1 in 5 Times, The Tuna on Your Plate Isn't a Tuna

Seafood lovers, are you getting “catfished” at the dinner table? It’s very possible. One in five seafood samples tested worldwide turn out to be completely different from what the menu or packaging says, according to a report on seafood fraud released on 7 September. Of the more than 25,000 seafood samples the group analyzed, 20% were incorrectly labeled. It is likely that the average consumer has eaten mislabeled fish for sure. You’re getting ripped off, while you enjoyed your meal you’re paying a high price for a low fish. The biggest impostor, fittingly, was farmed Asian catfish, a fish with white flesh that is easily disguised when it’s filleted and drenched in sauce.

It was sold in place of 18 types of more expensive fish, including perch, cod and grouper. The report is a sort of meta-analysis of more than 200 studies from 55 countries. One of those studies found that in Italy, 82% of the 200 perch, gropers and swordfish sampled were mislabeled. King mackerel, high in mercury, was sold as barracuda and Wahoo in South Africa. In Hong Kong, only one out of 29 samples of abalone was correctly labeled. Two sushi chefs in Santa Monica in Southern California were charged with selling endangered whale meat as fatty tuna.

The report found examples of mislabeling at every level of the seafood supply chain, including the wholesaler, the importer and the retailer. Every single study researchers reviewed except for one found seafood fraud. Even that case had a caveat because it took place in Tasmania where some mislabeling, like calling hake ‘smoked cod’, is allowed under Australian regulation. About 80% of the studies were conducted at grocery stores and restaurants. Because these locations are at the end of the supply chain, retailers tend to have higher instances of mislabeling.

30 Min Walks Can Save $2,500 a Year for You

For people still struggling to make time for exercise, a new study offers a strong incentive: you’ll save $2,500, or Rs 1,66,000 a year. The savings, a result of reduced medical costs, don’t require much effort to accrue – just 30 minutes of walking five days a week is enough. The findings come from an analysis of 26,239 men and women. Researchers decided to see if they could determine what being active or inactive costs each of us annually in healthcare spend.

A study put the costs of inactivity to the world economy at almost $68 billion annually.

For the new study, researchers stratified people into two broad groups: those who did or did not meet national exercise guidelines, which recommend that someone work out moderately for 30 minutes five times a week. It turned out that, on average, someone who met the exercise guidelines paid $2,500 less in annual healthcare expenses related to heart disease than someone who did not meet the norms.