New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Marketplace Red Snapper Is Case of Bait and Switch

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Three quarters of the fish sold in the U.S. as red snapper may be a different species, researchers report today in the journal Nature. In addition to tricking customers, the false labels could misrepresent the threat posed by overfishing.

Red snappers dwell in offshore waters in the Gulf of Mexico and are the most fished of all snappers. Concerned for their viability, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and the U.S. Department of Commerce called for restrictions on the number of red snapper catches in 1996. But demand remains high, making the red snapper the priciest of the snapper group.

In the U.S., only Lutjanus campechanus can be legally sold as red snapper. Suspecting that the restrictions might foster substitution of the costly fish with its less valuable relatives, Peter B. Marko of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his colleagues genetically tested 22 purported red snappers from eight states. The team compared the DNA sequences of their sample fish to standards from GenBank, the genetic library of the National Center for Biotechnology Information.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers verified that five of the fish were indeed L. campechanus, but the rest belonged to other snapper species. A few of the stand-ins inhabit the same waters as the red snapper, which may indicate that they were misidentified--purposefully or inadvertently--on the boat or at the dock. Because fishery managers sometimes rely on fishing industry reports, these errors could affect estimates of stock size, both of the desirable and the not-so-desirable species.

More than half the snappers in the study hailed from other parts of the world or were not found in GenBank. These may have been imported fish whose labels were switched by a retailer somewhere along the commercial chain. The authors contend that the false advertising distorts the public's perception. Says Marko, "The consumer might think, 'How can red snapper be endangered when I see it in the store all the time?'" --Michael Schirber

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe