Mislabeled and ambiguous market names in invertebrate and finfish seafood conceal species of conservation concern in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Background: The mislabeling of seafood, wherein a food product's marketed name does not match its contents, has the potential to mask species of conservation concern. Less discussed is the role of legally ambiguous market names, wherein a single name could be used to sell multiple species. Here we report the first study in Canada to examine mislabeling and ambiguous market names in both invertebrate (., bivalve, cephalopod, shrimp) and finfish products.

Methods: A total of 109 invertebrate and 347 finfish products were sampled in Calgary between 2014 and 2020. Market names were documented from the label or equivalent and determined to be precise (the name could apply to only one species) or ambiguous (multiple species could be sold under that name). A region of the gene was sequenced and compared to reference sequences from boldsystems.org. Samples were considered mislabeled if the species identified through DNA barcoding did not correspond to the market name, as determined through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Fish List. Mislabeling was further differentiated between semantic mislabeling, wherein the market name was not found on the Fish List but the barcode identity was in line with what a consumer could reasonably have expected to have purchased; invalid market names, wherein the market name was so unusual that no legitimate inferences as to the product's identity could be made; and product substitution, wherein the DNA barcode identified the product as a species distinct from that associated with the market name. Invalid market names and product substitutions were used to provide conservative estimates of mislabeling. The global conservation status of the DNA-identified invertebrate or finfish was determined through the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List. A logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between precision and accuracy in predicting conservation status of the sampled species.

Results: There was no significant difference in mislabeling occurrence between invertebrates (33.9% total mislabeling occurrence, 20.2% product substitution) and finfish (32.3% total mislabeling occurrence, 21.3% product substitution/invalid market names). Product substitutions sometimes involved species of conservation concern, such as foods marketed as freshwater eel () that were determined through DNA barcoding to be European eel (), or cuttlefish balls putatively identified as the Endangered threadfin porgy (). Product substitutions and ambiguous market names were significantly associated with the sale of species of conservation concern, but ambiguity was a more important predictor. Although preventing the mislabeling of seafoods can and must remain a priority in Canada, our work suggests that moving towards precise names for all seafood products will better support sustainable fisheries goals.