Detailed Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Q: Oceana Study Reveals Seafood Fraud Nationwide 
  
 From 2010 to 2012, Oceana conducted one of the largest seafood fraud investigations in the world to date, collecting more than 1,200 seafood samples from 674 retail outlets in 21 states to determine if they were honestly labeled. 
  
 DNA testing found that one-third (33 percent) of the 1,215 samples analyzed nationwide were mislabeled, according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines. 
  
 Of the most commonly collected fish types, samples sold as snapper and tuna had the highest mislabeling rates (87 and 59 percent, respectively), with the majority of the samples identified by DNA analysis as something other than what was found on the label. In fact, only seven of the 120 samples of red snapper purchased nationwide were actually red snapper. The other 113 samples were another fish. 
  
 Our findings demonstrate that a comprehensive and transparent traceability system – one that tracks fish from boat to plate – must be established at the national level. At the same time, increased inspection and testing of our seafood, specifically for mislabeling, and stronger federal and state enforcement of existing laws combating fraud are needed to reverse these disturbing trends. 
  
 Our government has a responsibility to provide more information about the fish sold in the U.S., as seafood fraud harms not only consumers’ wallets, but also every honest vendor and fisherman cheated in the process--to say nothing of the health of our oceans. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 NOTE: Oceana did not test any canned tuna samples and all samples labeled as “white tuna” were purchased at restaurants or sushi venues. ||||| Ninety-five percent of the sushi restaurants, 52 percent of other restaurants and 27 percent of grocery stores surveyed sold mis­labeled seafood. While academics, consumer groups and media outlets in the United States and elsewhere have scrutinized fish labeling before and found major errors, Oceana’s effort is one of the largest seafood investigations to date. 
  
 In its study, Oceana did not mention the names of the food stores, restaurants and sushi houses it visited because the group cannot identify specifically where in the distribution chain the fraud occurred. If you ask those in the fish business, they likewise have different ideas on where the mislabeling begins. 
  
 Bob Kinkead, the veteran chef and restaurateur behind such seafood emporiums as the recently shuttered Kinkead’s, said the deception can occur anywhere along the distribution chain but notes that some suppliers prey on ignorant chefs. “I think chefs are uninformed” on species of fish, said Kinkead, who recently opened ­Ancora in the Watergate. “It’s not dishonesty. It’s carelessness.” 
  
 Darren Lee Norris, co-owner of Kushi Izakaya & Sushi near Mount Vernon Square, however, pointed a finger directly at restaurateurs. “I think it comes down to a restaurant or chef who’s trying to buy something cheaper and jazz it up and call it something else.” 
  
 The technology to conduct species tests has become relatively inexpensive and widely available in recent years, said Prof. Mahmood Shivji of Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., who has conducted genetic testing on fish species since 2007 and advised Oceana on its study. 
  
 Although agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have genetics laboratories, Shivji said, “they are really bogged down. They don’t have enough personnel, the workload is huge and they don’t have the money” to conduct routine tests. 
  
 The Food and Drug Administration tests less than 1 percent of seafood sold in the United States for fraud, according to a 2009 Government Accountability Office report. 
  
 Steven Wilson of NOAA’s seafood inspection program, said he thinks the rate of species substitution “is very low,” averaging less than 5 percent. 
  
 He said purveyors are much more likely to inflate the weight of the seafood they’re selling, by adding water. Inspectors have found inaccurate weight counts 40 percent of the time, Wilson said. ||||| Truth in Seafood Labeling: A senior scientist at Oceana discusses the group's new study that found that about one-third of fish samples in 12 metropolitan areas were mislabeled. 
  
 SEATTLE — Many Europeans are fretting these days over horse meat, and whether it might have adulterated their shepherd’s pie. Over here, it’s all about the red snapper. 
  
 That tempting seafood delight glistening on the ice at the market, or sizzling at the restaurant table in its aromatic jacket of garlic and ginger? It may not be at all what you think, or indeed even close, according to a big new study of fish bought and genetically tested in 12 parts of the country — in restaurants, markets and sushi bars — by a nonprofit ocean protection group, Oceana. 
  
 In the 120 samples labeled red snapper and bought for testing nationwide, for example, 28 different species of fish were found, including 17 that were not even in the snapper family, according to the study, which was released Thursday. 
  
