Rainbow trout is classified as salmon, and health standards need to keep up.
Will there be some aquaculture companies that strictly enforce the standards that suit their own interests, but discount the standards that govern themselves? For example, rainbow trout is also called salmon, but it is not strictly enforced in terms of parasites and product labels.
Recently, the news that "the standard of "raw salmon" was officially released" sparked heated discussions on the Internet. The most striking aspect of this standard is the use of salmon as a “collective name for salmonids”. According to this standard, the controversial “freshwater salmon” rainbow trout, which was controversial some time ago, became a real salmon. In the comments on this news, many netizens still expressed doubts.
Salmon is not a strict academic name, so its definition is mainly based on market conventions. Salmon, traditionally considered by consumers, is generally referred to as Atlantic salmon, and does not include the so-called "freshwater salmon", which is rainbow trout. This latest "raw salmon" group standard refers to rainbow trout as salmon, which is inconsistent with the general public's perception. It is no wonder that it will be controversial.
It should be noted that this "raw salmon" standard is a group standard, neither a national standard that must be enforced nor a highly accepted academic standard for biological classification.
According to the new version of the Standardization Law, which was implemented in January 2018, the group standards are jointly formulated by the social groups in coordination with relevant market entities, and are adopted by the members of the group or used by the society. That is to say, for ordinary consumers, if you do not buy the standard book of the "raw salmon" group, and resolutely refuse to call the rainbow trout a salmon, there is no problem at all. If consumers don't buy it, companies or industry associations, they can't insist on long-term naming that doesn't fit the public's perception.
According to relevant news reports, the "raw salmon" group standard has strict regulations on parasites according to national standards, and it is explicitly required to label the raw fish origin and species name on the product label. Therefore, once the aquaculture company is fully implementing this standard, consumers should carefully check the label when purchasing “salmon” to find out where the raw fish comes from, whether it is a seafood Atlantic salmon or a freshwater aquaculture rainbow trout.
The question is, will there be some aquaculture companies that strictly enforce standards that are in their own interest, but discount the standards that govern themselves? For example, rainbow trout is also called salmon, but it is not strictly enforced in terms of parasites and product labels. At that time, the consumers in the dark can hardly remember the slightly sloppy biological terminology of the Atlantic Ocean, but still can't clearly distinguish it from the product label, and no one can guarantee that the "salmon" they bought will not. There is a risk of contracting parasitic diseases.
Therefore, with the group standards recommended for implementation, there should also be national standards for enforcement. For the naming of salmon, you can give it to the market to choose. I believe in the naming of a commodity, and the consumer group can still vote with the foot. However, for the parasite detection rate and product label that affect the consumer's right to health and the right to know, the individual consumer does not have sufficient discriminating ability and restraint ability. Therefore, it is not enough to rely on self-discipline of enterprises and industries. It needs to be strongly supervised by market supervision and food supervision departments, and severe punishments are imposed on illegal enterprises according to law. After all, if there is no strict and fair law enforcement referee on the football field, the Brazilian football team may not be able to win the weak team.