Marketplace shrimp mislabeling in North Carolina

Korzik, Morgan L; Austin, Hannah M; Cooper, Brittany; Jasperse, Caroline; Tan, Grace; Richards, Emilie J.; Spencer, Erin; Steinwand, Blaire; Fodrie, F. Joel; Bruno, John F.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229512

Cited by 16 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We were forced to combine global mislabeling rate estimates with US apparent consumption data to estimate mislabeled apparent consumption, increasing the uncertainty of our results (SI Appendix). For example, despite its high consumption, few mislabeling studies have sampled shrimp in the United States, all of which have small sample sizes (3,(37)(38)(39). Using its global mislabeling estimate (i.e., 5%), however, results in the highest estimate of US mislabeled apparent consumption ( Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of seafood mislabeling for marine populations and fisheries management

Kroetz

Luque²,

Gephart

et al. 2020

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, seafood mislabeling has been increasingly documented, raising public concern over the identity, safety, and sustainability of seafood. Negative outcomes from seafood mislabeling are suspected to be substantial and pervasive as seafood is the world’s most highly traded food commodity. Here we provide empirical systems-level evidence that enabling conditions exist for seafood mislabeling in the United States (US) to lead to negative impacts on marine populations and support consumption of products from poorly managed fisheries. Using trade, production, and mislabeling data, we determine that substituted products are more likely to be imported than the product listed on the label. We also estimate that about 60% of US mislabeled apparent consumption associated with the established pairs involves products that are exclusively wild caught. We use these wild-caught pairs to explore population and management consequences of mislabeling. We find that, compared to the product on the label, substituted products come from fisheries with less healthy stocks and greater impacts of fishing on other species. Additionally, substituted products are from fisheries with less effective management and with management policies less likely to mitigate impacts of fishing on habitats and ecosystems compared with the label product. While we provide systematic evidence of environmental impacts from food fraud, our results also highlight the current challenges with production, trade, and mislabeling data, which increase the uncertainty surrounding seafood mislabeling consequences. More integrated, holistic, and collaborative approaches are needed to understand mislabeling impacts and design interventions to minimize mislabeling.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of seafood mislabeling for marine populations and fisheries management

Kroetz

Luque²,

Gephart

et al. 2020

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Species substitution is a violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Section 403: Misbranded food, which states that “a food shall be deemed to be misbranded if it is offered for sale under the name of another food” ( FDA, 2020 ). Even though species substitution is against the law, shrimp species substitution rates as high as 34%, 16%, and 18% have been reported in Northern Carolina (USA), India, and South Africa, respectively ( Cawthorn and Hoffman, 2017 , Korzik et al, 2020 , Wilwet et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The method relies on the sequencing of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene (COI) and the comparison of the sequence data with FDA standard barcodes or reference sequences housed in GenBank and/or the Barcode of Life Database (BOLD) ( Kress and Erickson, 2012 ). In addition to DNA barcoding, PCR-based assays targeting the shrimp species-specific regions of COI and 16S ribosomal RNA genes have been published ( Ortea et al, 2012 , Sharma et al, 2020 , Wilwet et al, 2021 , Korzik et al, 2020 , Pascoal et al, 2011 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid PCR-lateral flow assay for the onsite detection of Atlantic white shrimp

Kwawukume

Velez

Williams³

et al. 2023

Food Chemistry: Molecular Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Consumers' awareness of seafood mislabeling alone cannot help reduce the incidence of mislabeling. For example, despite the widespread media attention on fish mislabeling in the United States, studies find that mislabeling is still pervasive (Stern et al, 2017;Korzik et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framing Effects on Attitudes and Intentions Toward Shark Meat Consumption in Lima, Peru

Biffi¹,

Richards²,

Weinburgh³

2022

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peru has one of the major shark fisheries in the world. Moreover, shark meat consumption is popular and the main commercially exploited species are considered threatened. Recent studies have found high mislabeling rates and high concentrations of methylmercury in shark meat. The purpose of this study is to explore the effectiveness of different framing messages in persuading fish consumers to avoid shark meat consumption and promote sustainable fish (“popular fish”) consumption. Specifically: To what extent do intrinsic and extrinsic risk messages differ in terms of deterring the intention to eat shark meat and promoting the consumption of popular fish, in the presence or absence of an efficacy message about mislabeling of shark meat? The three message frames were: intrinsic (sharks have mercury), extrinsic (sharks are threatened), and efficacy (sharks are mislabeled). The experiment had a factorial design of 2 × 2 × 2 (present vs. absent for each message). Participants (n = 285), surveyed through an online questionnaire, were assigned to one of eight experimental conditions. Participants then completed a survey regarding their intentions and attitudes toward shark meat and popular fish consumption. Attitudes and intentions toward consuming shark meat were discouraged in all experimental conditions. Moreover, the mislabeling message did not reduce participants' perceived response efficacy (how effective the recommendations for dealing with the problem are), but enhanced it. This study suggests that not all consumers' attitudes about sharks are negative or that a negative attitude does not affect shark consumption in an adverse way. More research targeting different audiences is needed to determine the optimal approach for promoting sustainable seafood that is also healthy for consumers.

show abstract

Marketplace shrimp mislabeling in North Carolina

Cited by 16 publications

References 15 publications

Consequences of seafood mislabeling for marine populations and fisheries management

Consequences of seafood mislabeling for marine populations and fisheries management

Rapid PCR-lateral flow assay for the onsite detection of Atlantic white shrimp

Framing Effects on Attitudes and Intentions Toward Shark Meat Consumption in Lima, Peru

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About