Chinese eel products in EU markets imply the effectiveness of trade regulations but expose fraudulent labelling

Abstract

The stock of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla) is in a multi-decadal decline. Therefore, trade in European eel is now restricted by EU law and the listing in CITES Appendix II. EU law prohibits the trade of European eel across the EU's outer border and CITES regulates the global trade elsewhere. In November and December 2019, we purchased 108 eel products in 21 cities in five major eel importing countries in Europe (Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Great Britain, France) and three online shops. All were imported from China and 73 samples were genetically identified as American eel (A. rostrata), 33 as Japanese eel (A. japonica), and a single sample each as European eel and Indian shortfin eel (A. bicolor pacifica). The one European eel sample violated the EU trade ban and CITES trade regulations. However, 28.7 % of the product labels violated EU Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers (FIC). Our results imply that Chinese exporters sell their European eel products outside the EU market and therefore avoid violating EU law. However, fraudulent labelling point at inadequate existing EU labelling requirements for prepared and preserved products and ongoing molecular genetic control of eel commodities entering the EU from China.

Full text

Marine Policy 132 (2021) 104651
0308-597X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Chinese eel products in EU markets imply the effectiveness of trade
regulations but expose fraudulent labelling
Florian Martin Stein
a
,
b
,
c
,
*
, Jens Frankowski
d
, Vincent Nijman
b
,
e
, Christine Absil
f
,
Irene Kranendonk
f
, Willem Dekker
a
,
g
a
Sustainable Eel Group (SEG), Rue de Tr`
eves 59-61, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
b
Oxford Wildlife Trade Research Group, School of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK
c
Institut für Geo¨
okologie, Technische Universit¨
at Braunschweig, Langer Kamp 19c, Braunschweig, DE 38106, Germany
d
Institute of Fisheries, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Research Centre for Agriculture and Fisheries, Fischerweg 408, Rostock, DE 18069, Germany
e
Centre for Functional Genomics, Department of Biological and Medical Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK
f
Good Fish Foundation, Kerkewijk 46, 3901 EH Veenendaal, The Netherlands
g
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Resources, Institute of Freshwater Research, SLU-Aqua, St¨
angholmsv¨
agen 2, Drottningholm, Sweden
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Anguilla
CITES
DNA barcoding
Food safety
Unagi kabayaki
Wildlife trade
ABSTRACT
The stock of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla) is in a multi-decadal decline. Therefore, trade in European eel is
now restricted by EU law and the listing in CITES Appendix II. EU law prohibits the trade of European eel across
the EU’s outer border and CITES regulates the global trade elsewhere. In November and December 2019, we
purchased 108 eel products in 21 cities in ve major eel importing countries in Europe (Germany, Belgium,
Netherlands, Great Britain, France) and three online shops. All were imported from China and 73 samples were
genetically identied as American eel (A. rostrata), 33 as Japanese eel (A. japonica), and a single sample each as
European eel and Indian shortn eel (A. bicolor pacica). The one European eel sample violated the EU trade ban
and CITES trade regulations. However, 28.7 % of the product labels violated EU Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011
on the provision of food information to consumers (FIC). Our results imply that Chinese exporters sell their
European eel products outside the EU market and therefore avoid violating EU law. However, fraudulent
labelling point at inadequate existing EU labelling requirements for prepared and preserved products and
ongoing molecular genetic control of eel commodities entering the EU from China.
Data availability statement: The data that support the ndings of this study are openly available in Genbank at
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/ under the consecutive accession numbers MN973673-MN973780. Basic data
on unagi kabayaki products are listed in Table 1, details can be obtained from the corresponding author on
request.
1. INTRODUCTION
The European eel (Anguilla anguilla L.) stock has declined by about
90 % since the 1950s, and the recruitment of juveniles (glass eel)
declined sharply after 1980 [20]. Since 2011, however, recruitment has
levelled off [37]. The complex life cycle of European eel includes
different life stages, often related to the long migrations between the
Atlantic spawning area in the Sargasso Sea and the coastal and fresh-
water habitats ranging from North Africa to the Barents Sea. The juve-
niles are called glass eels or elvers, immigrating from the ocean into
continental waters [57]. Due to the complex life cycle, European eel are
particularly susceptible to disturbances [45]. In addition, articial
reproduction of European eel is challenging, and articially bred eel
larvae survive for not more than a month [51]. Therefore, global
aquaculture of eel is based on raising wild-caught glass eels.
Trafcking of juvenile European eels from Europe to Asia is
considered as one of the most devastating wildlife crimes [31] in terms
of numbers of sh traded alive and market value [50]. This trade is
driven by Asian demand for aquaculture, reinforced by high prot
margins along the illegal supply chain [61]. Previous law enforcement
operations [38] and a study in Hong Kong determined that high pro-
portions of eel products imported from China comprised European eel
[53].
Eel species belonging to the family Anguillidae (anguillids) are
* Corresponding author at: Sustainable Eel Group (SEG), Rue de Tr`
eves 59-61, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium.
E-mail address: f.stein@sustainableeelgroup.org (F.M. Stein).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104651
Received 23 December 2020; Received in revised form 11 May 2021; Accepted 14 June 2021

