Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.


Mislabelling of a depleted reef fish


Any fish species that appears to be readily available in the marketplace will create an impression among the public that there is a plentiful supply of that fish in the sea, but this may belie the true state of the fisheries' stock. Here we use molecular genetic analysis to show that some three-quarters of the fish sold in the United States as ‘red snapper’ — the US Food and Drug Administration's legally designated common name for Lutjanus campechanus1 — belong to another species. Mislabelling to this extent not only defrauds consumers but could also adversely affect estimates of stock size if it influences the reporting of catch data that are used in fisheries management.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Maximum-likelihood tree (GTR + I + G model) of cytochrome-b DNA sequences from retail ‘red snapper’ (GenBank accession numbers: AY294187205; AY651957–59) and reference sequences (AF239677–78, 80–82; AF240750; AF381270; AF031516; AF299290; U26949, 51–58, 61–62).


  1. Office of Seafood, Food and Drug Administration (

  2. Moran, D. Biological report 82(11.83) TR EL-82-4 (National Wetlands Research Center, Louisiana, 1988).

  3. Huang, T. -S., Marshall, M. R., Kao, K. -J., Otwell, W. S. & Wei, C. -I. J. Agric. Food Chem. 43, 2301–2307 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, Maryland (

  5. Sarver, S. K., Freshwater, D. W. & Walsh, P. J. Copeia 3, 715–719 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Johannes, R. E. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 243–246 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Watson, R. & Pauly, D. Nature 414, 689–695 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Reef Fish Assessment Panel Report (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 1994).

  9. Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2001).

  10. Atlantic Billfish Research Plan (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002).

  11. Porch, C. E. & Cass-Calay, S. L. Status of the Vermilion Snapper Fishery in the Gulf of Mexico: Assessment 5.0 SFD-01/02-129 (Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida, 2001).

  12. Review of Existing Public Opinion Data on the Oceans (The Ocean Project, 1999).

  13. Swofford, D. L. PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods), version 4 (Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter B. Marko.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marko, P., Lee, S., Rice, A. et al. Mislabelling of a depleted reef fish. Nature 430, 309–310 (2004).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing