TIBTEC-1254; No. of Pages 6
Opinion
Seafood traceability: current needs, available tools, and biotechnological challenges for origin certification Miguel Costa Leal1, Taˆnia Pimentel1, Fernando Ricardo1, Rui Rosa2, and Ricardo Calado1 1
Departamento de Biologia & CESAM, Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universita´rio de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Laborato´rio Marı´timo da Guia, Faculdade de Cieˆncias da Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Nossa Senhora do Cabo, 939, 2750-374 Cascais, Portugal
2
Market globalization and recurring food safety alerts have resulted in a growing consumer awareness of the need for food traceability. This is particularly relevant for seafood due to its perishable nature and importance as a key protein source for the population of the world. Here, we provide an overview of the current needs for seafood origin traceability, along with the limitations and challenges for its implementation. We focus on geochemical, biochemical, and molecular tools and how they should be optimized to be implemented globally and to address our societal needs. We suggest that seafood traceability is key to enforcing food safety regulations and fisheries control, combat fraud, and fulfill present and future expectations of conscientious producers, consumers, and authorities. Seafood trade and safety The production of seafood (see Glossary) has been steadily growing over the past 5 decades, with notable growth of aquaculture over the past two decades, which accounted for 42% of global seafood production in 2012 [1]. This continuous growth of seafood production elicits pressing environmental, economic, and societal challenges [2], and has implications for managing an increasingly complex seafood trade. Seafood products are diverse in regard to the range of aquatic species considered as food, as well as the various methods currently used to process them. Seafood is the most traded food commodity in the world, even surpassing those from agriculture, such as rice, wheat, coffee, and sugar [3]. This is mainly due to the significant improvement of transportation, logistics, storage, and preservation technologies. Nevertheless, seafood trade still involves a complex supply chain, in which distribution is crucial due to the highly perishable nature of live and fresh seafood (Figure 1). Transport of seafood products occurs at different stages of Corresponding authors: Leal, M.C. ([email protected]); Calado, R. ([email protected]). Keywords: supply chain; food safety; geochemistry; biochemistry; molecular biology; certificate of origin. 0167-7799/ ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.03.003
the supply chain, particularly at the primary level between producers and first buyers or primary processors, and later in the supply chain between the distributor and the end consumer [4,5]. Moreover, several companies have started Glossary Biochemistry: science that studies the chemical processes associated with living organisms. Certificate of origin: document used in international trade that is certified by an issuing organization attesting that a given merchandise was obtained, produced, manufactured, or processed in a particular country or region. DNA barcoding: taxonomic method in molecular biology that uses a genetic DNA-based marker to identify an organism according to a preexisting classification. Fatty acids (FA): molecules that are long chains of lipid-carboxylic acid observed in fats and oils and in cell membranes. Geochemistry: science that uses chemical tools and principles to study geological systems and mechanisms. Microarrays: high-throughput molecular method for measuring the expression levels of a large number of genes at once, or for detecting polymorphisms and mutation in genomic DNA. Mislabeling: incorrect or misleading identification of traded species; it is a significant global seafood issue, which also refers to the incorrect labeling of country of origin, production method, and/or eco-labels. PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE): a form of gel electrophoresis that uses a denaturing agent; the template used in the electrophoresis is a PCR product. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR): a method in molecular biology that relies on thermal cycling and is used to amplify a piece of DNA across several orders of magnitude. Real-time PCR: molecular method that enables reliable detection and measurement of products generated during each cycle of the PCR process. Seafood: defined by the EU (regulation EC No 853/2004) as all seawater and freshwater animals (except for live bivalve molluscs, live echinoderms, live tunicates, and live marine gastropods, and all mammals, reptiles, and frogs) whether wild or farmed, and including all edible forms, parts, and products of such animals. Single Market: type of trade bloc that involves more than one nation and is based on a mutual agreement to facilitate the free movement of capital, labor, goods, and services; requires the coordination of social, fiscal, and monetary policies among participant nations. Specific primers: strand of nucleic acid used as a starting point for DNA synthesis during PCR that is specific to target region of the DNA. Supply chain: network of all the people, organizations, resources, activities, and technologies involved in creating and/or moving a product from the supplier to its delivery to the end consumer. Trace element fingerprinting (TEF): analysis of the composition and abundance of mineral elements (e.g., calcium, barium, magnesium, strontium, lead, etc.) that are present in the natural environment and are imprinted in mineral structures present in living organisms. Traceability: defined by the EU (OJ L 358) as the ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producing animal, or substance intended to be, or expected to be, incorporated into a food or feed, through all stages of production, processing, and distribution.