Marine Policy 132 (2021) 104651
2
consumed globally, with dominant markets now in Asia [39]. With the
global spread of Asian food culture and restaurants, however, consumer
behaviour is shifting. In North America, Russia and Europe, so-called
unagi kabayaki is increasingly consumed [39]. Unagi is the Japanese
word for freshwater eels and kabayaki describes the preparation where
the buttery llets are dipped in a soy sauce before cooking on a grill.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations (FAO) the vast majority of the global eel aquaculture com-
modities (87 % in 2018) are produced in China [32], mainly in the
Guangdong and Fujian provinces [6–12]. Until 2010, Asian traders
purchased large quantities of glass eel in Europe to meet the demand for
aquaculture [4,61].
Trade in European eels is restricted by international and national
regulations. International trade is regulated by the species’ listing in
Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) [13]. In 2010, the EU banned
trade in European eels across its external border in response to the
decline in stocks and the listing in Appendix II of CITES. National leg-
islations of countries within the species distribution area but outside the
EU, restrict the exploitation and export of European eel [59].
Within the EU borders, protection and sustainable management of
the depleted European eel stock is subject to the Eel Regulation [19,24],
obliging EU Member States to implement national Eel Management
Plans, achieving a common protection level. Though the implementa-
tion of the Eel Regulation has led to substantial reductions in human
impacts - especially concerning the sheries [23] - the achieved pro-
tection levels in many areas have not reached the minimal level for re-
covery in many Member States yet [19,36]. Dekker [19] identied the
absence of international feedback on the achievements of national Eel
Management Plans (i.e., scientic advice narrowly focused on the stock
status only) as the main cause for this.
Since the trade of European eel across the EU’s external border has
been banned, other anguillids (e.g., American eel, A. rostrata; Indian
shortn eel, A. bicolor pacica; Giant mottled eel, A. marmorata; African
longn eel. A. mossambica) are increasingly targeted to supply Asian
aquaculture [47]. The availability of these alternative eel species,
however, is also strongly regulated by national catch quotas and trade
restrictions [16,39,48] and the reported glass eel input into Chinese
farms is not sufcient to produce the reported Chinese eel aquaculture
production [14,39]. Because of this, it is unlikely that the demand for
Anguilla seed-material can be met from legal markets; illegal supplies
will comprise European eel as well as other Anguilla species [39].
Since 2011, targeted police operations throughout Europe and else-
where have repeatedly demonstrated that the European eel trade ban is
being circumvented: live glass eels are illegally exported from Europe
and North Africa to Asia [5,30,39,49,55,61]. These are on-grown in
Chinese aquaculture, processed, and sold on the domestic Chinese
market as well as globally [39]. Whether these products of European eel
are also re-exported to Europe, is currently unclear.
The labelling requirements for food products sold in the EU,
including prepared, processed or preserved sh are dened in EU
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 also known as the Food Information to
Consumers (FIC) Regulation which applies since 13 December 2016
[27]. In Article 7(1) the regulation requires that food information shall
not be misleading, particularly in regard to (a) its nature, identity,
properties, composition, quantity, durability, country of origin or place
of provenance and method of manufacture or production. Article 8(2).
refers to the business operator’s responsibility for the food information
that shall ensure presence and accuracy. In Article 9(1), the regulation
sets the following information to be displayed on the packages: (a) name
of the food; (b) the list of ingredients; (c) any ingredient (…) causing
allergies or intolerances (…); (d) the quantity of certain ingredients or
categories of ingredients; (e) the net quantity of food; (f) the date of
minimum durability or the ‘use by’ date; (g) any special storage condi-
tions and/or conditions of use; (h) the name or business name and
address of the food business operator referred to in Article 8(1); (i) the
country of origin or place of provenance where provided for in Article
26; (j) instructions for use where it would be difcult to make appro-
priate use of the food in the absence of such instructions; (k) with respect
to beverages containing more than 1.2 % by volume of alcohol, the
actual alcoholic strength by volume; (l) a nutrition declaration.
Additional labelling requirements apply to shery and aquaculture
products marketed in the EU, having to comply with the following,
mandatory labelling requirements: (a) the commercial designation of
the species and its scientic name; (b) the production method; (c) the
area where the product was caught or farmed; (d) whether the product
has been defrosted; and (e) the date of minimum durability. This has
been laid down in Article 35 in Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 on the
Common Organisation of the Markets of Fishery and Aquaculture
Products (CMO) [28]. However, prepared or processed seafood products
are excluded from this regulation, making it difcult to trace the species
and origin of unagi kabayaki products.
We sampled Chinese eel products in EU markets and used mito-
chondrial DNA barcoding to identify the true species and assess the
effectivity of trade regulations. Based on this, we discuss the importance
of trafcking of young, and re-imports of grown European eel. Further,
we analysed the product information displayed on the product packages
in order to assess compliance with EU labelling requirements for seafood
products.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Sample collection
We examined EUROSTAT data for Harmonized System Code 160417
(Prepared and preserved eels whole or in pieces; which identies the
targeted unagi kabayaki) for the period 2012–2018 and identied the
main importing countries: Germany (DE), Belgium (BE), Netherlands
(NL), Great Britain (GB) and France (FR). Shops in targeted locations,
potentially selling eel, were selected searching google maps on key-
words like “Asia market” and “Asian food” (also in local language).
Posted images were checked to determine whether they might sell unagi
kabayaki products. Aiming at 20 samples per country (100 samples in
total), limited availability of products in some selected markets modied
the actual number to 108, varying from 13 in Great Britain to 41 in
Germany. Subsequently, purchased samples were individually tagged
and frozen. Frozen samples were wrapped in insulating foil and sent to
the laboratory by normal mail. At the laboratory, samples were kept
frozen at −20 ◦C until DNA sample extraction.
Following information displayed on the product packages were
recorded in order to verify compliance with the labelling requirements
of EU Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011: (1) product name/description;
(2) legal name (scientic name or otherwise); (3) production and/or
best before date; (4) weight in gram; (5) proportion of meat and sauce in
percentage; (6) place of origin; (7) EU approval number of the exporter.
The EU approval number of exporters enables identication of the ex-
porters’ names and locations via the publicly accessible list of Chinese
companies that are approved for the trade with the EU [58]. The
mandatory consumer information laid down in points (b), (g), (j), (k)
and (l) of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) no 1169/2011 were not
recorded in this study. Additionally, we recorded: (8) Price in Euro (
€
) or
British Pound (£) (converted into
€
), and (9) importer name.
Considering that EU Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 does not cover
prepared, preserved and processed sh products like unagi kabayaki,
compliance to this regulation was not included in this study.
2.2. Genetic analysis
Muscle tissue was sampled from frozen kabayaki llets and subse-
quently placed in 70 % ethanol. To extract DNA, preserved, defrosted
tissue was rinsed in sterile water, placed in 500 ml of 5 % Chelex 100
(Bio-Rad Laboratories; [62]) made up in sterile water, and incubated for
F.M. Stein et al.

Marine Policy 132 (2021) 104651
3
1 h at 95 ◦C. After brief vortexing the extracts were centrifuged and
stored at −20 ◦C. Aliquots (2 µl) of the supernatants were directly used
in the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Reactions were performed using
the following amplification profile: an initial denaturation for 60 s at
94 ◦C, followed by 35 cycles of 30 s at 94 ◦C, 30 s at 50 ◦C and 40 s at
72 ◦C and 5 min at 72 ◦C for the final extension step. Amplification was
carried out using 0.25 U of HotStar Taq Polymerase (Quiagen) in 20 µl
reactions containing 2 µl Chelex 100 extracted DNA, 2 µl of 10x PCR
buffer, 3 mM MgCl
2
, 250 µM of each deoxyribonucleoside triphosphate
and 10 pmol of each primer. A fragment of the cytochrome b gene (Cytb,
362 bp) was amplified using the universal primers CytbF 5’-TTCCATC-
CAACATCTCCGCATGATGAAA-30 and CytbR 50-AGCCCCTCA-
GAATGATATTTGTCCTCAC-3’ [41]. PCR products were purified using
High Pure PCR Product Purication Kit (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.)
according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and sequenced on an ABI
3500 Genetic Analyzer (Life Technologies Corporation). Sequences were
analysed using the software CEQ2000XL (Beckman Coulter), visually
edited and aligned using the ClustalW algorithm implemented in BioEdit
Sequence Alignment Editor [35].
For species identification, the published sequences of the mito-
chondrial genomes of all recent Anguilla species were used as references
[46]. The evolutionary relationships were inferred using the UPGMA
method [54]. The bootstrap consensus tree (Fig. 1) was computed from
1000 replicates [33] and rooted with the most likely ancestral species
A. mossambica [46]. Branches corresponding to partitions reproduced in
less than 50 % bootstrap replicates were collapsed. The percentage of
replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the
bootstrap test (1000 replicates) are shown next to the branches [33].
The evolutionary distances were computed using the Kimura 2-param-
eter method [40] and are in the units of the number of base sub-
stitutions per site. The rate variation among sites was modelled with a
gamma distribution (shape parameter =0.15). The analysis involved 37
nucleotide sequences with all codon positions included. There was a
total of 305 positions in the nal dataset. Evolutionary analyses were
conducted in MEGA6 [56]. Supplementary a comparison of nucleotide
sequences with previously published data was performed by a BLAST
search using blastn algorithm ([1]; accessed 09 November 2020).
Haplotype diversity (Hd) and nucleotide diversity (pi) were calculated
with DNASPv5 [44].
3. Results
3.1. Species determination and spatial distribution in destination
countries
The molecular analysis determined four different anguillids, ac-
counting for 73 American eels, 33 Japanese eels, one European eel and
one Indian shortn eel (Fig. 1).
For 86 samples (79.6 %), the species name, specied on the product
label matched the true species identity - these appeared in all target
countries. An additional six samples (5.6 %) indicated the correct spe-
cies in one or many languages but gave no scientic name - these were
imported by German or Dutch companies and sold in Germany or Great
Britain. Product labels of ve samples (4.6 %) did not indicate the
species but were labelled as “Anguilla” (one sample) or “Eel (Fish)” (four
samples) - those were imported into and sold in Germany or the
Netherlands. We found that 12 samples (11.1 %) labelled with a species
name (scientic, English or local language) differed from the true spe-
cies. These samples were imported into all target countries except
Belgium and sold in all target countries.
One true European eel (A. anguilla) sample was imported by a Dutch
company and sold in Brussels, Belgium. One Indian shortn eel
(A. bicolor pacica) sample was imported by a German company and sold
in London, Great Britain.
3.2. Compliance with EU Regulation (EU) No 1169/ 2011, FIC
Regulation
Compliance with mandatory consumer information according to EU
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 has been matched by 71.3 % of the
sampled products. Samples that were labelled with a species name that
was different from the true species (11.1 %) were considered not to
comply with point (a) of Article 7(1) which requires that food infor-
mation shall not be misleading. Samples labelled with insufcient in-
formation about the quantity of certain categories of ingredients (21.3
%) were considered not to comply with point (d) of Article 9(1). In both
cases, samples were furthermore considered not to comply with Article 8
Fig. 1. Identication tree of unagi kabayaki samples (n =108). Scientic
species names refer to reference sequence haplotypes [46] and the number of
samples identied for each haplotype is given at branch ends. The percentage of
replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap
test (1000 replicates) are shown next to the branches [33]. Please refer to
Material and Methods for analysis details. The sequence analysis revealed 21
different haplotypes that could be assigned to four anguillids (bold). Taking the
haplotype diversity (Hd) and nucleotide diversity (pi) as measures, most genetic
diversity was present and thus trafcked within the American eel (73 se-
quences,13 haplotypes, Hd =0.662, pi =0.003) followed by the Japanese eel
(33 sequences, 6 haplotypes, Hd =0.333, pi =0.001). BLAST search resulted in
5 haplotypes with 100 % match to one or more existing Genbank entries, the
accession number of one best matching entry is given in italics despite for
reference haplotypes. The assignment of one variant to Indian shortn eel with
87 % bootstrap support was evidenced with an identical haplotype from Gen-
bank. 16 haplotypes were not present in Genbank, indicated by only 99.67 %
best match each. These variants are denoted in the tree with new acces-
sion number.
F.M. Stein et al.

