160 likes | 169 Views
This report summarizes the findings of the Spring 2017 Fish Market Survey, focusing on mislabeling of Tilapia and Red Snapper in eight different market names. The study used DNA barcoding to identify mislabeled fish samples, with 9% found to be mislabeled. Learn about the implications of mislabeling and sign up for the Fall 2017 Fish Market Survey.
E N D
Let’s Talk Science Action ProjectFish Market Survey Results Spring 2017
Fish Market Survey Tilapia Red Snapper $18.19/kg $30.66/kg
Spring 2017 8 different market names were targeted: • Cod • Swordfish • Sockeye Salmon • King Salmon • Snapper • Red Snapper • Atlantic Halibut • Pacific Halibut
Sampling • Fresh or frozen fish was purchased at local markets and grocery stores • Small tissue samples were taken by students • Placed into vials in LifeScanner kit • Shipped to LifeScanner and sequenced by partner lab - the Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding, University of Guelph
Specimen DNA Barcoding Tissue Sample ExtractDNA Amplify DNA (PCR) Sequence DNA
DNA Barcoding Barcode sequences were then identified by comparing to the Barcode Of Life Data Systems: the global library for DNA Barcoding Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow/Steelhead Trout)
DNA Barcoding Results were transmitted to the LifeScanner App + Oncorhynchus mykiss(Rainbow/Steelhead Trout)
Results Overview – Spring 2017 • 278 samples were analyzed (18 had DNA that did not amplify) • 260 yielded a DNA barcode sequence (93% success) • 37 were removed due to bacterial or cross-contamination (will need more lab work) • 26 were removed due to incomplete information being submitted with sample 197 total to study for mislabelling
Results Overview – Spring 2017 Of the 197 sequenced fish samples: • ~4% (8 samples) were labelled with names not on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Fish List • ~9% (18 samples) were actually mislabelled fish ~13% of the fish samples had labelling errors!
Results Overview – Spring 2017 26 Mislabelled Samples True mislabelling Name non-conformity 18 samples The scientific name and the declared common name exist on CFIA fish list but do not match 7 samples The declared common name does not exist on CFIA fish list 3 samples The scientific name does not exist on CFIA fish list 2 samples Neither the common name nor the scientific name exist on CFIA fish list
True mislabeling: Salmon • Example: MOBIL3667-17 Market Label: Sockeye salmon DNA barcode match: Salmo salar (Atlantic Salmon or salmon) Atlantic Salmon (farmed): • Pollution depending on region farmed • Environmental impacts of farming practices • Health impacts • Economic impacts Male breeding Sockeye Salmon (Source: Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6248653 Atlantic Salmon (Source: Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19266403)
Name non-conformity • Example: MOBIL3782-17 Market Label: Wild Sole DNA barcode match: Lepidopsettapolyxystra • This name is not on CFIA fish list but it is the name for Northern Rock Sole (still a type of sole) • Lepidopsettapolyxystra • (Orr & Matarese, 2000 ) • (Source: www.fishbase.ca)
Name non-conformity • Example: MOBIL3736-17 Market label: Pink Salmon DNA barcode match: Oncorhynchus keta (Keta Salmon/Silverbrite Salmon/Chum Salmon). Still a type of salmon, but labelled incorrectly Source: public domain image on Wikimedia Commons
Name non-conformity Other examples of label issues: • Pacific Halibut versus Atlantic Halibut • Pacific Salmon versus Pink Salmon • Rockfish versus Perch • Halibut versus Pacific Halibut Halibut (top) and salmon (bottom) (Source: By gran (self) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
Thank you to all participating students and teachers! The project is ongoing – sign up now for the Fall 2017 Fish Market Survey on CurioCity https://explorecuriocity.org/Explore/ArticleId/4319/fish-market-survey.aspx
Supporters & Partners This project was made possible thanks to the following supporters & partners: