MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sharks and the Culinary Clash of Culture and Conservation: Why Are We Not Considering the Health Consequences of Shark Consumption?

2012· article· en· W18344880 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cameron S. G. Jefferies

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth law review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPossession (linguistics)Consumption (sociology)FisheryPredationEnvironmental ethicsLawPolitical scienceEcologySociologyBiologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Sharks are the much maligned apex predators that frequent horror films and sensationalized nature documentaries. Sharks have come to represent the unknown; a toothed menace. Perceptions are starting to shift, and sharks are increasingly becoming the substance of conservation efforts and political debate at all levels of governance. Sharks are harvested in astounding numbers for their fins, which are the key component of shark fin soup. While it is difficult to know exactly how many sharks are killed each year for their fins, the estimate proffered by biologists and widely accepted by non-governmental organizations is between 73 (1) and 100 million. (2) Scientists continue to warn policy makers that shark populations cannot withstand such intense harvesting and that if action is not taken soon to reduce this pressure we may very well push many shark species to extinction. (3) In response to this threat, certain jurisdictions (at the national, provincial/state, and even municipal level) have enacted bans on shark fin possession and trade, with the goal of reducing the availability of shark fin soup and therefore the need to keep killing sharks for their fins. The debate on how to properly regulate shark fin soup consumption (assuming regulation is justified at all) and the future of shark conservation generally, has centered around the appropriateness of using the law to essentially prohibit the continuation of a cultural tradition. In this article I will briefly describe the decline of sharks and the current status of shark conservation, the legal response to date, and then demonstrate that the health aspects of consuming shark fin soup serve has not received due consideration and serves as further justification for heightened regulation. Finally, I address the use of shark products in alternative medicine as an emerging issue in shark conservation, emphasizing the largely unsubstantiated status of the health benefits associated with shark cartilage. Their Decline The current extinction pressure facing many shark species can be succinctly summarized as follows: shark fins are harvested for their use in shark fin soup, a Chinese delicacy that has been served at banquets and celebratory functions since the Ming Dynasty (circa 1300-1600 C.E.), if not earlier. (4) Sharks, like many other marine species whose conservation status is hotly contested (i.e. whales and blue-fin tuna), are in many ways the victims of the fluid, expansive, and largely unregulated medium in which they exist. Specifically, many shark species do not live solely within the territorial waters or Exclusive Economic Zone of one nation, triggering the classic Tragedy of the Commons (5) problem associated with regulating species that fall outside of pure national jurisdiction, and whose regulation fits most appropriately within the scope of a cooperative international regime. China remains the main destination for shark fins, but it is mainly the practices of the fishermen from the nations that supply China that has attracted the ire of conservationists and the sympathy of ordinary citizens across the globe. Most notable is shark finning, the practice whereby the fins of a captured shark are sliced off and the fin-less fish is returned to the ocean to die rather unceremoniously. (6) The reality is that shark fins are worth considerably more than shark meat, and for fishermen it makes economic sense to dump relatively worthless carcasses to maximize space for valuable fins. (7) I believe it is appropriate to characterize the international legal response to this issue as an unmitigated failure; currently, only the great white shark, whale shark, and basking shark receive protection from the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna. (8) As various options about how to reduce shark fin soup consumption in China are considered, other nations have responded in the face of international inaction. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.034
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth law reviewSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207