This is not the salmon you're looking for

Salmon sampled in a survey from Oceana, a sustainability organization, was found to be mislabeled 43 percent of the time, according to a new study out Wednesday. That means many consumers paying extra for local, wild-caught fish are still getting farm-raised. 

Alex Brandon/AP/File
According to a new study released Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2015, 43 percent of the salmon sold in the US is mislabeled, though fraud is far less likely to occur in grocery stores than in restaurants.

Salmon recently become America's most popular fish, surpassing tuna for the crown in 2013. And why not? It's tasty, nutritious, and appropriate for most any meal - a lox bagel at breakfast, a grilled fillet at dinner. But according to a new study out Wednesday, there's a very good chance that America's many salmon lovers aren't getting exactly what they pay for. 

An analysis of 82 US salmon samples by Oceana, an oceanic sustainability organization, found that salmon products were mislabeled 43 percent of the time.  Uncovered through DNA testing, most of the fraud (69 percent) involved farm-raised salmon being labeled as higher-quality, wild-caught fish. In other instances, Salmon labeled as highly sought-after varieties, like Chinook or Coho, were found to be more common, lower-value species. 

Salmon served in restaurants, meanwhile, was five times more likely to be mislabeled than fish sold in a grocery store. 

“Americans might love salmon, but  they may be falling victim to a bait and switch,” said Beth Lowell, senior campaign director at Oceana, in the study's release. “When consumers opt for wild-caught US salmon, they don’t expect to get a farmed or lower-value product of questionable origins. This type of seafood fraud can have serious ecological and economic consequences. Not only are consumers getting ripped off, but responsible US fishermen are being cheated when fraudulent products lower the price for their hard-won catch.”

Oceana collected its samples during the winter of 2013 and 2014, when fresh, wild-caught salmon is typically out of season. As a result, the findings diverted greatly from those of an earlier survey gathered during the height of commercial fishing season. 

The study is just the latest in a string of reports casting serious doubt on the trustworthiness of the nation's seafood, a worrying trend particularly as consumers grow more concerned about the environmental impact of their food. Past Oceana studies have found that 30 percent of shrimp were mislabeled  and 38 percent of blue crab, a celebrated local offering of the Chesapeake region, was actually different species imported from other countries. In March, the Obama administration launched a task force meant to combat illegal and unregulated fishing, as well as the pervasive mislabeling problem. 

The problem, Oceana says, is not so much a shortage of high-quality, wild-caught products. US fisherman, in fact, catch enough salmon each year to meet 80 percent of the country's total salmon demand. But the majority of it is sold to other countries, because processing overseas is cheaper. Imported, farm-raised salmon is often sold in its place. 

Sustainability NGOs are pushing the government to implement a comprehensive traceability program, wherein all seafood sold in the US would require documentation sourced and sold legally. But in the meanwhile, there are steps consumers can take to avoid being duped. Learning about fishing seasons and buying fresh, in-season seafood is a good start; a number of organizations provide handy seasonal buying guides, like this one from the Marine Conservation Society. 

Oceana also recommends asking questions about where the product came from: if the vendors volunteer detailed information, or submit to voluntary certification programs,  there's a greater probability the product is genuine.

And don't be pulled in by a can't-miss bargain. "If the price is too good to be true, it probably is," the study reads. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.