ArticleScientific reports2023
Seafood label quality and mislabelling rates hamper consumer choices for sustainability in Australia.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Environmental DNA as a tool to reconstruct catch composition for longline fisheries vessels.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Fishy business in Seattle: Salmon mislabeling fraud in sushi restaurants vs grocery stores.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Seafood mislabelling and species substitution, compounded by a convoluted seafood supply chain with significant traceability challenges, hinder efforts towards more sustainable, responsible, and ethical fishing and business practices. We conducted the largest evaluation of the quality and accuracy of labels for 672 seafood products sold in Australia, assessing six seafood groups (i.e., hoki, prawns, sharks and rays, snapper, squid and cuttlefish, and tuna) from fishmongers, restaurants, and supermarkets, including domestically caught and imported products. DNA barcoding revealed 11.8% of seafood tested did not match their label with sharks and rays, and snappers, having the highest mislabelling rate. Moreover, only 25.5% of products were labelled at a species-level, while most labels used vague common names or umbrella terms such as 'flake' and 'snapper'. These poor-quality labels had higher rates of mislabelling than species-specific labels and concealed the sale of threatened or overfished taxa, as well as products with lower nutritional quality, reduced economic value, or potential health risks. Our results highlight Australia's weak seafood labelling regulations and ambiguous non-mandatory naming conventions, which impede consumer choice for accurately represented, sustainable, and responsibly sourced seafood. We recommend strengthening labelling regulations to mitigate seafood mislabelling and substitution, ultimately improving consumer confidence when purchasing seafood.
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.