Trends in Biotechnology xx (2015) 1–6
1
TIBTEC-1254; No. of Pages 6
Opinion
Trends in Biotechnology xxx xxxx, Vol. xxx, No. x
Fisheries
Aquaculture
Feed Transshipment Transport
Secondary buyer/ Secondary processor
Transport
First buyer/Primary processor
Storage
Distributor
Food service
Restaurant
Retailer
Market
End consumer TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure 1. Schematic drawing summarizing the complexity of seafood supply chains and its many participants, from producers to the end consumer.
to outsource processing steps, such as filleting, to thirdparty countries, and sell the end product back at their point of origin or elsewhere [6]. Thus, for fishery products, this involves long paths from harvesting to consumption, and concomitant increases in food safety risks [7]. Consumer habits in developed countries have notably changed over the past decade. Consequently, food safety issues, especially in regard to health and ethics, are becoming increasingly important [1]. There is growing awareness, and concern, among end-users about knowing what they are buying and how, where, and when their seafood was harvested and/or produced. These concerns have been drivers for enacting legislation and developing reliable procedures to assess quality and safety requirements throughout the seafood supply chain. Food safety scandals, such as the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or the European horse meat debacles, have attracted considerable media and consumer attention and have further contributed to the implementation of tools that trace food items throughout the supply chain. The use of such tools in the seafood supply chain is also becoming a requirement in developed importer countries for safeguarding public health and demonstrating that the seafood originates from legal and sustainably managed fisheries or is cultured according to codes of good practices [1]. The aquaculture sector would also benefit from international standards and certification systems to promote socially and environmentally acceptable products and the development of policy frameworks that consider food safety needs in developing fishmeal and aquaculture industries [8]. 2
Seafood traceability Traceability is critical to guarantee the quality of food products and minimize food safety risks. If a contaminated product is detected on the global market, the information provided by traceability should make it possible to easily trace back the origin of the problem, thus facilitating the application of an effective contingency plan and clarification of responsibilities. Traceability also provides a product value guarantee that fulfills the demand of modern consumers for high-quality standards, which is particularly relevant for seafood products [9]. Seafood traceability may also promote the sustainable management of fisheries [10]. However, most fisheries worldwide are still unsustainable [11] and constitute a global problem that jeopardizes the natural balance of marine ecosystems and seafood supply for future generations [12]. Another recurrent issue in seafood trade is fraudulent mislabeling of product origin, which can be easily addressed with an operational and validated traceability system [13–16]. Such geographic traceability procedures would be paramount to demonstrate that a particular seafood product was legally caught, which could ultimately contribute to minimizing fraud and improving fisheries management. The European Union (EU) and USA are among the top seafood consumers per capita [1], which may explain their efforts to reduce supply chain risks and improve food safety and quality through regulatory requirements launched in 2002 (EU directive 178/2002 [17] and the US Bioterrorism and Response Act [18]). It is acknowledged that, within the international food trade, there is an increased understanding of traceability concerns and a commitment to improve traceability, which would also contribute to minimizing illegal and unreported fisheries [19]. This is particularly notable for the EU, because it currently has superior seafood traceability regulations and requirements compared with the top countries within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [20]. However, a new integrated approach will be required to deal with the incorporation of national economies into the Single Market and the increasing complexity of the seafood supply chain (Figure 1) brought about by developments in seafood processing and new distribution patterns. A recent study on seafood traceability regulations and requirements enforced in several countries concluded that seafood traceability is still facing serious challenges and noted a lack of information on routine audits of traceability practices [20]. The implementation of seafood traceability regulations is also problematical for addressing issues associated with certificate of origin, especially when seafood products are imported from developing countries. Nevertheless, EU legislation has specific requirements for seafood traceability. Particularly, article 58 of EC 1224/2009 requires that ‘all lots of fisheries and aquaculture products shall be traceable at all stages of production, processing and distribution, from catching or harvesting to retail stage’. More recently, the European regulation (EC) No 1379/2013 ‘on the common organization of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products’ further contributes to the implementation of seafood traceability. For instance, this regulation requires that the category of fishing gear or
