Table 7 Summary of full-text articles which reported mislabeling as a public risk in food marketing

Miller DD and Mariani S, 2010 [68]

Ireland

Research article

This study collected food samples from supermarkets, shops, and restaurants in Dublin, Ireland to assess labeling and transparency in the European seafood industry. The assessment showed that 39 out of 156 (25%) samples were genetically identified as entirely different species from that identified on the product labels, and therefore were considered as mislabeled. More significantly, 28 out of 34(82.4%) smoked fish samples were found to be mislabeled.

Jacquet JL and Pauly D, 2008 [69]

USA

Research article

This paper examines the extent and consequences of renaming and mislabeling seafood, with particular attention to the USA, where 80% of the seafood is imported and more than one-third of all fish are mislabeled.

Armani A, et al., 2012

Italy

Research article

This survey assessed label compliance of jellyfish products sold on the Italian market. The survey found many shortfalls including the presence of a trade name referring to vegetables or a lack of an unequivocal specification of ingredients.

Armani A, et al., 2013

Italy and China

Research article

Forensically informative nucleotide sequencing (FINS) of a short mitochondrial COI gene fragment revealed 100% of the sample of ready-to-eat jellyfish food products in Italy and China were mislabeled.

Chin TC, et al., 2016 [70]

Malaysia

Research article

This study detected mislabeled seafood products in Malaysia by DNA barcoding. A total of 62 seafood samples, either raw, frozen, or variously processed, were collected from commercial sources in Malaysia. The DNA targets were successfully amplified and sequenced from 81% of seafood samples. Among these samples, 16% were found to have been mislabeled at source.

Nagalakshmi K, et al., 2016 [71]

India

Research article

This study found out the level of seafood mislabeling prevailing in India using DNA barcoding. A total of 100 seafood samples including fresh, frozen, ready-to-cook, ready-to-eat, and canned products were collected. The results revealed 22% of seafood mislabeling prevailing in Indian domestic market.

Galal-Khallaf A, et al., 2014 [72]

Egypt

Research article

This study assessed the labeling status of Egyptian fish fillets. DNA barcoding was applied to ascertaining species in fish fillets (tilapia, Nile perch, and panga) purchased from Egyptian markets. Ninety commercial samples were analyzed. Sequencing of a short fragment of mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I (COI) gene revealed 33.3% species substitution in the fish fillets analyzed, 50% Nile perch (Lates niloticus) and 50% basa fish (Pangasius bocourti) being replaced by imported Vietnamese tra fish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus).

Cawthorn D-M, et al., 2012 [73]

South Africa

Research article

This study investigated incidence of fish species misrepresentation and substitution on the South African market. The results showed that 10 of 108 (9%) samples from wholesalers and 43 of 140 (31%) from retailers were identified as different species to the ones indicated at the point of sale.

Di Pinto A, et al., 2015 [74]

Italy

Research article

This study investigated processed-meat products from Italian markets in order to verify any species substitution or mislabeling. The results revealed a high substitution rate among the meat products, highlighting a mislabeling rate of 57%, and consequently, considerable discordance with the indications on the labels.

Carvalho DC, et al., 2017 [75]

Brazil

Research article

This study analyzed twenty-two processed cod products purchased from supermarkets, local stores, fast food outlets, and one restaurant in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. A mixture of two or more species was found within 31% of all products and 41% mislabeling was reported within highly processed cod products.

Garcia-Vazquez E, et al., 2010 [76]

Spain and Greek

Research article

DNA analysis of hake products commercialized in Spanish and Greek market chains has demonstrated more than 30% mislabeling, on the basis of species substitution. Tails and fillets were more mislabeled than other products, such as slices and whole pieces. African species were substitute species for products labeled as American and European species.

Staffen CF, et al., 2017 [77]

Brazil

Research article

This study assessed labeling of fish products in a popular tourist destination in Brazil. A DNA barcoding of 65 samples from fisheries and 80 from restaurants revealed that 30% of mislabeled samples in fisheries and 26% in restaurants.

Muñoz-Colmenero M, et al., 2017 [78]

Spain, USA, and Canada

Research article

This study assessed mislabeling in salmon products from two regions, Northwest of America and Northwest of Spain. A DNA barcoding of samples indicated that the Spanish and Northwest American samples were mislabeled 6% and 23.8% respectively.

Muñoz-Colmenero M, 2016 [79]

Spain

Research article

This study authenticated the species of fish marketed in Spain. DNA sequences of 245 fish samples revealed greater than 7% mislabeling.

Bosko SA, et al., 2018 [80]

USA

Research article

This study tested 80 catfish samples collected from restaurants, grocery stores, and fish markets in the USA tested with real-time PCR. A DNA barcoding of samples showed that 7 of the 80 catfish products were found to be substituted with Pangasiidae species for a mislabeling rate of 9%. This included 5 of the 40 restaurant samples and 2 of the 32 grocery store samples.

Christiansen H, et al., 2018 [81]

Belgium

Research article

This study assessed seafood substitution and mislabeling in Brussels’ restaurants and canteens. A DNA barcoding revealed that 31.1% of the samples were mislabeled, with mislabeling present in all types of vendors. Cod and sole were the most frequently sampled and were also mislabeled regularly (13.1% and 11.1%). Bluefin tuna was substituted almost always (95% mislabeling).

Galal-Khallaf A, et al., 2002 [82]

Egypt and Spain

Research article

This study is a PCR-based assessment of shellfish traceability and sustainability in seafood markets. The results found that 17.2% and 15.2% products were mislabeled in Egypt and Spain, respectively.