Marine Policy 132 (2021) 104651
4
(2) on the business operator’s responsibility in regard of the presence
and accuracy of the food information, accounting for 28.7 % in total
(Table 1).
3.3. Product composition and price analysis
On the unagi kabayaki packages, the product composition was
summarised in percentage for eel meat and sauce. The percentage of eel
meat ranged between 70 % and 95 % (average: 81 %) but did not differ
between the two predominant species American eel and Japanese eel
(t =1.377, P =0.1880).
The price of eel meat per kilogram differed between the four species
we identied. The lowest mean price was paid for American eel,
€
66,60 ±18.28 (n =73). The highest mean price was paid for Japanese
eel,
€
84.76 ±19.91 (n =33). The difference in price between those two
predominant species was signicant (t-test, t =3.682, P =0.000408).
The single European and Indian shortn eel samples were sold for
€
71.08 and
€
83.27, respectively.
The price of eel meat differed between importing countries (Anova,
F
4,83
=10.383, P <0.00001). The price in Great Britain
(
€
94.17 ±21.43) was higher than the price in the other four target
countries combined (t =4.4255, P =0.00014) and the price in France
(
€
88.24 ±18.15) was higher than that in the other three continental
European countries (t =4.487, P =0.00025). The lowest mean price
per kilogram eel meat was charged in Belgium (
€
62.37 ±16.37), the
Netherlands (
€
64.70 ±15.13) and Germany (
€
65.38 ±14.96).
The price of eel meat differed between the three exporting Chinese
provinces (F
2,84
=7.0028, P =0.00154). Products being imported from
the southern Guangdong province (n =35, Japanese
eel =
€
93.58 ±20.60, American eel =
€
71.42 ±11.83) were higher
than products imported from Fujian (n =52, Japanese
eel =
€
62.19 ±18.29, American eel =
€
66.94 ±17.25) and Jiangxi
(n =19, Japanese eel =
€
85.86, American eel =
€
63.22 ±17.16). The
price for the one product from Taiwan, Province of China (PoC)
accounted for
€
99.44 per kilogram eel meat.
Of the products that were labelled with the wrong species (n =12),
only one product was labelled as the higher priced species Japanese eel
but identied as the lower priced species American eel. In contrast,
seven products were labelled as the lower priced species American eel
but contained the higher priced species Japanese eel.
Of all samples, 41 % were imported into an EU member state by one
of the 19 importing companies which was located in an EU member state
different from the eventual country where the sample was sold. More
than half of the samples (n =55) was imported into the Netherlands (51
%) followed by Germany (27 %).
3.4. Species-composition and geographic origin
Of the 35 samples exported from the southern coastal Guangdong
province, the majority was Japanese eel. Of the 52 products exported
from northern coastal Fujian province, the majority was American eel
(Fig. 2). All 19 samples exported from the interior Jiangxi province were
American eel, except for one being Japanese eel. (Fig. 2). One Japanese
eel sample was exported from Taiwan, PoC. The European eel and Indian
shortn eel samples were both exported from Fujian province.
4. Discussion
During the early 2000s eel aquaculture companies moved and
expanded their businesses from Taiwan, PoC to southern China, pre-
dominantly Guangdong province. The most likely driver behind this was
the rapid economic development in Taiwan, PoC in combination with
opening of China to the global market and the availability of Japanese
glass eels from the nearby Pearl River Delta [60]. During the second half
of the 2000s eel production spread further north into Fujian and Jiangxi
provinces. Forced by economic pressures as well as adaption to the
cooler climate, indoor aquaculture was established for the cultivation of
European eels and, more recently, complemented by American eels [60,
61]. Our nding on the origins of imported products (Fig. 2) matches
this distribution of the expected major species-specic exporting points.
Based on the Chinese eel aquaculture business structure described in
UNIDO [60], we conclude that eel aquaculture production facilities are
usually located in the same province as the exporting company. Between
2011 and 2017, 87 % of the annual Chinese eel aquaculture output was
produced in the two Chinese provinces Guangdong and Fujian [6–12].
Molecular species identication of unagi kabayaki llets imported
from China into the United States, Canada, Australia and the European
Union during Interpol operation “Eel-Icit trade II” in 2018 and 2019,
indicated that llets of European eels were imported from China. During
the course of operation, approximately half a million European eel llets
were seized and identied [38].
In March 2021, a Canada-based trade company was ordered to pay a
ne of CA$163,776 after entering a guilty plea to two charges related to
the illegal importation of signicant quantities of European eel meat in
contravention of subsection 6(2) of the Wild Animal and Plant Protec-
tion and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act
(WAPPRIITRA). During the course of the ongoing, multi-year Operation
Vitrum, enforcement ofcers inspected and sampled 147 metric tonnes
of eel meat between October 2017 and May 2018, imported from Xia-
men, China. Five of the seven 40-foot sea containers inspected were
found to contain CITES Appendix II listed European eel meat mixed with
legally imported American eel meat. The amount of European eel meat
versus American eel meat ranged from a low of 6.5 % per container to a
high of 47.8 % [22].
Richards et al. [53] sampled raw, frozen, previously cooked and
ready-to-eat eel meat from Hong Kong retail outlets and identied 45 %
as being European eel. Most of their tested products were labelled as
“eel” without indicating the species, which is not in conict with Hong
Kong legislation. In our study, only one out of 108 eel meat samples
(0.93 %) was identied as European eel, violating the EU trade ban and
CITES trade regulations, since over the last ve years no import of Eu-
ropean eel from China into Europe was reported by any European
country [17].
This suggests that Chinese exporters are hesitant to ship European eel
products directly into the EU, since it would violate CITES restrictions
[13] and the EU trade ban [26]. Nevertheless, several cases of illegal
imports of eel meat from China into Cyprus, Germany, Poland and Spain
were reported by CITES [15] and according to Lithuanian e-court doc-
uments, eel meat from China was illegally imported into Lithuania by
lorry via Belarus ([2,3]). These cases imply that an enhanced molecular
genetic control programme for eel commodities entering the EU from
China is urgently needed.
We examined a single eel commodity type (unagi kabayaki, available
as buttery llets and sushi slices) from Asian shops located in the ve
major European importing countries. Likely, regions at the eastern edge
of Europe and other eel commodities might be used for illegal imports
from China. In this regard, there is an additional risk that unprocessed
eel commodities (whole sh or fresh/frozen llets) are imported from
China into the EU and mixed with Europe-sourced eels before processing
(e.g., smoking), losing product traceability. Hence, there is no basis for
general conclusions on the constitution of all eel imports from China to
Europe.
Following a transition period from 2010 until the beginning of 2013,
all trade in European eel products from and into Europe is now banned
[47]. The non-European countries at the southern and eastern edges of
the species distribution area (e.g., Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey) have
strictly regulated their eel trade and none of the mentioned countries
permits the export of live European glass eels [59]. Therefore, the
inevitable conclusion is that the vast majority of European eels in Asian
eel farms (including our single sample of proven European eel) originate
from illegal sources, violating (1) trade regulations set by CITES Ap-
pendix II [13], and, if glass eels originate from EU, (2) the EU trade ban
F.M. Stein et al.