TIBTEC-1254; No. of Pages 6
Opinion
Trends in Biotechnology xxx xxxx, Vol. xxx, No. x
production method (i.e., caught or farmed) is provided, together with geographical detail on the catch area. Similarly, the US legislation (Section 10816 of the 2002 Farm Bill) also requires that all seafood products display their country of origin and production method. However, and in contrast to the EU (EC No 1379/2013), US legislation does not specifically apply to processed items (e.g., cooked, smoked, or cured). In January 2015, the US Administration announced the Recommendations of the Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud (Billing code 3510-22-P), in which a traceability program is suggested. After implementation, this program expects to provide information on the harvesting vessel, fishing gear, species name, form, and quantity of the product, and the location and date of both harvest and offload, as already done in the EU. Despite this development of the legal framework of seafood traceability, its implementation is still facing challenges [20]. Traceability of certified products could be maintained using relatively straightforward handling and record-keeping procedures [1]. By contrast, competent authorities still lack cost-effective ready-to-use methods that enable the thorough implementation of validation procedures to address seafood certification of origin. Nonetheless, there have been notable biotechnological advances that can have direct application to the geographic traceability of seafood. Biotechnological tools for seafood traceability The use of food traceability mechanisms, such as biotechnological tools for authentication or origin certification of food products, is becoming increasingly important in the food sector, in particular for seafood [14–16,21]. Different methods have been developed for, and applied to, seafood traceability (Table 1). Geochemical tools, particularly trace element fingerprinting (TEF), allow the distinction of populations or stocks using the elemental profile of mineral structures, such as mollusk shells (Figure 2A), invertebrate statoliths, and fish otoliths [22,23]. Given that these mineral structures grow throughout the year and their compositions are affected by local environmental conditions, TEF appears to be a reliable and accurate method to distinguish specimens from geographically close populations [24–26].
Furthermore, TEF is also a relatively fast and low-cost method compared with biochemical and molecular tools (Table 1). The main limitation of TEF is the need for hardmineralized structures to be present in the products that are to be screened. This limits the scope of geochemical methods to particular groups of organism and, most importantly, impairs their application to a range of processed products, such as canned food and fish fillets, that have been previously cleaned from shells or fish bones. Lipid analysis has traditionally been important in biology and chemistry because lipids are essential components of cells and tissues membranes. Lipids are also important sources of metabolic energy, with an important role in the physiology and reproductive processes of aquatic organisms [27]. Consequently, lipids have been used as biomarkers of biochemical and ecological environmental conditions [28]. Fatty acids (FA) are a diverse group of lipids and their composition is affected by several intrinsic (e.g., age, sex, reproductive cycle, and phylogeny) and extrinsic (e.g., diet, temperature, depth, and salinity) factors. Extrinsic factors are particularly useful for geographical traceability, because the FA composition contributes to the regulation of cell membranes fluidity that is known to adjust to the physicochemical conditions of each particular environment [29]. Moreover, the diet available for aquatic organisms varies with habitat and ecosystem, thus ultimately affecting FA composition of the organism [30,31]. Consequently, FA composition is useful for distinguishing species or production methods, because wild-caught and aquaculture organisms have contrasting feeding regimes. Although the characterization of dietary FA may be useful for traceability purposes, food availability also varies seasonally in most aquatic environments [32]. This may be a major drawback when comparing tissue samples collected in different seasons for geographic traceability (Box 1). To minimize the effect of seasonality associated with diet, it is important to use tissues, such as the adductor muscle of bivalves (Figure 2A), that are rich in polar lipids and, thus, are less prone to shifts due to feeding regimes [33,34]. This approach is also relatively low cost and fast once the FA extraction and quantification protocol has been optimized. One of the main constraints of biochemical analysis is that lipids are susceptible to oxidation, which impedes the monitoring of lipids in processed products (Table 1).
