Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31231598›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2019

Could do better! A high school market survey of fish labelling in Sydney, Australia, using DNA barcodes.

Andrew Mitchell, Anna Rothbart, Greta Frankham, Rebecca N Johnson, Linda E Neaves

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. The Potential Role of School Citizen Science Programs in Infectious Disease Surveillance: A Critical Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Andrew MitchellAustralian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5022-5898
Anna RothbartSydney Grammar School, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.
Greta FrankhamAustralian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Rebecca N JohnsonAustralian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3035-2827
Linda E NeavesAustralian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProcessed seafood products are not readily identifiable based on physical characteristics, which leaves the industry vulnerable to high levels of product mislabelling (globally estimated at 5-30% mislabelled). This is both a food safety issue and a consumer protection issue as cheaper species could be substituted for more expensive species. DNA barcoding is proving to be a valuable tool for authentication of fish products. We worked with high school students to perform a market survey and subsequent species assessment via DNA barcoding to investigate the accuracy of fish product names used by retailers in Sydney, Australia.

methodsSixty-eight fish samples, sold under 50 different common names, were purchased anonymously from two retailers in Sydney. Each product name was recorded and reconciled with the Australian Fish Names Standard (AFNS). Samples were DNA barcoded and resulting sequences were deposited in the online Barcode of Life Data system using the simplified Student Data Portal interface.

resultsForty percent of the fish names did not comply with the AFNS, however, half of these were either spelling errors or vendors supplied more information than the standard requires. The other half of the non-compliant samples were given common names not listed on the AFNS. Despite this lack of standardization, DNA barcode data confirmed the retailers' identifications for 93% of samples and 90% of species sampled. DISCUSSION: The level of mislabelling we report for Sydney retailers (7% of samples or 10% of species) compares favorably with the global rates of 5-30%, but unfavorably with the only previous DNA barcode fish authentication study for Australia, which found no confirmed mislabelling in Hobart. Our study sampled mostly Australian produce, only two retailers and no restaurants. Results of our limited sample suggest that although many Sydney fish retailers attempt to implement the voluntary fish name standards, the standards are inadequate. As Australia imports 75% of its seafood, and in other countries restaurants generally show lower levels of compliance than retailers, broader surveys are needed before generalizing these results. DNA barcoding is a powerful yet simple method supported by accessible online analytical tools. Incorporation of fish barcoding into high school science classes provided students with valuable firsthand experience in scientific research and drew together different strands of the NSW curriculum relating to genetics and sustainability. Given the techniques, equipment, and reagents are now readily accessible, we expect to see greater uptake of DNA barcoding technology by high schools, citizen scientists and consumer groups in Australia in future. However, there remains much scope for further development of DNA barcode diagnostics (both data and analytical methods) for commercial fish species.

Indexed as

Citizen scienceDNA barcodingEducationFishFisheriesFraudHigh schoolLabellingSeafoodSustainability

Identifiers

PMID31231598
PMCPMC6573807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.