Fraud Impacts Trust (Part 1)

By FishProf

The FishProf questions why we are allowing such bad practices in aquaculture/seafood and suggests that we all be more proactive in our industry to eliminate bad practices and poor attitudes that impact trust in the whole supply chain. The aquaculture industry is constantly in the media for the wrong reasons, and it is up to us all to be front and center to ensure we are on top of this matter.

International food trade, especially fish/seafood, has helped to reduce global poverty and hunger, yet illegal trade in food and food d undermines the global food system and endangers public health.

The FishProf questions why we are allowing such bad practices in aquaculture/seafood and suggests that we all be more proactive in our industry to eliminate bad practices and poor attitudes that impact trust in the whole supply chain. The aquaculture industry is constantly in the media for the wrong reasons, and it is up to us all to be front and center to ensure we are on top of this matter.

A recent publication, “Illicit Trade in Food and Food Fraud” published by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and written in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), food safety nonprofit SAFE, the International Seed Federation (ISF), and other experts in food safety and food crime spanning the supply chain examines the challenges of combating food fraud and illegal practices in food trade. The publication also explains the WTO rulebook and its role in combatting food fraud and illicit food trade.

The FishProf notices that in the publication, WTO describes illicit trade in food and food fraud as “the buying and selling of products to be eaten, drunk, or grown that are not what they are claimed to be; that fail to comply with health and other regulations (e.g., on quality); and that are smuggled or otherwise produced or traded outside the legitimate market framework.” They stress that illicit trade in food and food fraud significantly damages international trade and public health.

Interestingly, the WTO rulebook contains agreements that together create a legal framework for international food trade, helping to combat illicit trade and fraud and, importantly, the document identifies several areas in which improvements could be made to dissuade criminals from engaging in illegal trade or food fraud, through several measures.

WTO rules of particular importance to food safety are the “Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,” which allows WTO members to regulate food imports based on science and risk assessment techniques, and the “Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade,” which will enable members to address deceptive practices.

 Simply put illegal trade of any persuasion in a supply chain makes food safety plans unworkable and food recalls (an essential element of any food safety plan) impossible.

The smuggling of agricultural products is driven by a disparity between the price of a product at its origin and its destination, which can include price differentials deriving from government subsidies. Continuing WTO agriculture negotiations aim to simplify tariff structures, reduce excessively high tariffs and trade-distorting subsidies, and address import and export restrictions to reduce smuggling and illegal trade incentives. The FishProf believes we should all support these processes and bring common sense to reducing import and export restrictions.

Modernizing food safety legislation with all governments is essential, as holistic regulations on detecting, preventing, mitigating, and controlling food/fish fraud can lessen the room for opportunity for fraudsters. Many countries are going through these procedures, and hopefully, FishProf hopes they are looking at what others are doing and learning from those experiences to speed up the processes.

Good industry associations should collaborate with their members and the authorities to raise matters worthy of conducting timely and thorough investigations. FishProf believes there was a time when the industry kept its head down, hoping that no one would notice any questionable practices, but society has moved on!

You only need to look at what is happening in Canada with open pen salmon industry to appreciate how the pendulum swings! One minute you are in business with government support and the next the government are legislating you out of business.

The sector must promote its solid credentials in all activities leading the way. It should no longer be bureaucracy versus industry, as it was in the old days. Everyone should ensure the consumer has confident choices and can look forward to consuming the most nutritious protein on the planet through the enormous variety that aquatic foods offer.

Food Labels Create Confusion

FishProf has noticed recently in European Union that food labeling which was devised to help people make informed choices when buying food, is now under pressure from no less than the European Court of Auditors (ECA).

The ECA are recently reported as saying that consumers are lost in a myriad of labels and brands that can mask deception.

The coexistence of multiple labelling systems—each with distinct meanings and purposes—undermines their intended role of guiding choices with food labelling. These EU Auditors are now warning that too many labels do not assist the consumers, they confuse them.

Keit Pentus-Rosimannus is a member of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) responsible for the audit and she has been quoted as saying “Instead of providing clarity, food labels too often create confusion; there are hundreds of different schemes, logos and claims that people need to decipher.”

“Consumers are simply lost. The lack of clarity extends beyond nutritional labels to include environmental claims, slogans, and undefined terms like “fresh,” “natural,” and “antibiotic-free,” many of which risk misleading consumers. The EU rules are full of holes that leave consumers vulnerable, and food companies can and of course are happy to use this legal vacuum,” Pentus-Rosimannus warned, adding that food companies present products as healthier or more eco-friendly than they truly are. The findings of this new report by the European Court of Auditors highlights that while labels provide information on the content and properties of food and EU rules ensure that they provide consumers with basic information, a number of worrying gaps in the legislation have been found, as well as problems with controls and penalties.

Whilst this report is about the EU there can be no doubt that consumers all over the world are exposed to an increasing number of claims, logos, slogans, labels, and scores that can not only be confusing but also misleading.

This audit report covers labels between 2011 and 2023 and included meetings with the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety and the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development and interviewed authorities in Belgium, Italy, and Lithuania.

Suzy Sumner, Head of the Brussels office for Foodwatch International, is reported as saying “What’s worst about the ECA report: Rather than a lack of competence, it underlines the lack of political will in the EU’s institutions to defend the rights of 450 million EU consumers instead of the interests of a powerful industry. Food labels may often be small in size. Still, they are of huge importance: They shape the eating habits of millions of people and therefore have a massive impact on the health of European consumers.”

In the EU regulations require allergens to be emphasized in the ingredient list but, people with food allergies may be faced with overly cautious labeling and vague statements such as “may contain.” A lack of harmonized rules at the EU level restricts  their  choice.  Companies may apply the “may contain” wording to play it safe, and the use of this statement is not always based on risk assessments quantifying the presence of allergens. Implementing acts on precautionary allergen labeling have not yet been adopted by the EU Commission.

Clarity is made worse by the increasing number of voluntary labels, logos and claims used to attract consumers. These include “clean” labels about the absence of certain elements such as (e.g., “antibiotic-free” and uncertified qualities such as “fresh” and “natural.”).

The  EU  allocated  only  about € 5.5 million (USD 5.77 million) to food labeling awareness campaigns from 2021 to 2025, and consumer campaigns by member states are infrequent. For instance, although mandatory, date marking is poorly understood, with people confused by the meanings of “use by” and “best before.”

Organizations can also take advantage of weaknesses in checks and penalties, e.g., websites outside the EU are virtually impossible to control for online food sales. Regarding infringements, the EU auditors concluded that fines are not always dissuasive, effective, or proportionate.

COVID-19 saw a rise in the sale of food products via e-commerce which has continued since and, it has been no surprise, that an increased number of complaints about online stores have arisen. Information on such products can be misleading, and their consumption may even be unsafe especially for those who rely on correct labeling.

The Public Need to Have Information

The Auditors reported that control systems in member states are sometimes complex and often involve multiple authorities, which can lead to weaknesses in monitoring, reporting, and sanctions.

Strangely, the EU Commission makes some information notified by member states available to the public via the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) portal but not details that would allow a product to be identified, such as its name or involved companies. A consumer, for example, could not find the product name on the portal during a recall. Instead, this information might be available in shops or through national authorities’ information channels.

While some updates have been made through other regulations – such as the General Food Law and Claims regulation – key aspects like nutrition labelling, green claims, animal welfare standards, and origin labelling remain fragmented, often managed at the national level. The FishProf reminds everyone here that no matter where you are in the world there is a cost-of-living crisis – just think how we could cut costs if we stuck to the basics!

Amazingly it was reported that the EU’s main food labelling framework, the Food Information to Consumers Regulation, has not been updated since its introduction in 2011.

Despite discussions during the previous legislative mandate, efforts to  modernize  these  rules  stalled, partly due to many political issues and disagreement from certain member states over issues like Nutriscore, the main nutritional labelling in the running to get the nod from the EU.

Pentus-Rosimannus acknowledged the complexity of achieving consensus across the EU, given diverse national traditions and perspectives but said, “This cannot be an excuse for allowing the status quo to continue indefinitely.”

Consumer advocacy groups like BEUC (umbrella group for forty-four independent consumer organizations from thirty-one countries) are also urging swift action to address these shortcomings with Emma Calvert, senior policy officer, stressing the urgent need for a unified front-of-pack nutritional label.

“The lack of the promised EU front-of-pack nutritional label deprives consumers of an essential tool to make healthier choices at a time when obesity and overweight rates are alarmingly high,” she said.

The European Commission has responded to the ECA report, acknowledging the need for stricter rules to protect consumers from misleading claims but did not specify plans to update the Food Information to Consumers Regulation – which remains a sensitive issue – instead, referencing upcoming rules on environmental claims.

In his efficacious hearing, Christophe Hansen, EU agriculture and food commissioner, admitted the need for greater coherence in labelling. “We have so many voluntary labels that are not harmonized,” he said, calling for a “streamlining exercise” to enhance both consumer trust and the functioning of the internal market.

The FishProf is a firm believer in that the proliferation of eco-labels in the seafood industry has led to significant consumer confusion, undermining efforts of genuine producers/ harvesters to promote sustainable consumption.

More will follow with “Fraud Impacts Trust” (Part 2) in the next issue.

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.