 The study also contained surprises about where consumers were most likely to be misled — sushi bars topped the list in every city studied — while grocery stores were most likely to be selling fish honestly. Restaurants ranked in the middle. 
  
 Part of the problem, said the study’s chief author, Kimberly Warner, is that there are quite simply a lot of fish in the sea, and many of them look alike. Over all, the study found that about one-third of the 1,215 fish samples bought, from 2010 to 2012, were mislabeled. 
  
 “Even a relatively educated consumer couldn’t look at a whole fish and say, ‘I’m sure that’s a red snapper and not lane snapper,’ ” she said. 
  
 Geographically, the study had bad news for residents of Southern California, land of the midnight sushi. They were more likely than residents in any of the other sampled regions to be eating something other than what they had been told. About 52 percent of the samples bought and sent for testing turned out to be something else. 
  
 Salmon-crazed Seattle, by contrast, was tied with cod-country Boston as having the lowest deception rates. Still, almost one in five fish samples were wrongly labeled. 
  
 Some types of fish fared worse in different places. In New York, for example, fish that was not really tuna was being passed off as tuna in 94 percent of the samples taken, the study said. 
  
 What is in a name, anyway, when it comes to fish? Shakespeare might not have pondered the question exactly, but the seafood industry certainly has. 
  
 In the real world of perception and marketing, a fish called “slimehead” — a real name, by the way — is probably not going to fly off the menu. Far better to call it “orange roughy,” a distinction allowed by the Federal Food and Drug Administration. The government also allows Patagonian toothfish, real name, to be called Chilean sea bass, invented marketing name. 
  
 The Oceana study did not declare a fish mislabeled if the seller was following the federal guidelines. 
  
 But what the study found pervasive was mislabeling — beyond what is allowed by federal food regulators — by retail outlets using a name that consumers are more likely to want to buy. Almost two-thirds of the “wild” salmon samples, for example, were found actually to be farmed Atlantic salmon, which is considered less healthy and environmentally sustainable. 
  
 The National Fisheries Institute, a trade group, said in a statement that reputable members of the seafood community are fighting fraud, and that the federal government should “fulfill its mandate,” to enforce food fraud laws already on the books. 
  
 Dr. Warner said that the study did raise some red flags about health. Fish known to accumulate mercury in their flesh, in particular, should be avoided, especially by pregnant women. But in what the study called “one of the most egregious swaps,” in New York, tilefish — known for its mercury content and on federal advisory lists for sensitive populations to avoid — was sold as red snapper. Tilefish was also found substituted for halibut. 
  
 She also cautioned that the study did not aim to produce a real scientific, top-to-bottom sampling of the seafood system. In Boston, for example, only grocery store fish were tested, leaving out sushi bars that might have lowered the city’s honesty rate (although, in a separate effort in 2011 and 2012, The Boston Globe found widespread mislabeling in stores and restaurants). 
  
 And the Oceana study’s authors also could not determine where in the food chain the mislabeling arose — the wholesaler, the retailer or at the fishing dock itself — or whether it came about through misunderstanding or deliberate concealment. 
  
 A common pattern, though, Dr. Warner said, was economic gain at the consumer’s expense, with understudy fish — tilapia, in particular — often substituting for a menu’s star, without a word to the audience. ||||| Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period. |||||
A:
OK, it's not horse meat, but fish mislabeling is rampant across the US, a 20-state study finds. Up to a third of restaurant and grocery-store seafood is labeled incorrectly, the Washington Post reports. Looking at specific varieties, the figures get even starker: Some 94% of so-called tuna in New York wasn't, the New York Times reports, while 87% of snapper is mislabeled. “Even a relatively educated consumer couldn’t look at a whole fish and say, ‘I’m sure that’s a red snapper and not lane snapper,’ ” says the study's lead author. The study follows up on a smaller one released in December by activist group Oceana. Overall, Southern California had the worst labeling record, with 52% of its fish marked wrong. And the worst venue for wrong labels: sushi restaurants, the study found, at a 95% rate. In many cases, sushi joints called escolar—or albacore canned tuna—"white tuna." Too much of it can cause diarrhea. Odds for consumers are best at grocery stores, where 27% of the products are mislabeled. In many cases, cheaper fish took the place of more expensive ones. Less than 1% of seafood sold in the US undergoes FDA testing for fraud, says a 2009 report.