Table 1. Pros and cons of biotechnological tools (analysis of trace elements, FA, and DNA) for seafood geographical traceability (origin and/or production method) Tool Analysis of trace elements (e.g., TEF)
Analysis of FA
Analysis of DNA (e.g., PCR-specific primers, real-time PCR, PCR-DGGE, barcoding, or microarrays)
Pros Low cost Fast No post-harvesting shift and/or degradation Relatively simple methodology Low cost Fast Relatively simple methodology Highly sensitive and accurate Species specific
Cons Cannot be applied in processed products or those with no mineral structures
Cannot be applied in all processed products Lipids are susceptible to oxidation
Complex methodologies DNA susceptible to degradation Time consuming Cannot be applied to all processed products Does not distinguish specimens from geographically close populations 3
TIBTEC-1254; No. of Pages 6
Opinion
Trends in Biotechnology xxx xxxx, Vol. xxx, No. x
mostly for species identification [40–42]. DNA-based methods are still unable to differentiate between organisms of the same species that are from geographically close populations due to gene flow between such populations [43,44]. Although DNA-based tools are probably the most accurate due to the advances in molecular biology over the past decade, their use still involves significant costs, compared with elemental and lipid analysis. However, prices of molecular equipment and reagents are continuously decreasing and so it is likely that such tools will become more economical to use in the future. At present, it is our opinion that geochemical tools, particularly TEF, are the most suitable to address seafood origin certification, because there is no post-harvesting shift and/or degradation associated with bacterial action as recorded for biochemical and DNA tools. However, TEF cannot be applied to processed food or organisms without mineral structures. Molecular tools are still being developed with notable improvements every year (e.g., [45]) and, therefore, we anticipate that future research will largely target PCR-based tools. Moreover, a greater understanding of how geochemical, biochemical, and DNA signatures are preserved throughout the food supply chain will enable the development and implementation of a better traceability system (Box 1).
(A)
(B)
TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure 2. Sampling seafood for geographic traceability. (A) Sampling tissue from cockles (Cerastoderma edule) for biochemical analysis and from its shell for geochemical analysis. (B) Non-invasive and nondestructive sampling of mucus from sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) for molecular analysis of its microbial community. Reproduced, with permission, from Pedro Farias.
Molecular methods currently used in traceability systems rely on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for DNA amplification [13,14,16,35]. PCR is a sensitive method that provides a product for several other molecular techniques [e.g., PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and next-generation sequencing]. The selection of the most suitable molecular approach depends on the question being addressed. For instance, PCR-DGGE of bacterial communities living on the tissue of seafood products (Figure 2B) has been the molecular tool most widely used thus far for the determination of geographical origin [36–38]. The rationale for this method is that different bacterial communities are associated with organisms from different geographical locations. Although PCR-DGGE has yet to be used for processed seafood, it has already proved to be a reliable tool for monitoring fresh seafood products [39]. DNA barcoding has also been extensively used, but
Box 1. Outstanding questions Are biotechnological tools accurate regardless of environmental variability? Are traceability tools accurate throughout the seafood supply chain? Can science-driven tools be applied and implemented on a dailybasis routine? 4
Implementation Despite the recent advances in legal frameworks addressing seafood traceability and the biotechnological tools that may help to enact this legislation, to the best of our knowledge, their implementation by competent authorities is still poorly developed. Nevertheless, EU legislation (EC No 1379/2013) indicates that ‘for the purpose of consumer protection, competent national authorities (. . .) should make full use of available technology, including DNAtesting, in order to deter operators from falsely labeling catches’. Current seafood traceability procedures are limited to record-keeping methodologies implemented by legitimate suppliers, processors, packers, and traders. However, competent authorities do not yet have effective and accurate tools to assess and/or validate origin certifications claimed by fishermen, producers, or traders. It is important to note that different players in the supply chain, as well as legal authorities, can have different needs and requirements for traceability tools, which may consequently affect their implementation. The implementation of traceability tools by players in the supply chain (e.g., fishermen, producers, and traders) is still suffering from technical and motivational challenges [1,46]. Some companies are already moving from paperbased traceability systems to automated data collection, with new tools available for tracing food products throughout the supply chain [46]. However, geochemical, biochemical, and/or molecular tools, which are already available and may be important for present and near-future needs for certification of origin, may not be implemented unless new methodological guidelines for certification are established. Additionally, traceability tools may be used for product differentiation. For instance, different suppliers selling the same product (e.g., sea bass cultured in farm A or farm B) may be able to differentiate their product if a
