New research shows that Americans are confused by the “Alaska Pollock” trade name designation, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should change the name, according to an industry group.
Late last week, Genuine Alaska Pollock Producers (GAPP), which represents around 95 percent of Alaska Pollock suppliers and processors, submitted a formal request to the FDA to change the name from “Alaska Pollock” to simply “Pollock.”
“Alaska Pollock is the current acceptable market name, which means that, right now, if the Pollock is from a source other than Alaska, it can still be called ‘Alaska Pollock’,” GAPP Program Director Pat Shanahan told SeafoodSource. “It is time to ask [for the name change] because consumers are more interested in where their food comes from and we don’t want them to be confused about the source of their seafood.”
Pollock is one of the few seafood species in the U.S. whose acceptable market name can legally include “Alaska,” even if it is not from Alaska, according to Shanahan.
“We are asking for it to be treated like most other species from the state, like halibut, salmon, and crab, for example. When the term, ‘Alaska,’ is used with these species the product must be from Alaska.”
As a result of current regulations, pollock from Russia, Japan and Korea can legally be labeled “Alaska Pollock,” causing confusion among consumers. Americans consume 362 million pounds of pollock a year, and an estimated 30 to 40 percent of that is pollock from Russia, according to Shanahan. Meanwhile, the U.S. pollock fishery is the largest in the country, with 1.3 million metric tons produced annually.
While GAPP has been communicating with FDA officials about the need for a name change over the past year, it just submitted the formal request because new data shows how consumers could be confused.
In a recent survey of 1,000 seafood consumers conducted by GMA Research Corporation, when people were asked, “Where does Alaska Pollock come from?” 77 percent said Alaska. More than 80 percent said that, if they saw the name, “Alaska Pollock,” and the fish wasn’t from Alaska, they would feel the name was untruthful and they were being misled. In addition, 82 percent of consumers said it is important to know the source of their seafood, particularly when they are buying a species they are unfamiliar with.
Shanahan does not know how long it will take the FDA to make a decision on its request, but is optimistic about the outcome. “We think our argument is strong and it is our hope that they will approve it. The FDA has new information [from the consumer survey] to consider,” Shanahan said.
