Mislabeled and ambiguous market names in invertebrate and finfish seafood conceal species of conservation concern in Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background The mislabeling of seafood, wherein a food product’s marketed name does not match its contents, has the potential to mask species of conservation concern. Less discussed is the role of legally ambiguous market names, wherein a single name could be used to sell multiple species. Here we report the first study in Canada to examine mislabeling and ambiguous market names in both invertebrate (e.g., bivalve, cephalopod, shrimp) and finfish products. Methods A total of 109 invertebrate and 347 finfish products were sampled in Calgary between 2014 and 2020. Market names were documented from the label or equivalent and determined to be precise (the name could apply to only one species) or ambiguous (multiple species could be sold under that name). A region of the cytochrome c oxidase I gene was sequenced and compared to reference sequences from boldsystems.org. Samples were considered mislabeled if the species identified through DNA barcoding did not correspond to the market name, as determined through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Fish List. Mislabeling was further differentiated between semantic mislabeling, wherein the market name was not found on the Fish List but the barcode identity was in line with what a consumer could reasonably have expected to have purchased; invalid market names, wherein the market name was so unusual that no legitimate inferences as to the product’s identity could be made; and product substitution, wherein the DNA barcode identified the product as a species distinct from that associated with the market name. Invalid market names and product substitutions were used to provide conservative estimates of mislabeling. The global conservation status of the DNA-identified invertebrate or finfish was determined through the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List. A logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between precision and accuracy in predicting conservation status of the sampled species. Results There was no significant difference in mislabeling occurrence between invertebrates (33.9% total mislabeling occurrence, 20.2% product substitution) and finfish (32.3% total mislabeling occurrence, 21.3% product substitution/invalid market names). Product substitutions sometimes involved species of conservation concern, such as foods marketed as freshwater eel (Anguilla rostrata) that were determined through DNA barcoding to be European eel (Anguilla anguilla), or cuttlefish balls putatively identified as the Endangered threadfin porgy (Evynnis cardinalis). Product substitutions and ambiguous market names were significantly associated with the sale of species of conservation concern, but ambiguity was a more important predictor. Although preventing the mislabeling of seafoods can and must remain a priority in Canada, our work suggests that moving towards precise names for all seafood products will better support sustainable fisheries goals.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».