TIBTEC-1254; No. of Pages 6
Opinion reliable biotechnological method is used for certification of origin. Such tools may also be critical to denounce the abuse of certification of origin by dishonest fishermen, producers, or traders. Furthermore, a seafood producer that uses sustainable methods, such as organic aquaculture, will be able to differentiate the production or harvesting method using scientifically validated tools. The implementation of biotechnological tools for origin certification by competent authorities is a challenging task that is still in its infancy. Geochemical, biochemical, and molecular traceability tools require lab work and expert knowledge and are far from being an off-the-shelf toolbox for in situ application at different trading locations throughout the supply chain (Figure 1). Consequently, competent authorities have to invest in logistical and manpower assets to perform the lab work and analyses or outsource this work to certified laboratories. Both options have high financial costs, which are only justified if the legal framework requires such traceability protocols and, more importantly, if consumers demand and acknowledge the importance of such traceability information. Under this paradigm, it is critical that the information available to consumers is expanded to foster their confidence in food safety. Ultimately, this requires increased education efforts to help consumers understand the importance of traceability protocols in highly perishable products, such as seafood. It is our opinion that current methodological limitations (Table 1) will be overcome by further development of the biotechnological tools currently available. The perfect tool to trace seafood products should be fast, simple, cheap, and reliable so that it can be widely applied without major financial burdens and logistical restrictions. Moreover, it must successfully assist in the fight against fraud, as well as illegal, unreported, and unregulated fisheries. Currently, while the ‘perfect tool’ has yet to be developed and validated, the best approach is likely the combined use of multiple tools that complement each other to maximize their accuracy and reliability [4]. Future implementation of traceability protocols for origin certification should avoid past mistakes and capitalize on previous successes recorded in the implementation of similar methods. For instance, routine analysis addressing mislabeling of seafood products is becoming more frequent in various countries. However, the use of different methods, the inconsistency of reference data, and the lack of standardization in testing between laboratories may lead to inconsistent results across countries [35,47] and, ultimately, affect the credibility of these procedures. Concluding remarks and future perspectives The seafood industry is growing rapidly and has been notably boosted by the input of aquaculture. Simultaneously, the increasing awareness and concern of consumers are driving authorities to enforce legislation and develop reliable procedures to verify the authenticity of claims issued by seafood traders. Biotechnological developments have been observed, but further optimization of available tools is still needed to maximize their global implementation at any time point throughout the seafood supply chain and, ultimately, address societal needs
Trends in Biotechnology xxx xxxx, Vol. xxx, No. x
(Box 1). Besides their use for geographical seafood traceability, further development of these tools may also contribute to the assessment of fishing or production practices, processing methods, transport conditions, and store shelftime. Finally, seafood traceability data will certainly provide key information for the better management of fish stocks, which is critical in view of current overfishing practices for food and for feed [48]. Acknowledgments M.C.L., T.P., and F.R. were supported by PhD scholarships (SFRH/BD/ 63783/2009, SFRH/BD/51041/2010 and SFRH/BD/84263/2012, respectively) funded by the Fundac¸a˜o para a Cieˆncia e Tecnologia (QRENPOPH-Type 4.1 – Advanced training, subsidized by the European Social Fund and national funds MEC). This work was supported by PROMAR, a Portuguese instrument for the sectors of fisheries and aquaculture funded by the European Fisheries Fund, within the research project RASTREMAR – Use of molecular tools in the traceability of marine food products (PROMAR 31-03-05-FEP-0015), and by National Funds through the Portuguese Science Foundation within project PEst-C/MAR/LA0017/ 2013. The authors acknowledge two anonymous reviewers for the important comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript.