Marine Policy 132 (2021) 104651
5
Table 1
Unagi kabayaki sample information and compliance with EU labelling requirement. Table summarises the basic sample information (unique identier, date, location, importer/exporter, product parameters, molecular
species identication) and results of our analysis in regard of compliance with EU labelling requirements laid down in EU Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011. Company names in column „Importer / Export“ were anonymized
and replaced by individual codes. First two letter of the code indicate the country according to ISO 3166-2; - indicates that information was not displayed on the package; ? indicates that no conclusion about fraudulent
labelling was made, due to inconclusive species information provided on the package;
#
sample was purchased from sh counter and therefore no package information was available;
‡
additional production date was
available on the package, not displayed here;
†
additional production date was not available on the package;
¶
only production date was available, displayed here.
Genbank accession
number
Date City, country
(online, Italics)
Importer /
Exporter
Product
category
Total
mass /
meat (g)
Price
in
€
Best Before Species
labelled
Molecular
species
identication
Point (a) of §7
(1), wrong
species
labelled
§ 8 (2),
responsibilities
Point (d) of § 9
(1), ingredient
proportion
MN973673 2019–11–07 Duesseldorf, DE NL-3 / CN-C slices 160 /
144
6.90 2021–03–14
‡
American Eel A. rostrata
MN973674 2019–11–07 Duesseldorf, DE NL-3 / CN-C buttery
llet
255 /
204
9.70 2021–06–07
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973675 2019–11–07 Duesseldorf, DE NL-3 / CN-C buttery
llet
255 /
204
12.89 2021–06–07
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973676 2019–11–07 Duesseldorf, DE DE-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
300 /
204
15.89 2021–03–17
†
Eel (Fish) A. rostrata ?
MN973677 2019–11–07 Duesseldorf, DE NL-3 / CN-C slices 160 /
144
8.89 2020–10–17
‡
American Eel A. rostrata
MN973678 2019–11–07 Duesseldorf, DE DE-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
250 /
200
9.50 2021–03–23
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973746 2019–11–07 Duesseldorf, DE DE-2 / CN-F slices 160 /
128
13.00 2020–05–08
†
Anguilla
japonica
A, japonica
MN973679 2019–11–07 Duesseldorf, DE NL-4 / CN-A buttery
llet
255 /
204
14.00 2021–02–01
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973680
#
2019–11–07 Duesseldorf, DE - / - buttery
llet
229 / - 16.03 – Anguilla A. rostrata ? X X
MN973681 2019–11–07 Duesseldorf, DE DE-4 / CN-E slices 160 /
112
8.95 2020–04–20
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973747 2019–11–07 Duesseldorf, DE DE-1 / CN-F slices 160 /
136
11.95 2021–09–01
†
Japanischer
Aal
A. japonica
MN973748 2019–11–07 Duesseldorf, DE DE-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
250 / - 16.50 2021–04–27
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica X X
MN973749 2019–11–07 Duesseldorf, DE DE-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
208 / - 13.90 2020–12–09
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica X X
MN973682 2019–11–07 Duesseldorf, DE DE-1 / CN-F buttery
llet
256 /
218
11.98 2021–09–01
†
Anguilla
americana
A. rostrata ?
MN973683 2019–11–08 Frankfurt, DE DE-4 / CN-E slices 160 /
112
7.95 2020–04–20
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973684 2019–11–08 Frankfurt, DE NL-5 / CN-D buttery
llet
255 / - 10.59 2021–01–20
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata X X
MN973750 2019–11–08 Frankfurt, DE DE-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
250 / - 14.95 2020–10–26
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica X X
MN973685 2019–11–08 Frankfurt, DE DE-2 / CN-A slices 160 /
128
8.50 2018–10–17
¶
Unagi, Aal A. rostrata ?
MN973686 2019–11–08 Frankfurt, DE NL-3 / CN-C slices 160 /
144
8.50 2020–10–17
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973687 2019–11–08 Frankfurt, DE NL-3 / CN-C slices 160 /
144
10.50 2021–03–14
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973688 2019–11–08 Frankfurt, DE NL-5 / CN-D buttery
llet
255 /
204
13.00 2021–04–15
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973751 2019–11–08 Frankfurt, DE DE-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
208 / - 14.95 2021–04–27
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica X X
MN973752 2019–11–08 Frankfurt, DE DE-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
208 / - 14.50 2021–04–27
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica X X
MN973689 2019–11–08 Frankfurt, DE NL-5 / CN-D 15.99 2021–03–09
‡
A. rostrata
(continued on next page)
F.M. Stein et al.

Marine Policy 132 (2021) 104651
6
Table 1 (continued )
Genbank accession
number
Date City, country
(online, Italics)
Importer /
Exporter
Product
category
Total
mass /
meat (g)
Price
in
€
Best Before Species
labelled
Molecular
species
identication
Point (a) of §7
(1), wrong
species
labelled
§ 8 (2),
responsibilities
Point (d) of § 9
(1), ingredient
proportion
buttery
llet
255 /
204
Anguilla
rostrata
MN973753 2019–11–12 Gelsenkirchen, DE DE-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
208 / - 16.80 2021–04–27
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica X X
MN973690 2019–11–12 Gelsenkirchen, DE NL-3 / CN-C slices 160 /
144
9.99 2020–03–21
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973691 2019–11–12 Koeln, DE DE-1 / CN-B buttery
llet
256 /
218
12.73 2021–05–01
†
Aal (anguilla
americana)
A. rostrata ?
MN973754 2019–11–12 Koeln, DE DE-1 / CN-F slices 160 /
136
12.73 2021–11–01
†
Japanischer
Aal
A. rostrata X X
MN973755 2019–11–12 Duesseldorf, DE DE-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
250 / - 34.53 2021–05–05
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica X X
MN973692 2019–11–18 Berlin, DE NL-3 / CN-C slices 160 /
144
8.00 2021–03–14
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. japonica X X
MN973693 2019–11–18 Berlin, DE NL-5 / CN-D buttery
llet
283 /
226
12.00 2021–01–20
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973694 2019–11–18 Berlin, DE NL-5 / CN-D buttery
llet
283 /
226
8.00 2021–01–20
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973695 2019–11–18 Berlin, DE NL-1 / CN-A buttery
llet
100 / 92 3.25 2019–12–21
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973696 2019–11–18 Berlin, DE NL-3 / CN-C slices 160 /
144
8.50 2021–03–14
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973697 2019–11–18 Berlin, DE DE-4 / CN-E slices 160 /
112
8.50 2020–04–20
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973698 2019–11–18 Berlin, DE DE-4 / CN-E slices 160 /
112
8.50 2020–04–20
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973756 2019–11–19 Hamburg, DE NL-3 / CN-C slices 160 /
144
7.90 2021–06–08
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. japonica X X
MN973699 2019–11–19 Hamburg, DE NL-5 / CN-D buttery
llet
283 /
226
12.69 2021–01–20
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973757 2019–11–19 Hamburg, DE DE-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
208 / - 15.90 2021–04–27
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica X X
MN973700 2019–11–19 Hamburg, DE NL-3 / CN-C slices 160 /
144
9.99 2021–03–14
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973701 2019–11–19 Hamburg, DE DE-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
250 /
200
13.95 2020–05–09
‡
Anguilla
japonica
A. rostrata X X
MN973758 2019–11–01 Amsterdam, NL NL-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
250 /
200
10.99 2020–12–02
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. japonica X X
MN973702 2019–11–01 Amsterdam, NL NL-5 / CN-D buttery
llet
255 /
204
11.99 2021–04–15
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata X X
MN973703 2019–11–01 Amsterdam, NL NL-5 / CN-D buttery
llet
255 /
204
10.60 2021–05–15
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973704 2019–11–07 Amsterdam, NL NL-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
230 /
184
17.00 2021–02–14
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973705 2019–11–07 Amsterdam, NL NL-7 / CN-E buttery
llet
255 /
204
13.95 2021–06–01
†
Eel (Fish) A. rostrata ?
MN973706 2019–11–10 Amsterdam, NL NL-4 / CN-A buttery
llet
255 /
204
10.75 2021–02–21
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973707 2019–11–10 Amsterdam, NL NL-7 / CN-E buttery
llet
255 /
204
11.60 2021–06–21
†
Eel (Fish) A. rostrata ?
MN973708 2019–10–25 Amsterdam, NL NL-4 / CN-A buttery
llet
255 /
204
9.99 2021–02–01
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
(continued on next page)
F.M. Stein et al.

Marine Policy 132 (2021) 104651
7
Table 1 (continued )
Genbank accession
number
Date City, country
(online, Italics)
Importer /
Exporter
Product
category
Total
mass /
meat (g)
Price
in
€
Best Before Species
labelled
Molecular
species
identication
Point (a) of §7
(1), wrong
species
labelled
§ 8 (2),
responsibilities
Point (d) of § 9
(1), ingredient
proportion
MN973709 2019–10–31 The Hague, NL NL-4 / CN-A buttery
llet
255 /
204
10.95 2021–02–01
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973710 2019–10–31 The Hague, NL NL-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
255 /
204
14.45 2021–12–07
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973711 2019–11–08 Utrecht, NL NL-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
255 /
204
11.95 2021–02–14
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973712 2019–11–09 Utrecht, NL NL-3 / CN-C slices 160 /
144
7.95 2020–03–21
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973713 2019–10–26 Rotterdam, NL NL-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
212 /
170
16.95 2021–02–14
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973714 2019–10–26 Rotterdam, NL NL-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
212 /
170
14.45 2021–02–14
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973715 2019–07–02 Rotterdam, NL NL-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
212 /
170
14.45 2020–06–23
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973716 2019–07–02 Rotterdam, NL NL-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
242 /
194
10.
v+95
2020–12–02
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973717 2019–11–02 Nijmegen, NL NL-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
242 /
194
12.95 2020–02–12
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973718 2019–11–02 Nijmegen, NL NL-5 / CN-D buttery
llet
255 /
204
11.95 2020–07–28
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973719 2019–11–10 Arnhem, NL NL-4 / CN-A buttery
llet
255 /
204
10.95 2020–02–01
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973720 2019–11–19 Brussels, BE NL-4 / CN-A buttery
llet
255 /
204
14.50 2021–02–01
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973721 2019–11–19 Brussels, BE NL-4 / CN-A buttery
llet
255 /
204
15.90 2021–04–06
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973722 2019–11–19 Brussels, BE NL-4 / CN-A buttery
llet
255 /
204
14.50 2021–02–01
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973779 2019–11–19 Brussels, BE NL-4 / CN-A buttery
llet
255 /
204
14.50 2021–02–01
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. anguilla X X
MN973723 2019–11–19 Brussels, BE NL-2 / CN-A slices 160 /
152
8.50 2020–04–15
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973724 2019–11–19 Brussels, BE NL-4 / CN-A buttery
llet
255 /
204
9.35 2021–02–14
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973759 2019–11–19 Brussels, BE FR-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
208 / - 23.50 2020–04–13
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica X X
MN973725 2019–11–19 Antwerp, BE NL-5 / CN-D slices 160 /
128
6.99 2010–10–16
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973726 2019–11–19 Antwerp, BE NL-5 / CN-D buttery
llet
255 /
204
9.50 2021–04–15
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973727 2019–11–19 Antwerp, BE NL-5 / CN-D buttery
llet
283 /
226
10.50 2020–10–15
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973728 2019–11–19 Antwerp, BE DE-2 / CN-A slices 160 /
128
6.95 2020–10–16
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973760 2019–11–19 Antwerp, BE DE-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
220 /
176
8.95 2020–03–25
‡
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica
MN973761 2019–11–19 Antwerp, BE FR-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
208 / - 17.50 2020–10–26
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica X X
MN973729 2019–11–19 Antwerp, BE NL-6 / CN-D buttery
llet
225 /
180
8.65 2021–03–09
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973730 2019–11–19 Antwerp, BE NL-5 / CN-D buttery
llet
225 /
180
13.95 2020–07–28
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
(continued on next page)
F.M. Stein et al.

Marine Policy 132 (2021) 104651
8
Table 1 (continued )
Genbank accession
number
Date City, country
(online, Italics)
Importer /
Exporter
Product
category
Total
mass /
meat (g)
Price
in
€
Best Before Species
labelled
Molecular
species
identication
Point (a) of §7
(1), wrong
species
labelled
§ 8 (2),
responsibilities
Point (d) of § 9
(1), ingredient
proportion
MN973731 2019–11–19 Antwerp, BE NL-5 / CN-D buttery
llet
225 /
180
18.50 2019–11–03
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973732 2019–11–19 Leuven, BE NL-4 / CN-A buttery
llet
225 /
204
9.75 2021–02–01
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973733 2019–11–19 Leuven, BE NL-5 / CN-D slices 160 /
128
9.75 2020–10–16
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973734 2019–12–02 Paris, FR NL-3 / CN-C buttery
llet
255 /
204
12.90 2021–03–14
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973735 2019–12–02 Paris, FR GB-2 / CN-C buttery
llet
178 /
142
16.99 2020–01–01
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973736 2019–12–02 Paris, FR FR-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
250 / - 19.29 2021–03–17
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata X X
MN973737 2019–12–02 Paris, FR NL-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
212 / - 10.50 2021–02–14
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata X X
MN973738 2019–12–02 Paris, FR BE-1 / CN-A slices 160 /
128
9.80 2021–08–01
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973762 2019–12–02 Paris, FR FR-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
208 / - 13.20 2021–04–27
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. japonica X X X
MN973763 2019–12–02 Paris, FR FR-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
208 / - 16.00 2020–12–09
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. japonica X X X
MN973764 2019–12–02 Paris, FR FR-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
208 / - 18.90 2020–10–26
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. japonica X X X
MN973739 2019–12–02 Paris, FR DE-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
250 /
200
18.90 2020–12–01
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973740 2019–12–02 Paris, FR FR-1 / CN-D slices 160 /
144
8.50 2020–04–02
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973765 2019–12–02 Paris, FR FR-1 / CN-D buttery
llet
220 /
198
17.00 2021–03–02
‡
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica
MN973741 2019–12–03 Paris, FR DE-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
280 /
224
18.90 2020–10–16
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973742 2019–12–03 Paris, FR NL-5 / CN-D slices 160 /
128
13.80 2020–06–04
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973766 2019–12–03 Paris, FR FR-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
208 / - 19.20 2021–04–18
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica X X
MN973767 2019–12–03 Paris, FR FR-3 / CN-E buttery
llet
250 / - 16.30 2021–05–02
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica X X
MN973768 2019–12–03 Paris, FR FR-2 / TW-
A
buttery
llet
200 / - 17.90 2020–08–13
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica X X
MN973769 2019–12–03 Paris, FR DE-1 / CN-F slices 160 /
136
12.55 2021–05–01
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica
MN973743 2019–11–06 Shefeld, GB DE-1 / CN-B buttery
llet
256 /
218
£16.50 2021–5
†
eel (+other
languages)
A. rostrata ?
MN973770 2019–11–01 Oxford, GB GB-2 / CN-C buttery
llet
200 / - £10.59 2021–3
†
Anguilla
rostrata
A. japonica X X X
MN973771 2019–11–06 Canterbury, GB GB-4 / CN-F buttery
llet
220 /
154
£16.20 2020–08–01
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica
MN973744 2019–11–06 Canterbury, GB NL-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
255 / - £14.00 2021–02–14
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata X X
MN973772 2019–11–12 London, GB GB-4 / CN-F buttery
llet
200 /
140
£14.95 2020–08–01
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica
MN973773 2019–11–12 London, GB GB-1 / CN-E buttery
llet
198 /
158
£9.99 2021–05–03
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica
(continued on next page)
F.M. Stein et al.

Marine Policy 132 (2021) 104651
9
Table 1 (continued )
Genbank accession
number
Date City, country
(online, Italics)
Importer /
Exporter
Product
category
Total
mass /
meat (g)
Price
in
€
Best Before Species
labelled
Molecular
species
identication
Point (a) of §7
(1), wrong
species
labelled
§ 8 (2),
responsibilities
Point (d) of § 9
(1), ingredient
proportion
MN973774 2019–11–12 London, GB GB-1 / CN-E buttery
llet
208 / - £10.99 2021–04–18
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica X X
MN973780 2019–11–12 London, GB DE-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
195 /
156
£12.99 2020–05–09
‡
Anguilla
japonica
A. bicolor X X
MN973775 2019–11–06 London, GB DE-2 / CN-A buttery
llet
250 /
200
£18.95 2020–05–09
‡
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica
MN973776 2019–11–10 Birmingham, GB GB-4 / CN-F buttery
llet
200 /
140
£12.25 2020–08–01
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica
MN973777 2019–11–10 Birmingham, GB GB-4 / CN-F buttery
llet
200 /
140
£11.99 2020–08–01
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica
MN973745 2019–11–08 Chiddingford, GB GB-5 / CN-B buttery
llet
255 /
204
£19.90 2020–11–07
‡
Anguilla
rostrata
A. rostrata
MN973778 2019–11–06 Hateld, GB GB-4 / CN-F buttery
llet
200 /
140
£19.90 2020–08–01
†
Anguilla
japonica
A. japonica
Total 11.1% 28.7% 21.3%
EU Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011
Point (a) of §7(1) Food information shall not be misleading, particularly: (a) as to the characteristics of the food and, in particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity,
durability, country of origin or place of provenance, method of manufacture or production
§8(2) The food business operator responsible for the food information shall ensure the presence and accuracy of the food information in accordance with the applicable food information
law and requirements of relevant national provisions
Point (d) of §9(1) In accordance with Articles 10–35 and subject to the exceptions contained in this Chapter, indication of the following particulars shall be mandatory: (d) the quantity of certain
ingredients or categories of ingredients
F.M. Stein et al.

Marine Policy 132 (2021) 104651
10
[26], or (3) national trade regulations of countries within the species
distribution area, outside the EU [59].
Seafood labelling fraud is increasingly recognised [42] but its causes
are diverse and content dependent [21]. Our price analyses indicate that
mislabelling generally did not result in higher prices. This implies that
regulation avoidance and market access might be more important
drivers than simply boosting prices [21]. Japanese eel, a species that can
be sourced in southern China was not consistently cheaper than Amer-
ican eel, despite the latter having to have been imported from the other
side of the globe.
Seafood products marketed in the EU have mandatory labelling re-
quirements, including indication of the commercial designation of the
species and its scientic name [28]. However, these requirements do not
apply for prepared, processed or preserved sh, such as the unagi
kabayaki llets examined in our study. For those products only the Food
Information to Consumers (FIC) Regulation applies since 13 December
2016 [27]. The CMO Regulation [28] does not apply for unagi kabayaki
products – but in many cases the species and scientic name was dis-
played on the packages although it is not compulsatory, implying that
the CMO Regulation is ambiguous. However, being non-applicable, it
does allow species substitution, which is undesirable in the case of
species with a protected status such as European eel.
According to the FIC Regulation which combines two previous food
labelling Directives (200/13/EC, 90/496/ECC), unagi kabayaki llet
packages must include detailed consumer information regarding e.g.,
allergens, nutritions, food health and safety as well as the use of nano-
materials, but the mandatory information on sh products is limited to
the product name and no scientic species name has to be provided [27].
This in combination with the exclusion of unagi kabayaki products from
the CMO Regulation [28] prevents consumers from assessing the true
species of their product, which in case of anguillids is particularly
relevant. In total 28.7 % of our samples violated 2 or 3 Articles of the FIC
Regulation requiring that food information shall not be misleading
(point (a) of Article 7(1), that business operators are responsible to
ensure the presence and accuracy of the food information (Article 8(2))
and that the quantity of certain categories of ingredients are provided
(point (d) of Article 9(1)) [27].
Our study is based on a reasonable number of samples in total, but
these are spread over ve target countries, and unevenly distributed
amongst them. Though this limits the statistical signicance, it is
important to highlight troubled compliance as well as shortcomings in
relation with EU legislation (e.g., [18,34]), for those specic products.
4.1. Conclusions
Our molecular analysis identied only one European eel (0.93 %)
among the 108 samples, implying that current trade regulations (CITES,
EU trade ban) are effective in regard of the EU market. However, this
does not correspond with previous ndings in the EU (e.g., [15]) as well
as other markets around the globe (e.g., [22,38,53]). Taking into ac-
count that law enforcement agencies put signicant efforts into tackling
illegal import of European eel meat into the EU, the current European
legal framework regarding labelling requirements for eel products is
insufcient. Since unagi kabayaki llets are grilled and packages include
sauce, they are considered as “prepared and preserved” and therefore do
not require any indication of the scientic name. The exclusion of pre-
pared and processed products from the CMO Regulation [28] in general
has been identied as a major shortcoming that needs to be better
addressed [18,34]. The EU is in the process of amending [29] the
regulation that controls sheries and imports [25], including the
traceability of sheries and aquaculture products (Article 56a-58). Many
of the 16 anguillids are shed in outdoor waters or farmed in aquacul-
ture, supplying global markets [39]. Comparing different data sources e.
g., CITES trade data and Customs data, implies that much of the global
eel trade does not conform with international and national law [47,52,
61]. It is therefore of utmost importance that the EU achieves a
straightforward labelling requirement, including the scientic name of
the species concerned – also for prepared and preserved products.
Funding
This research did not receive any specic grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.
Fig. 2. Unagi kabayaki llets sampled in Europe – origins and destinations. The pie diagrams show the species composition of the eel samples (predominant species
expressed in percentage), grouped by exporting Chinese province from lower to upper pie diagram: Guangdong =71 % Japanese eel; Fujian =84 % American eel;
Jiangxi =98 % American eel. Shaded areas mark the natural species distribution areas (derived from [43]) of the identied species, containing the glass eel catch
areas. Red dashed arrows indicate the direction of glass eel trade towards Chinese eel aquaculture. Black arrows (n =107) indicate the export from Chinese provinces
to destination countries in Europe (in-between import countries not displayed). Numbers labelling the black arrows indicate the number of samples. Map background
downloaded from www.vecteezy.com.
F.M. Stein et al.

