Searching my own blog for "fish" posts returns 8 mini pages of results. Most of those pertain to the benefits of fish consumption in regards to the Omega 3 (good fat) content and the generally low calorie nature of fish or the risks associated with some species (i.e. preditory fish like shark and big fish like swordfish) due to high mercury content. I am certain that buried in one of those posts is a discussion on sustainability and over fishing, as occurs with grouper and lastly or most recently, my post about the inaccurate nutrient facts labeling of my Walmart purchased salmon and tilapia. This last post noted my complaint to the government's Center for Food Safety and Nutrition (who were of no help).
Imagine my intrigue then when I saw a USA Today headline regarding mislabled fish. Consumer Reports, which is a subscription only publication, did an independent study where they purchased fish and conducted laboratory analysis. Though they did not discuss nutrient information, at least in the news story, they did point out that the fish people buy is not the fish they think they are buying. Of course this will directly impact the nature of calories, sustainability and mercury levels.
I can link you to the same USA Today story that I read and if you subscribe to Consumer Reports you'll have access to the full analysis.
Thus fish fraud continues... BTW - the blog post I did about grouper related to a scientist who said he never ordered it because 1) it was over fished and 2) it often was NOT grouper. The news from today only supports his assertions.