References 1 FAO (2014) The State of World Fisheris and Aquaculture: Opportunities and Challenges, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2 Cao, L. et al. (2015) China’s aquaculture and the world’s wild fisheries. Science 347, 133–135 3 Asche, F. (2014) Exchange Rates and the Seafood Trade, FAO/ GLOBEFISH 4 Parren˜o-Marchante, A. et al. (2014) Advanced traceability system in aquaculture supply chain. J. Food Eng. 122, 99–109 5 Aung, M.M. and Chang, Y.S. (2014) Traceability in a food supply chain: safety and quality perspectives. Food Control 39, 172–184 6 Stringer, C. et al. (2011) Shifting post production patterns: exploring changes in New Zealand’s seafood processing industry. N. Z. Geog. 67, 161–173 7 Fleming, A. et al. (2014) Climate change risks and adaptation options across Australian seafood supply chains – a preleminary assessment. Climate Risk Manag. 1, 39–50 8 Lazarda, J. et al. (2014) Assessing aquaculture sustainability: a comparative methodology. Int. J. Sustainable Dev. World Ecol. 21, 503–511 9 Pieniak, Z. et al. (2013) Consumer knwoledge and use of information about fish and aquaculture. Food Policy 40, 25–30 10 Helyar, S.J. et al. (2014) Fish product mislabelling: failings of traceability in the production chain and implications for illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. PLoS ONE 9, e98691 11 Worm, B. et al. (2009) Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325, 578–585 12 McCauley, D.J. et al. (2015) Marine defaunation: animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347, 1255641 13 Galimberti, A. et al. (2013) DNA barcoding as a new tool for food traceability. Food Res. Int. 50, 55–63 14 Teletchea, F. (2009) Molecular identification methods of fish species: reassessment and possible applications. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries 19, 265–293 15 Armani, A. et al. (2012) Fish fraud: The DNA challenge. Anim. Sci. Rev. 227, 227–239 16 Rasmussen, R.S. and Morrissey, M.T. (2008) DNA-based methods for the identification of commercial fish and seafood species. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 7, 280–295 17 European Comission (2002) Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council. pp. L31/31 – L31/24, Official Journal of the European Communities 18 FDA (2002) The U.S. Bioterroristm Act of 2002, US FDA 19 Pramod, G. et al. (2014) Estimates of illegal and unreported fish in seafood imports to the USA. Mar. Policy 48, 102–113 20 Charlebois, S. et al. (2014) Comparison of global food traceabiilty regulations and requirements. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 13, 1104–1123 5
TIBTEC-1254; No. of Pages 6
Opinion 21 Ayala-Zavala, J.F. et al. (2014) Nanotechnology tools to achieve food safety. In Practical Food Safety: Contemporary Issues and Future Directions (Bhat, V. and Go´mez–Lo´pez, V.M., eds), pp. 341–353, John Wiley & Sons 22 Carson, H.S. et al. (2013) Temporal, spatial, and interspecific variation in geochemical signatures within gish otoliths, bivalve larval shells, and crustacean larvae. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 473, 133–148 23 Reis-Santos, P. et al. (2012) Temporal variability in estuarine fish otolith elemental fingerprints: implications for connectivity assessments. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 112, 216–224 24 Sorte, C.J.B. et al. (2013) Elemental fingerprinting of mussel shells to predict population sources and redistribution potential in the Gulf of Maine. PLoS ONE 8, e80868 25 D’Avignon, G. and Rose, G.A. (2013) Otolith elemental fingerprints distinguish Atlantic cod spawning areas in Newfoundland and Labrador. Fish. Res. 147, 1–9 26 Broadaway, B.J. and Hannigan, R.E. (2012) Elemental fingerprints used to identify essential habitats: Nantucket Bay Scallop. J. Shellfish Res. 31, 671–676 27 Arts, M. et al. (2009) Lipids in Aquatic Ecosystems, Springer 28 Berge´, J-P. and Barnathan, G. (2005) Fatty acids from lipids of marine organisms: molecular biodiversity, roles as biomarkers, biologically active compounds, and economical aspects. Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol. 96, 49–125 29 Hall, J.M. et al. (2002) Eicosapentaenoic acid regulates scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) membrane fluidity in response to cold. Biol. Bull. 202, 201–203 30 Gonzalez, L. et al. (2010) Bioenergetics of small pelagics in upwelling systems: relationship between fish condition, coastal ecosystem dynamics and fisheries. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 410, 205–218 31 Kelly, J. and Scheibling, R. (2012) Fatty acids as dietary tracers in benthic food webs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 446, 1–22 32 Ezgeta-Balic´, D. et al. (2012) Seasonal fatty acid profile analysis to trace origin of food sources of four commercially important bivalves. Aquaculture 334–337, 89–100 33 Grahl-Nielsen, O. et al. (2010) Fatty acid composition in adductor muscle of juvenil scallops (Pecten maximus) from five Norwegian populations reared in the same environment. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 38, 478–488 34 Olsen, B.R. et al. (2009) Population study of Astarte sulcata, da Costa, 1778 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) from two Norwegian fjords based on the fatty acid composition of the adductor muscle. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 37, 662–669