Marine Policy 132 (2021) 104651
11
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Florian Stein: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Visual-
ization, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing; Jens
Frankowski: Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing –
Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing; Vincent Nijman: Formal
analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing; Chris-
tine Absil: Conceptualisation, Writing – Review & Editing; Irene
Kraendonk: Conceptualisation, Investigation; Willem Dekker: Super-
vision, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing.
Declaration of interest
None.
Acknowledgements
We thank Magdalena Svensson and Penthai Siriwat and Max Was-
tiaux for logistic support and constructive feedback and Marlies Fuchs,
Marieke Verleih, Alexander Rebl and Tom Goldammer for Labspace and
Sanger sequencing.
References
[1] S.F. Altschul, W. Gish, W. Miller, E.W. Myers, D.J. Lipman, Basic local alignment
search tool, J. Mol. Biol. 215 (1990) 403–410, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-
2836(05)80360-2.
[2] Anon, BYLA A8.–507-834/2020, 2020. Retrieved from 〈https://eteismai.lt/byla/5
1576383822256/A8_-507–834/2020〉.
[3] Anon, BYLA AN2–241-932/2020, 2020. Retrieved from 〈https://eteismai.lt/byla/5
3960219459627/AN2–241-932/2020〉.
[4] C. Briand, S. Bonhommeau, L. Beaulaton, G. Castelnaud, An appraisal of historical
glass eel sheries and markets: landings, trade routes and future prospect for
management. The Institute of Fisheries Management Annual Conference 2007, The
Institute of Fisheries Management, Westport, 2008, p. 21.
[5] D. Carde˜
nosa, M.J. Gollock, D.D. Chapman, Development and application of a
novel real-time polymerase chain reaction assay to detect illegal trade of the
European eel (Anguilla anguilla), Conserv. Sci. Pract. (2019) 1–7, https://doi.org/
10.1111/csp2.39.
[6] CFSY, China Fishery Statistical Yearbook 2012, China Agriculture Press, Beijing,
2012.
[7] CFSY, China Fishery Statistical Yearbook 2013, China Agriculture Press, Beijing,
2013.
[8] CFSY, China Fishery Statistical Yearbook 2014, China Agriculture Press, Beijing,
2014.
[9] CFSY, China Fishery Statistical Yearbook 2015, China Agriculture Press, Beijing,
2015.
[10] CFSY, China Fishery Statistical Yearbook 2016, China Agriculture Press,, Beijing,
2016.
[11] CFSY, China Fishery Statistical Yearbook 2017, China Agriculture Press, Beijing,
2017.
[12] CFSY, China Fishery Statistical Yearbook 2018, China Agriculture Press, Beijing,
2018.
[13] CITES, Consideration of proposals to amend the appendices I and II. CoP14.
Proposal 18. Fourteenth meeting of the conference of the parties, The Hague, 2007.
Retrieved from 〈https://cites.org/sites/default/les/eng/cop/14/prop/E14-P18.
pdf〉.
[14] CITES, Joint press release on the occasion of the tenth meeting of the informal
consultation on the international cooperation and management of Japanese eel
stock and other relevant species, 2017. Retrieved from 〈https://cites.org/sites/def
ault/files/eng/com/ac/29/inf/E-AC29-Inf-13.pdf〉.
[15] CITES, Sixty-ninth meeting of the Standing Committee Geneva (Switzerland). 27
November – 1 December 2017. Species specic matters. Eels (Anguilla spp.) Illegal
trade in Anguilla anguilla, 2017. Retrieved from 〈https://cites.org/sites/default/f
iles/eng/com/sc/69/E-SC69–47-02.pdf〉Retrieved from 〈https://cites.org/sit
es/default/les/eng/com/ac/30/E-AC30–18-01-A1.pdf〉.
[16] CITES, Status and Resources Management of Tropical Anguillid Eels in Southeast
Asia, 2018. Retrieved from 〈https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/ac/30/
Inf/E-AC30-Inf-11.pdf〉.
[17] CITES, CITES trade database, 2020. Retrieved from 〈https://trade.cites.org〉.
[18] P. D’Amico, A. Armani, D. Gianfaldoni, A. Guidi, New provisions for the labelling
of shery and aquaculture products: difculties in the implementation of
Regulation (EU) n. 1379/2013, Mar. Policy 71 (2016) 147–156, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpol.2016.05.026.
[19] W. Dekker, Management of the eel is slipping through our hands! Distribute control
and orchestrate national protection, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73 (10) (2016) 2442–2452,
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw094.
[20] W. Dekker, The history of commercial sheries for European eel commenced only a
century ago, Fish. Manag. Ecol. 26 (1) (2019) 6–19, https://doi.org/10.1111/
fme.12302.
[21] J. Donland, G.M. Luque, Exploring the causes of seafood fraud: a meta-analysis on
mislabeling and price, Mar. Policy 100 (2019) 258–264, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpol.2018.11.022.
[22] Environment and Climate Change Canada, British Columbia-based import
company ordered to pay $163,776 ne for illegally importing European eel meat,
2021. Retrieved from: 〈https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/s
ervices/environmental-enforcement/notications/british-columbia-import-
company-ordered-pay-ne-illegally-importing-european-eel-meat.html〉.
[23] European Commission, Evaluation of the Eel Regulation, 2020, https://doi.org/
10.2771/679816.
[24] EU, Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing
measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel, Off. J. Eur. Union (2007).
〈http://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2007/1100/oj〉.
[25] EU, Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009, 2009. Retrieved
from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%
3A32009R1224.
[26] EU, Short summary of conclusions of the 54th meeting of the scientic review
group on trade in wild fauna and ora
1
3 December 2010, 2010. Retrieved from
〈https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/49ab3fc9–646b-4b35-ac42-f0333479ce24/54_su
mmary_srg.pdf〉.
[27] EU, Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, 2011. Retrieved from 〈https://eur-lex.europa.
eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02011R1169–20180101〉.
[28] EU, Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 11 December 2013, 2014. Retrieved from 〈https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriSer
v/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0001:0021:EN:PDF〉.
[29] EU, Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, and amending
Council Regulations (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1005/2008,
and Regulation (EU) No 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and ofthe Council
as regards sheries control - Progress Report, 2020. Retrieved from: 〈https://data.
consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13087–2020-INIT/en/pdf〉.
[30] Europol, Glass eel trafckers earned more than EUR 37 Million from illegal exports
to Asia, 2018. Retrieved from 〈https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/
glass-eel-traffickers-earned-more-eur-37-million-illegal-exports-to-asia〉.
[31] Europol, The most recent shing season sees 108 smugglers arrested and over 2
tonnes of glass eels seized in Europe, 2020. Retrieved from 〈https://www.europol.
europa.eu/newsroom/news/most-recent-shing-season-sees-108-smugglers-arrest
ed-and-over-2-tonnes-of-glass-eels-seized-in-europe〉.
[32] FAO, Fishery and aquaculture statistics. Global Aquaculture Production 1950-2018
(FishstatJ), FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome, 2020. 〈www.fao.
org/shery/statistics/software/shstatj/en〉.
[33] J. Felsenstein, Condence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap,
Evol. Int. J. Org. Evol. 39 (4) (1985) 783–791, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-
5646.1985.tb00420.x.
[34] A. Giusti, L. Tinacci, C.G. Sotelo, P.L. Arcutis, N. Lelasi, A. Armani,
Authentication of ready-to-eat anchovy products sold on the Italian market by
BLAST analysis of a highly informative cytochrome b gene fragmet, Food Control
79 (2019) 50–57.
[35] T.A. Hall, Bioedit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis
program for Windows 95/ 98/NT, 1999. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series 41,
95–98.
[36] ICES, Report of the Joint EIFAAC/ICES/GFCM Working Group on Eels (WGEEL),
5–12 September 2018, Gdańsk, Poland, 2018. ICES CM 2018/ACOM:15. 152 pp.
Retrieved from 〈http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%
20Group%20Report/acom/2018/WGEEL/wgeel_2018.pdf〉.
[37] ICES, Joint EIFAAC/ICES/GFCM Working Group on Eels (WGEEL), ICES Scientic
Reports, 2020, p. 223, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5982, 2(85).
[38] Interpol , Wildlife Crime Working Group Newsletter / 7. January 2020, 2020.
Contribution on Eel-Icit Trade Retrieved from 〈https://www.sustainableeelgroup.
org/global-police-operation-tackles-illicit-trade-in-eel-meat〉.
[39] K. Kaifu, F. Stein, W. Dekker, N. Walker, A. Dolloff, K. Steele, A. Alonso Aguirre,
V. Nijman, P. Siriwat, P. Sasal, Global exploitation of Freshwater eels, in: A. Don,
P. Coulson (Eds.), Eels Biology, Monitoring, Management, Culture and
Exploitation: Proceedings of the First International Eel Science Symposium, 5M
Publishing, Shefeld, 2019, pp. 377–422.
[40] M. Kimura, A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitutions
through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences, J. Mol. Evol. 16 (1980)
111–120.
[41] T.D. Kocher, K.W. Thomas, A. Meyer, S.V. Edwards, S. P¨
a¨
abo, F.X. Villablanca,
Dynamics of mitochondrial DNA evolution in animals: amplification and
sequencing with conserved primers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86 (16) (1990)
6196–6200, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.86.16.6196.
[42] K. Kroetz, G.M. Luque, J.A. Gephart, S.L. Jardine, P. Lee, K. Chicojay Moore,
C. Cole, A. Steinkrug, J. Donland, Consequences of seafood mislabeling for marine
populations and sheries management, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117 (48) (2020)
30318–30323, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2003741117.
[43] M. Kuroki, M.J. Miller, K. Tsukamoto, Diversity of early life-history traits in
freshwater eels and the evolution of their oceanic migrations, Can. J. Zool. 92 (9)
(2014) 749–770, https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2013-0303.
[44] P. Librado, J. Rozas, DnaSP v5: a software for comprehensive analysis of DNA
polymorphism data, Bioinformatics 25 (2009) 1451–1452, https://doi.org/
10.1093/bioinformatics/btp187.
F.M. Stein et al.

