imported from Indonesia.16
Industry Initiatives
On October 13, 2006, concerns that seafood fraud had begun to and could
increasingly erode consumer confidence in seafood led the National Fisheries Institute
(NFI) to announce an initiative to promote economic integrity within the seafood
14 See [http://www.sushiman.net/ahi/carbon_monoxide_trea.htm].
15 See FDA Import Bulletin #16B-95, available at [http://seafood.ucdavis.edu/Guidelines/fda
bulletin16b.htm].
16 See [http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HC22Ae01.html]. Further
information is contained in out-of-print CRS Report RS21776, Shrimp Trade Dispute:
Chronology, by Eugene H. Buck, available from the author.

---

CRS-6
industry.17 Implementation of this initiative is scheduled for summer 2007,
concentrating on three primary areas:
! transshipment of products subject to antidumping and countervailing
duties;
! mislabeling of products or species substitution; and
! mislabeling of weights or counts of products.
NFI intends to pursue this initiative (1) by obtaining commitments from the CEOs of
NFI member companies to comply with current law and regulation and (2) by
developing an accountability system that would reward “good actors” and identify “bad
actors.” Such an accountability system would involve screening by a Better Seafood
Bureau, independent third-party audits of processes and products, and a member review
process. NFI officially launched the Better Seafood Bureau on July 5, 2007.
Applicable Law18
With the increasing media attention to this issue, Congress may face questions
concerning current law applicable to seafood marketing and fraud. The issues to
consider include whether current law applicable to fraudulent seafood sales and
marketing is clear and enforceable; whether federal agency enforcement efforts targeting
seafood fraud are adequate; whether the penalties for seafood fraud offenses are a
deterrent; and whether the resources for federal agency enforcement are sufficient.
FDA is the primary agency responsible for ensuring that food sold in interstate
commerce is properly labeled. FDA’s jurisdiction covers seafood and the agency
operates an oversight compliance program, the Seafood Regulatory Program, for fishery
products. Responsibility for a food product’s safety, wholesomeness, identity, and
economic integrity rests with the processor or importer, who must comply with
regulations promulgated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and
the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA). FDA has the authority to detain or
temporarily hold food being imported into the United States while it determines if the
product is misbranded or adulterated. FDA also has the authority to take legal action
against sellers of adulterated and misbranded seafood and to recommend criminal
prosecution or injunction of responsible firms and individuals. However, enforcement
of economic fraud and labeling laws has taken a backseat to protecting the health and
safety of the U.S. food supply.19 The appropriate level of funding may also be an issue,
providing adequate resources so that FDA can more systematically monitor the
situation, better determine the scope and scale of this type of problem, and develop new
programs that address this fraud. About 85 of FDA’s roughly 1,350 inspectors work
primarily with seafood.
17 See [http://www.aboutseafood.com/assets/files/nfi_annrpt06d2.pdf].
18 Material in this section was contributed by Stephanie Showalter, Director, National Sea
Grant Law Center, University of Mississippi, University, MS, May 22, 2007.
19 “Species Substitution: Labeling Law Not An FDA Priority...,” Santa Monica Seafood
SeaLog (April 2006).

---

CRS-7
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The FFDCA attempts to keep
interstate commerce free from misbranded (i.e., mislabeled) articles and to protect the
public from inferior foods resembling standard products but marketed under distinctive
names.20 The governing statute for naming food is the FFDCA. The FFDCA, as
amended, gives FDA authority over most food regulation and includes:
! a series of definitions elaborating on the concepts of adulteration and
misbranding;
! control over all labeling of foods traveling in interstate commerce;
! detailed regulation of issues concerned with safety and wholesomeness
of foods; and
! enforcement remedies available to the agency, when needed.21
An article is deemed misbranded if, among other things, its labeling is false or
misleading or it is offered for sale under the name of another food.22 An article is
considered mislabeled when the label makes “no representation as to definition and
standard of quality,” unless the label bears the common or usual name of the food, if
there is one.23
FDA has issued regulations that outline general principles for common or usual
names of food. The common or usual name must
accurately identify or describe, in as simple and direct terms as possible, the basic
nature of the food or its characterizing properties or ingredients. The name shall be
uniform among all identical or similar products and may not be confusingly similar
to the name of any other food that is not reasonably encompassed within the same
name. Each class or subclass of food shall be given its own common or usual name
that states, in clear terms, what it is in a way that distinguishes it from different
foods.24
A common or usual name of a food may be established by common usage or by
regulation.25 For example, FDA promulgated a regulation establishing that Pacific
whiting or North Pacific whiting is the common or usual name of the food fish
Merluccius productus.26 Most common or usual names, however, are established
through common usage.
In 1988, FDA published the FDA Guide to Acceptable Market Names for Food
Fish Sold in Interstate Commerce (“The Fish List”) to provide an authoritative source
20 35A Am. Jur. 2d Food § 25 (2006).
21 For more information, see CRS Report RL33559, Food Safety: National Uniformity for
Food Act, by Donna V. Porter.
22 21 U.S.C. § 343. FDA further regulates this area of “Misbranding” in 21 C.F.R. § 101.18.
23 21 U.S.C. § 343(i)(1).
24 21 C.F.R. § 102.5(a).
25 21 C.F.R. § 102.5(d).
26 21 C.F.R. § 102.46.

---

CRS-8
of common names to establish order in the marketplace and reduce confusion among
consumers. In 1993, FDA published an updated, expanded “Seafood List,” which
includes invertebrate species (mollusks and crustaceans) as well as finfish. The
frequently updated Seafood List reflects what FDA considers the most appropriate
market names for the identification and labeling of seafood and is the agency’s primary
guidance for naming seafood sold in interstate commerce.
Although the Seafood List includes “vernacular” names for some species, use of
vernacular names is discouraged by FDA. The use of a vernacular name may cause a
seafood to be misbranded under the FFDCA.27 For example, FDA has issued specific
guidance on using “red snapper” as a market name. FDA’s policy states that “the
labeling or sale of any fish other than Lutjanus campechanus as red snapper constitutes
a misbranding in violation of the [FFDCA].”28
Under the FFDCA, species substitution also violates FDA’s prohibition against
adulteration. A food is deemed adulterated “if any substance has been substituted
wholly or in part therefore.”29 The marketing of a less valuable fish as one of higher
value is a substitution and can result in a finding of adulteration.
Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. The FPLA requires that consumers of
packaged commodities be provided with accurate information as to its contents.
Congress passed the FPLA to “enable consumers to obtain accurate information as to
the quantity of the contents and should facilitate value comparisons.”30 Under the FPLA
it is unlawful for persons engaged in labeling or packaging of consumer commodities
“to distribute or to cause to be distributed in commerce any such commodity if such
commodity is contained in a package, or if there is affixed to that commodity a label,
which does not conform to the provisions” of the FPLA.31
The FPLA requires each label to identify the commodity and the name of its
manufacturer, packer, or distributor and the net quantity of contents, in terms of weight
or mass, measure, or numerical count.32 Food products, falling within the scope of the
FFDCA, introduced into interstate commerce in violation of the FPLA and its
regulations are deemed to be misbranded within the meaning of the FFDCA.33
State Regulation of Seafood Labeling. In addition to the federal
requirements, several states also regulate the labeling and branding of seafood under
state versions of the FFDCA. For example, in Alaska “no person may label or offer for
sale any food fish product designated as halibut, with or without additional descriptive
27 Sec. 540.750 Common or Usual Names for Seafood in Interstate Commerce (CPG
7108.26).
28 Sec. 540.475 Snapper — Labeling (CPG 7108.21).
29 21 U.S.C. § 342 (b)(2).
30 15 U.S.C. § 1451.
31 15 U.S.C. § 1452.
32 15 U.S.C. § 1453(a).
33 15 U.S.C. § 1456(a).

---

CRS-9
words, unless the food fish product is Hippoglossus or Hippoglossus Stenolepsis.”34 In
California, an individual who sells any commodity in less quantity than what is
represented is guilty of a misdemeanor offense.35
Customs and Border Protection. Transshipment to avoid paying import or
customs duties is illegal whenever it circumvents trade laws and other applicable trade
restrictions.36 The applicable law and regulation may vary, depending upon the trade
agreement existing between the United States and another nation as well as the status
of any antidumping and countervailing duties currently in force for particular products
imported from designated nations.
Conclusions
Markets function efficiently when information is available to both consumers and
producers. When seafood is mislabeled, consumers, retail stores, restaurants, and
seafood producers will incur economic effects. The consumer may find the product less
appealing because the mislabeled substitute is of lesser quality. Even if the product is
of acceptable quality, news reports of fraud may detract from the consumer’s
satisfaction with seafood. Both factors may influence future consumer choices.
If consumers are unsatisfied, seafood businesses including retail stores, restaurants,
processors, and fishermen, may lose future business. In general, the seafood industry
may lose business if unhappy consumers substitute other products, such as beef, poultry,
and pork. In some cases consumers may avoid the species in question, such as grouper.
If consumer confidence in specific species is lost, prices may decrease because
consumers switch to their next best alternative. Producers who would be likely to lose
the most are those who specialize in that product. In general, both consumers and most
producers would incur economic losses in cases of fraud, with short-term gains to those
who sell mislabeled merchandise. There might be certain advantages from establishing
a complete traceability program for seafood from harvester to consumer so that the
source of and liability for any mislabeling could be more easily identified.
Although it is not clear whether the amount of fraud and deception in seafood sales
and marketing is increasing, media attention to this issue has raised its profile with the
public. The economic integrity initiative of the National Fisheries Institute has the
potential to increase attention within the seafood industry to this issue as well as to
address eroding consumer confidence in fair marketing of seafood produce. In response
to increased public concern, Congress is facing questions concerning current law
applicable to seafood marketing and fraud. These questions include whether current law
applicable to fraudulent seafood sales and marketing is clear and enforceable, whether
federal agency enforcement efforts targeting seafood fraud are adequate, and whether
the penalties for seafood fraud offenses are a deterrent. In addition, increased funding
may be an issue so that agencies can more systematically monitor the situation, better
determine the scope and scale of this type of problem, and develop new programs that
address this fraud.
34 Alaska Stat. § 17.20.045.
35 Cal Bus & Prof Code § 12024.
36 Section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1592).

---