In a Washington Post article that ran in the March 30 issue of the Seattle Times, reporter Lyndsey Layton draws attention to the important issue of incorrect food labels. The article frames the issue as being one that primarily will annoy the consumer, whose greatest concern is a disappointed palate upon encountering “Mississippi paddlefish” eggs while expecting “Sturgeon caviar.”
A larger issue emerges, however, when one considers that mislabeled food may actually represent a pathway for contaminated foods to enter the market.
The article indicates that a substantial amount of mislabeled food originates from foreign imports. If products are not tested for labeling accuracy or contamination, a fabricated label might allow U.S. distributors to accept it as being a trusted product. This becomes a potential health issue when food products distributed in the U.S. may be contaminated with chemical products or with unreported allergens associated with their origin or production process.
A poignant example is reported in the article. It describes how more than 10 million pounds of Vietnamese catfish bought by U.S. consumers were labeled as the more expensive fish species grouper, flounder and red snapper.
Misleading fish labels may expose buyers to a potential health risk. Many species of fish accumulate metals – particularly mercury. Fish that are imported from areas with higher than normal mercury contamination could increase a consumer's exposure to the mercury that has accumulated in those fish. Pregnant women, nursing mothers and other sensitive populations who are told to avoid certain species of fish (swordfish, king mackerel, shark) associated with increased mercury levels would not know if the fish they are eating were from a contaminated area or were of a species known to have higher mercury levels.
Such fraudulent labeling and a 2 percent FDA inspection rate for imported fish make it impossible for consumers to make informed decisions about potential food contaminants they are exposed to.
This idea also applies to a variety of regional products and region-specific contaminants. For instance, the U.S. no longer uses organochlorine pesticides, but many other countries still do. The persistent pesticides can remain on agricultural products and accumulate in animals exported from those regions. Mislabeling products about their content and origin drastically reduces the consumers’ ability to limit their exposure to contaminants known to be associated with the region's products.
The article does well at pointing out some emerging strategies for combating fraudulent labeling. However, it is important to keep in mind that this issue goes beyond ensuring the consumers’ rights to get what they pay for. Fraudulent labeling is a symptom of an under secured food distribution system that may lend itself to exploitation, potentially resulting in unintentional, or possibly even intentional food contamination. It is encouraging that awareness of this important issue is being raised.
