ArticlePeerJ2024
Mislabeled and ambiguous market names in invertebrate and finfish seafood conceal species of conservation concern in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The mislabeling of seafood, wherein a food product's marketed name does not match its contents, has the potential to mask species of conservation concern. Less discussed is the role of legally ambiguous market names, wherein a single name could be used to sell multiple species. Here we report the first study in Canada to examine mislabeling and ambiguous market names in both invertebrate ( Methods: A total of 109 invertebrate and 347 finfish products were sampled in Calgary between 2014 and 2020. Market names were documented from the label or equivalent and determined to be precise (the name could apply to only one species) or ambiguous (multiple species could be sold under that name). A region of the Results: There was no significant difference in mislabeling occurrence between invertebrates (33.9% total mislabeling occurrence, 20.2% product substitution) and finfish (32.3% total mislabeling occurrence, 21.3% product substitution/invalid market names). Product substitutions sometimes involved species of conservation concern, such as foods marketed as freshwater eel (
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.