Chippies sell catfish as ‘traditional fish supper’
Chippies sell catfish as ‘traditional fish supper’
Chippies sell catfish as traditional fish – The BBC has uncovered that some chip shops are misleading customers by labeling catfish as “traditional fish and chips,” a practice driven by cost-cutting measures. These establishments, often referred to as rogue chippies, sell the inexpensive freshwater fish pangasius—commonly known as river cobbler—as if it were the more expensive marine species like cod or haddock, according to an investigation. The issue, while not widespread, has raised concerns among industry insiders and consumers about the transparency of food labeling in the sector.
Investigation and Findings
The inquiry began after a Liverpool-based chip shop owner reported the practice to the BBC. He described the deception as a growing trend that disadvantages small businesses, saying it “goes on more than you’d think.” The BBC then reviewed dozens of online food reviews, where customers expressed confusion over the type of fish they purchased. Comments such as “I wasn’t sure what kind of fish it was” and “It wasn’t cod or haddock, just some cheap white fish” highlighted the lack of clarity in product descriptions.
To verify the claims, the BBC conducted a sample test involving 10 businesses across Liverpool and Manchester. When asked, three of the chip shops labeled the fish as “normal fish” or “white fish,” while others claimed to serve cod or haddock. However, DNA testing at Liverpool John Moores University revealed that all three takeaways had sold catfish. Professor Stefano Mariani, who led the testing with colleague Catherine Perfect, noted that pangasius was identified in three out of 10 samples, a level he described as “quite a lot” in his experience with the fish and chips industry.
The catfish, a safe-to-eat species, is significantly cheaper than traditional options. While cod and haddock typically retail for around £15 per kilogram, catfish is available at approximately £3.40 wholesale. This cost disparity allows some shops to offer smaller portions for lower prices. For instance, catfish portions were sold for £3.80, £4.20, and £5, compared to cod or haddock servings priced between £4 and £6. The affordability of catfish has made it a popular choice for operators seeking to maximize profits.
Industry Response and Consumer Concerns
Professor Mariani emphasized that distinguishing between fish species is challenging for the average consumer. “It’s very difficult for someone not trained in fish biology to tell the difference between one fillet and another,” he explained. This difficulty is compounded by the lack of clear signage or menu labels in some establishments. One shop, for example, used a sign stating “traditional fish and chips” while serving catfish, leaving customers unaware of the substitution.
Ambassador of the National Federation of Fish Friers, Andrew Cook, shared similar concerns. A Lancashire-based businessman with nearly 30 years of experience in the chip shop industry, Cook noted that while catfish itself is not harmful, the expectation of “traditional” fish species remains strong among consumers. “Most people assume they’re getting cod, haddock, or plaice when they order fish and chips,” he said. “If a shop is selling farmed pangasius without stating it, that’s acceptable. But when it’s priced like cod, it becomes an issue.”
The Chartered Trading Standards Institute acknowledged that mislabeling fish is not a widespread problem but confirmed there are “some unscrupulous businesses” involved. It classified the issue as a “food labeling problem,” attributing responsibility to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) for investigations. The FSA indicated that local authorities would typically handle isolated cases of mis-selling, though the BBC found that 10 out of 21 North West local authorities had not responded to inquiries or were unaware of the issue.
Salford Council provided an example of action taken, having issued a warning to a trader after discovering a different fish was sold as cod. A council spokesperson added that while no recent complaints had been received, they encouraged customers to report any concerns. This response underscores the fragmented nature of oversight in the sector, where local authorities may not always be proactive in addressing fraudulent practices.
Consumer Deception and Industry Standards
The practice of mislabeling catfish as traditional fish has drawn parallels to the 2013 horsemeat scandal, where cheaper meat was substituted for premium cuts. In both cases, the deception lies in the names used to describe products, with no immediate health risks to consumers. However, the psychological impact on customers is significant, as they may feel misled when paying for a “traditional” meal.
Cook argued that transparency is key. “If a customer knows they’re buying a farmed fish, they won’t be upset,” he said. “But when a shop charges the same as cod without disclosing the species, it creates a sense of unfairness.” This sentiment is echoed by many in the industry, who believe that clearer labeling would help consumers make informed choices. Despite this, some businesses continue to rely on vague descriptions, such as “fish” or “white fish,” to obscure the true identity of the product.
The BBC’s investigation also revealed that even when businesses list a specific species on their menus, they may not always provide accurate information. For example, three chip shops in the study claimed to serve cod or haddock, yet their DNA results confirmed catfish as the actual product. This inconsistency highlights the need for stricter regulations and better enforcement of food labeling standards.
While the Food Standards Agency is responsible for investigating such cases, its role is often limited to addressing isolated incidents. This has left some businesses, like the Liverpool shop owner, feeling vulnerable to competition from those who mislabel their products. The BBC’s findings suggest that a more systematic approach is required to ensure that the tradition of fish and chips is not undermined by cost-driven substitutions.
Consumer reactions have been mixed. Some appreciate the affordability, while others feel betrayed by the lack of honesty. The debate reflects broader tensions between economic efficiency and consumer expectations. As the fish and chips industry continues to evolve, the challenge lies in balancing cost-cutting with the cultural significance of traditional seafood offerings. With growing awareness of the issue, it remains to be seen whether businesses will adopt more transparent practices or persist in their current strategies.
Experts suggest that education and stricter penalties could help curb the trend. “If shops are caught mislabeling, they should face consequences,” said Mariani. “Consumers deserve to know exactly what they’re paying for.” As the investigation highlights, the key to resolving the issue may lie in combining technological tools like DNA testing with clear communication on menus. Until then, the practice of substituting catfish for traditional fish in the guise of a classic meal will likely continue, leaving customers to question the authenticity of their favorite dish.