CTA
Small fontsize
Medium fontsize
Big fontsize
English |
Switch to English
Français
Switch to French
Filter by Fisheries topics
Regions
Publication Type
Filter by date

Reinforced rules on labelling of fisheries products

08 March 2014

The reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), in its rules for the Common Market Organisation (CMO) of fish products, stipulates that European consumers must be provided with clear and complete information on the origin of the product, as well as on the production methods, to enable them to make an informed choice.

Currently, labels contain the commercial name of the product, a reference to whether it is “caught” or “farmed”, the FAO fishing area for wild products (or the country where it was farmed) and “defrost” when relevant.

Several changes will be introduced from December 2014 onwards. Labels will have to indicate the scientific name (in Latin) as well as the type of gear used to catch the (wild) fish. Fishing gear is categorised under seven headings: trawlers, purse seine, driftnets, hooks, lines, dredger and traps. Labels can also optionally indicate the date the fish was caught or harvested, the landing date, the port where it was landed, the national flag of the vessel and additional environmental, ethical and social data. Furthermore, the fishing area appearing on the FAO list will have to be displayed, as well as the name of the zone, in understandable terms for the consumers, or a pictogram/map indicating where this zone is located.

This new regulation is coming into force after several cases of fraudulent fish product labelling were reported. A recent report by the Spanish Higher Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) reveals that the percentage of product mislabelling regarding tuna, cod and anchovy is between 2 and 18 % in Spain, UK and Ireland. The CSIC coordinates the EU-supported Labelfish project, and is using genetic methods to identify and authenticate commercial marine species to update bio-banks for these species. Six EU member states – which include the main markets for ACP fish products – are participating in the Labelfish project: France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom.

According to the CSIC report, in Spain the largest mislabelling is found in tuna products: 25% for fresh and frozen tuna and 12% for canned tuna. But cases have also been found for other species; one of the CSIC researchers highlighted that “some consumers may believe they are buying a product made with Galician coast hake (Merluccius merluccius) when it is actually is hake from other countries such as South Africa (Merluccius capensis). This does not mean that the quality is lower, but the information provided on the labels must conform to reality.”

The Spanish industry reacted strongly to this study, questioning the reliability of the results and the methods used in the investigation, and rejected any suggestion of “alleged practice” that was illegal.

Improved labelling and traceability is also a priority for the European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki, who recently launched an EU-wide campaign, INSEPARABLE, in order to highlight that citizens, industry, retailers and consumers should work together towards the same goal: “sell, buy, eat only sustainable fish”.

Editorial comment

Traceability – having the correct information about the raw materials used in fish products and their preparation and being able to transfer it in an effective way from the producer, including ACP producers, to the EU consumer – is already a well-known challenge for ACP countries. It requires certain capacity to monitor landings, register catches appropriately, and ensure that the right information gets to the EU importer/retailer. Much of this information already has to be available in respect of EU catch certificate requirements, as part of the EU scheme to fight illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The new regulation, which will add to the amount of information to be collected at producer level – such as the type of gear – might become an additional burden for ACP producers and competent authorities. Careful consideration should be given by ACP countries about how these new requirements can be addressed, and what type of support is needed, as it implies a higher degree of monitoring and reporting on fishing activities.

Comment

Terms and conditions