For Anyone who Doubts My Assertion that Cheating is All American...

the american way is to cheat as much and for as long as you can.

Mislabeling is not just occurring in the US. In Canada, a study found 34 of 153 fish samples from grocery stores were mislabeled.[69] In Ireland, scientists found that 28% of cod products in Ireland are mislabeled and 7% are mislabeled in Britain.[70] In a study conducted by the Australian government,[71] 32 of 138 (23%) fish samples were incorrectly labeled. Australia found that food service companies (e.g. restaurants) had the highest level of mislabeling with 24 out of 67 (35.8%) samples mislabeled, 5 out of 44 (11.3%) samples from retailers (e.g. fishmongers, supermarkets) mislabeled and 1 out of 24 (4%) samples from wholesalers were mislabeled. The Australian study makes sense because certain amounts of mislabeling can occur at each step in the distribution process.

Mislabeling was also found in tuna cans in a large European study funded by Greenpeace.[72] In this study, they found 30.3% of the tuna cans displayed a different species in the can than on the label or a mixed species of fish within the cans. However, the Greenpeace study was conducted based on EU labeling rules and would likely have produced a lower mislabeling rate under US law. For instance, Greenpeace considered mixing of two species within a single can to be mislabeling, which may be a violation of EU law. However, in the U.S. while ‘albacore’ must be a specific species of fish, ‘light tuna’ can refer to a few other tuna species that are not albacore. There are numerous differences between European and U.S. law that require knowledge of these laws to ensure proper labeling in both countries.

Mislabeling is most often an economic fraud issue, but sometimes is related to differences in labeling laws around the world. For instance, a recent US Government study estimated that US fishing activities had an estimated 17% bycatch, which is the discarded catch from fishing activities, such as protected species, non-marketable species, etc.[73] A species that may be discarded in the US may be a marketable fish in another nation. Thus, commonly included substitutes may sometimes be species of fish that are caught in the same areas and are legally co-marketed in the country of origin.

The market name for species varies widely from nation to nation as well. The FDA details what types of product descriptions are acceptable[74] in the U.S. and provides a list of what species of fish can be sold under certain market names in the US.[75] However, the same fish can be sold under any number of names around the world. For instance, Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides), also known in the U.S. as Chilean Sea Bass, may be labeled as Merluza negra in Argentina and Uruguay, Bacalao in Chile, Mero in Japan, Légine australe in France, Marlonga-negra in Portugal, and Tandnoting in Sweden.[76] The Chileans were the first to market toothfish commercially in the United States, earning it the name Chilean sea bass, although it is really not a bass and it is not always caught in Chilean waters.[77] Chilean sea bass is a different species type than the sea bass caught in U.S. waters and is not allowed to be labeled as such. Thus, sometimes what might be a proper name in one country is not proper in the US.[78] However, this would still likely be considered economic fraud under US law, even if unintentional, because the US consumer is confused as to the product being sold.

What species are they substituting?

... that while 84 percent of the seafood eaten in the United States is imported, only two percent is currently inspected and less than 0.001 percent specifically for fraud. In fact, recent studies have found that seafood may be mislabeled as often as 25 to 70 percent of the time for fish like red snapper, wild salmon and Atlantic cod, disguising species that are less desirable, cheaper or more readily available.

though the who does not effect my argument much as it is the routine and broad cheating that makes my case.