ArticleJournal of food science and technology2021
Determining the presence of undeclared animal species using Real-time PCR in canned and ready-to-eat meat products in South Africa.
Article in Journal of food science and technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Food Fraud Implications and Regulatory Challenges in South Africa: A Review.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- bFuzzy logic-based approach for porcine DNA determination in meat products.NPJ science of food · 2025Article
- Foodomics as a Tool for Evaluating Food Authenticity and Safety from Field to Table: A Review.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Authentication of traditional meat products (Haleem) sold in India: a first report confirming species mislabelling.Journal of food science and technology · 2024Article
- Rapid detection of duck ingredient in adulterated foods by isothermal recombinase polymerase amplification assays.Food chemistry. Molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Preliminary Feasibility of Near-Infrared Spectroscopy to Authenticate Grazing in Dairy Goats through Milk and Faeces Analysis.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA based PCR is the most widely used technique for the detection of animal species in processed meat products. However, the detection of animal species in highly processed meat products, specifically, canned meat, has been reported to be challenging due to the presence of highly degraded DNA and/or the inability to extract sufficient amount of amplifiable DNA. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of Real-time PCR to detect animal species in ready-to-eat meat products which represent highly processed complex food matrices. DNA was extracted from a total of 44 ready-to-eat meat products purchased from supermarkets in South Africa. The extracted DNA was screened for the presence of commonly reported undeclared animal species using Real-time PCR. Real-time PCR successfully detected the animal species declared on the product label, thus demonstrating its suitability for highly processed complex food matrices. Undeclared animal species was detected in 27% of the meat products tested in this study. Surprisingly, four products marketed with a specific "no-pork" claim tested positive for pork. An additional eight products tested positive for undeclared chicken, beef and/or sheep. The presence of undeclared animal species indicates a need for food authenticity monitoring. In cases where it may not be practically feasible to prevent the adventitious presence of unintended animal species despite adhering to the highest standards of production, it may be advisable for manufacturers to implement precautionary labelling. The use of precautionary labelling for animal species in processed meat products is a new concept that requires further consideration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.