6
Trends in Biotechnology xxx xxxx, Vol. xxx, No. x
35 Herrero, B. et al. (2010) Rapid identification of seaweeds in food products by PCR combined with ALF-RFLP and FINS methodologies. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58, 11586–11592 36 Tatsadjieu, N.L. et al. (2010) Study of the microbial diversity of Oreochromis niloticus of three lakes of Cameroon by PCR-DGGE: application to the determination of the geographical origin. Food Control 21, 673–678 37 Montet, D. et al. (2008) Application of PCR-DGGE in determining food origin: cases studies of fish and fruits. Asp. Appl. Biol. 87, 11–22 38 Le Nguyen, D.D. et al. (2008) Determination of fish origin by using 16S rDNA fingerprinting of bacterial communities by PCR-DGGE: an application on Pangasius fish from Viet Nam. Food Control 19, 454–460 39 Hovda, M.B. et al. (2007) Characterization of the dominant bacterial population in modified atmosphere packaged farmed halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) based on 16S rDNA-DGGE. Food Microbiol. 24, 362–371 40 Di Pinto, A. et al. (2013) DNA barcoding for detecting market substitution in salted cod fillets and battered cod chunks. Food Chem. 141, 1757–1762 41 Armani, A. et al. (2015) DNA and Mini-DNA barcoding for the identification of Porgies species (family Sparidae) of commercial interest on the international market. Food Control 50, 589–596 42 Carvalho, D.C. et al. (2015) DNA Barcoding identification of commercialized seafood in South Brazil: a governamental regulatory forensic program. Food Control 50, 784–788 43 Calve`s, I. et al. (2013) Genetic structure of European flounder Platichthys flesus: effect of both the southern limit of the species’ range and chemical stress. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 472, 257–273 44 Coscia, I. et al. (2013) Modelled larval dispersal and measured gene flow: seascape genetics of the common cockle Cerastoderma edule in the southern Irish Sea. Conserv. Genet. 14, 451–466 45 Ulrich, R.M. et al. (2015) A handheld sensor assay for the identification of grouper as a safeguard against seafood mislabelling fraud. Food Control 53, 81–90 46 Donnelly, K.A-M. and Olsen, P. (2012) Catch to landing traceability and the effects of implementation – a case study from the Norwegian white fish sector. Food Control 27, 228–233 47 Turchini, G.M. et al. (2009) Traceability and discriminating among differently farmed fish: a case study on Australian murray cod. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57, 274–281 48 Griffiths, A.M. et al. (2014) Current methods for seafood authenticity testing in Europe: is there a need for harmonisation? Food Control 45, 1–6
Opinion
Seafood traceability: current needs, available tools, and biotechnological challenges for origin certification Miguel Costa Leal1, Taˆnia Pimentel1, Fernando Ricardo1, Rui Rosa2, and Ricardo Calado1 1
Departamento de Biologia & CESAM, Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universita´rio de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Laborato´rio Marı´timo da Guia, Faculdade de Cieˆncias da Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Nossa Senhora do Cabo, 939, 2750-374 Cascais, Portugal
2
Market globalization and recurring food safety alerts have resulted in a growing consumer awareness of the need for food traceability. This is particularly relevant for seafood due to its perishable nature and importance as a key protein source for the population of the world. Here, we provide an overview of the current needs for seafood origin traceability, along with the limitations and challenges for its implementation. We focus on geochemical, biochemical, and molecular tools and how they should be optimized to be implemented globally and to address our societal needs. We suggest that seafood traceability is key to enforcing food safety regulations and fisheries control, combat fraud, and fulfill present and future expectations of conscientious producers, consumers, and authorities. Seafood trade and safety The production of seafood (see Glossary) has been steadily growing over the past 5 decades, with notable growth of aquaculture over the past two decades, which accounted for 42% of global seafood production in 2012 [1]. This continuous growth of seafood production elicits pressing environmental, economic, and societal challenges [2], and has implications for managing an increasingly complex seafood trade. Seafood products are diverse in regard to the range of aquatic species considered as food, as well as the various methods currently used to process them. Seafood is the most traded food commodity in the world, even surpassing those from agriculture, such as rice, wheat, coffee, and sugar [3]. This is mainly due to the significant improvement of transportation, logistics, storage, and preservation technologies. Nevertheless, seafood trade still involves a complex supply chain, in which distribution is crucial due to the highly perishable nature of live and fresh seafood (Figure 1). Transport of seafood products occurs at different stages of Corresponding authors: Leal, M.C. ([email protected]); Calado, R. ([email protected]). Keywords: supply chain; food safety; geochemistry; biochemistry; molecular biology; certificate of origin. 0167-7799/ ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.03.003
