SEAFOODNEWS.COM [News Analysis] by John Sackton — August 14, 2014 — The recent decision by Russian authorities to ban the sale of US fish and seafood has led some in the US to ask why the US should not implement a retaliatory ban on imports of Russian Seafood. That decision would obviously take place in a wider context, and would be up to the President and Congress.
But there is a trade nomenclature issue that is glaring; and would require nothing more than a simple re-examination by the FDA of its labeling practices for Alaska pollock.
Currently pollock of the species Theragra chalcogramma, found in both Alaska and Russia, has the FDA legal market name of 'Alaska Pollock' or Pollock.
Thus consumers who may want to purchase American seafood are understandably confused when they see a label that says 'Alaska Pollock' and Product of Russia.
Seafood consumers often have strong reaction to country of origin label information, as evidenced by several criminal cases brought by the FDA against companies that sought to falsify their product's origin. Thus a company that called salmon from Russia product of US would be legally liable.
Similar cases have been brought by the FDA for falsely labeling shrimp from Asia as coming from Ecuador of Central America.
Since seafood country of origin labeling has come into force, it is obvious by the FDA enforcement actions that there is a real economic consequences for falsifying country of origin, as it influences the price consumers are willing to pay for seafood items.
The value of geographic information on products is recognized throughout the government. For example, the US Patent and Trademark Office says "Geographical indications are becoming increasingly important, as they are key features on many agricultural and food product labels and are valuable assets that play an integral role in promoting trade and consumer interests. Like trademarks, GIs are valuable marketing tools, where a company's/producer's good-will and reputation are linked to its products. U.S. businesses and producers should be aware of the value of these marketing tools and should look into the avenues of protecting these business interests from infringement by others."
IN their labeling guidelines, the FDA recognizes the problem of misleading names, and says emphatically that "A name that is false or misleading is not an acceptable market name", in Principle 2 of their guidelines.
They go on to elaborate what they mean by false or misleading:
-The name is not the name required by law or regulation.
-The name is the same as the name of another species or is confusingly similar to the name of another species and it is not reasonably encompassed within a group of species so named.
-The name implies a unique geographical origin that is misleading.
-The name is a fanciful or coined name that inaccurately characterizes the quality, value, or other feature of the species.
The FDA is the final authority on seafood labeling in the US, and designates the only legal market name for over 1800 species.
Their seafood list shows both the 'common name' and the acceptable market name for every species commercially harvested and sold, including every species imported into the US.
Among the common names there are literally hundreds that are geographic designations, such as 'Mexican' Flounder, 'Peruvian Scallop', 'American Lobster', and in the overwhelming majority of cases, the FDA says the geographic designation may not be used, and the fish has to be sold as Flounder, Scallops, or Lobster.
Out of these more than 1800 species, there are only 8 where the FDA has allowed the legal use of a geographic designation, and of these 8, 5 have a recommended name that is not geographical, but the geographical designation is allowed.
These five are:
Common Name Acceptable Market Name
Pacific Cod Cod or Alaska Cod
Walleye Pollock Pollock or Alaska Pollock
Hoki Blue Hake or New Zealand Whiting
Rainbow Smelt Smelt or American Smelt
Toothfish Toothfish or Chilean Sea Bass
There are 4 items that have only a geographical designation in the Acceptable Market Name:
Salmon, Atlantic Atlantic Salmon
Nile Perch Nile Perch or Lake Victoria Perch
Spanish Mackerel Spanish Mackerel
The other more than 1792 species have no geographical desciptor in their Acceptable market name.
In addressing nomenclature issues, the FDA follows a policy of using the common name unless use of the common name would violate Principle 2 – ie. be a name that is false or misleading.
In the current situation there is massive consumer confusion about fish called "Alaska Pollock'.
Due to the marketing work of ASMI and the recognition of Alaska as the global leader in sustainable seafood, many consumers identify Alaska with a superior quality product, and ASMI surveys of restaurant menus have shown that using "Alaska' as a descriptor is a huge positive benefit.
Yet for product subject to labeling laws and country of origin labeling, the concept of 'Alaska Pollock, Product of Russia' is highly misleading to consumers.
Given that US consumers deserve to have a choice about which types of fish to purchase, and the FDA's longstanding committment to prevent consumer fraud and confusion over labeling, it would seem this is a prime time to revisit the acceptable market name for Walleye Pollock.
If the FDA follwed the exact same practice they use with practically every other species on the species list, European Pollock (which has a common name of Saithe), pollock (which has common names including Boston blue, scrod, and Atlantic Pollock), and Walleye Pollock (which has the common names of Pollock, Alaska Pollock, they would require that pollock be the acceptable market name for all these species.
The FDA allows additonal geographical descriptor on packaging when that is true to the origin of the product and imparts further customer information, i.e. lobster from Maine may be labeled on a package 'Maine Lobster' and pollock from Alaska could be labeled on a package as 'Alaska Pollock'.
By bringing pollock into line with their common practice on practically every other species, the FDA would be reducing consumer confusion and being true to their own principles of nomenclature.
This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has be reprinted with permission.