Marine Policy 132 (2021) 104651
12
[45] M.J. Miller, E. Feunteun, K. Tsukamoto, Did a “perfect storm” of oceanic changes
and continental anthropogenic impacts cause northern hemisphere anguillid
recruitment reductions? ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73 (1) (2016) 43–56, https://doi.org/
10.1093/icesjms/fsv063.
[46] Y. Minegishi, J. Aoyama, J.G. Inoue, M. Miya, M. Nishida, K. Tsukamoto,
Molecular phylogeny and evolution of the freshwater eels genus Anguilla based on
the whole mitochondrial genome sequences, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34 (1) (2005)
134–146, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2004.09.003.
[47] L. Musing H. Shiraishi V. Crook M. Gollock E. Levy K. Kecse-Nagy, Implementation
of CITES Appendix II listing of European Eel Anguilla anguilla. CITES AC30 18.1
Annex 1. 82p, 2018.
[48] V. Nijman, CITES-listings, EU eel trade bans and the increase of export of tropical
eels out of Indonesia, Mar. Policy 58 (2015) 36–41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2015.04.006.
[49] V. Nijman, North Africa as a source for European eel following the 2010 EU CITES
eel trade ban, Mar. Policy 85 (2017) 133–137, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2017.06.036.
[50] NWCU, NWCU and Europol meet to combat illegal trade in eels, 2019. Retrieved
from 〈https://www.nwcu.police.uk/news/nwcu-police-press-releases/nwcu-and-
europol-meet-to-combat-illegal-trade-in-eels/〉.
[51] A. Okamura, N. Horie, N. Mikawa, Y. Yamada, K. Tsukamoto, Recent advances
artical production glass eels for conservation of anguillid eel populations, Ecol.
Freshw. Fish. 23 (1) (2014) 95–110, https://doi.org/10.1111/eff.12086.
[52] A. Pavitt, K. Malsch, E. King, A. Chevalier, D. Kachelriess, S. Vannuccini,
K. Friedman, CITES and the Sea: Trade in Commercially Exploited CITES-listed
Marine Species, FAO, Rome, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2971en. FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 666.
[53] J.L. Richards, V. Sheng, C.W. Yi, C.L. Ying, N.S. Ting, Y. Sadovy, D. Baker,
Prevalence of critically endangered European eel (Anguilla anguilla) in Hong Kong
supermarkets, Sci. Adv. 6 (10) (2020) 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.
aay0317.
[54] P.H.A. Sneath, R.R. Sokal, Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practise of
Numerical Classication, W.H. Freeman & Co (Sd), San Francisco, USA, 1973.
[55] F. Stein, J.C.Y. Wong, V. Sheng, S.W.C. Law, B. Schr¨
oder, D.M. Baker, First genetic
evidence of illegal trade in endangered European eel (Anguilla anguilla) from
Europe to Asia, Conserv. Genet. Resour. 8 (4) (2016) 533–537, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12686-016-0576-1.
[56] K. Tamura, G. Stecher, D. Peterson, A. Filipski, S. Kumar, MEGA6: molecular
evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0, Mol. Biol. Evol. 30 (12) (2013)
2725–2729, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst197.
[57] F.W. Tesch, The Eel. Oxford, Blackwell Science Ltd, GB, 2003.
[58] TRACES, List of Chinese shery product companies, approved for trade with the
EU, 2020. Retrieved from 〈https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/sanco/traces/output/
CN/FFP_CN_en.pdf〉.
[59] UNEP-WCMC, Report on species/country combinations selected for review by the
Animals Committee following CoP17, 2018. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. Retrieved
from 〈https://cites.org/sites/default/les/eng/com/AC/30/E-AC30–12-02-A2-R
ev1.pdf〉.
[60] UNIDO, Case Study: Chinese Eel Exports. Meeting Standards, Winning Markets:
Regional Trade Standards Compliance Report, East Asia 2013, UNIDO, Vienna,
2013, pp. 49–61.
[61] UNODC, World Wildlife Crime Report. Trafcking in protected species. United
Nations Ofce on Drugs and Crime, 2020. Retrieved from 〈https://www.unodc.
org/documents/data-and-analysis/wildlife/2020/World_Wildlife_Report_2020
_9July.pdf〉.
[62] P.S. Walsh, D.A. Metzger, R. Higuchi, Chelex 100as a medium for simple extraction
of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material, Biotechniques 10 (4) (1991)
506–513.
GLOSSARY
Anguillids:: species belonging to the family Anguillidae – Anguilla anguilla is the European
eel
Glass eel:: Juvenile, transparent eels, immigrating from the ocean into continental waters
(also known as elvers in American English)
Recruitment:: Number juvenile eels arriving in continental water, from the ocean
Unagi:: Japanese word for anguillid
Kabayaki (Japanese):: Japanese-style preparation of sh, where the buttery llets are
repeatedly dipped in a soy sauce-based sauce and cooked on a grill
F.M. Stein et al.