the supply chain, particularly at the primary level between producers and first buyers or primary processors, and later in the supply chain between the distributor and the end consumer [4,5]. Moreover, several companies have started Glossary Biochemistry: science that studies the chemical processes associated with living organisms. Certificate of origin: document used in international trade that is certified by an issuing organization attesting that a given merchandise was obtained, produced, manufactured, or processed in a particular country or region. DNA barcoding: taxonomic method in molecular biology that uses a genetic DNA-based marker to identify an organism according to a preexisting classification. Fatty acids (FA): molecules that are long chains of lipid-carboxylic acid observed in fats and oils and in cell membranes. Geochemistry: science that uses chemical tools and principles to study geological systems and mechanisms. Microarrays: high-throughput molecular method for measuring the expression levels of a large number of genes at once, or for detecting polymorphisms and mutation in genomic DNA. Mislabeling: incorrect or misleading identification of traded species; it is a significant global seafood issue, which also refers to the incorrect labeling of country of origin, production method, and/or eco-labels. PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE): a form of gel electrophoresis that uses a denaturing agent; the template used in the electrophoresis is a PCR product. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR): a method in molecular biology that relies on thermal cycling and is used to amplify a piece of DNA across several orders of magnitude. Real-time PCR: molecular method that enables reliable detection and measurement of products generated during each cycle of the PCR process. Seafood: defined by the EU (regulation EC No 853/2004) as all seawater and freshwater animals (except for live bivalve molluscs, live echinoderms, live tunicates, and live marine gastropods, and all mammals, reptiles, and frogs) whether wild or farmed, and including all edible forms, parts, and products of such animals. Single Market: type of trade bloc that involves more than one nation and is based on a mutual agreement to facilitate the free movement of capital, labor, goods, and services; requires the coordination of social, fiscal, and monetary policies among participant nations. Specific primers: strand of nucleic acid used as a starting point for DNA synthesis during PCR that is specific to target region of the DNA. Supply chain: network of all the people, organizations, resources, activities, and technologies involved in creating and/or moving a product from the supplier to its delivery to the end consumer. Trace element fingerprinting (TEF): analysis of the composition and abundance of mineral elements (e.g., calcium, barium, magnesium, strontium, lead, etc.) that are present in the natural environment and are imprinted in mineral structures present in living organisms. Traceability: defined by the EU (OJ L 358) as the ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producing animal, or substance intended to be, or expected to be, incorporated into a food or feed, through all stages of production, processing, and distribution.
Trends in Biotechnology xx (2015) 1–6
1
TIBTEC-1254; No. of Pages 6
Opinion
Trends in Biotechnology xxx xxxx, Vol. xxx, No. x
Fisheries
Aquaculture
Feed Transshipment Transport
Secondary buyer/ Secondary processor
Transport
First buyer/Primary processor
Storage
Distributor
Food service
Restaurant
Retailer
Market
End consumer TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure 1. Schematic drawing summarizing the complexity of seafood supply chains and its many participants, from producers to the end consumer.
to outsource processing steps, such as filleting, to thirdparty countries, and sell the end product back at their point of origin or elsewhere [6]. Thus, for fishery products, this involves long paths from harvesting to consumption, and concomitant increases in food safety risks [7]. Consumer habits in developed countries have notably changed over the past decade. Consequently, food safety issues, especially in regard to health and ethics, are becoming increasingly important [1]. There is growing awareness, and concern, among end-users about knowing what they are buying and how, where, and when their seafood was harvested and/or produced. These concerns have been drivers for enacting legislation and developing reliable procedures to assess quality and safety requirements throughout the seafood supply chain. Food safety scandals, such as the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or the European horse meat debacles, have attracted considerable media and consumer attention and have further contributed to the implementation of tools that trace food items throughout the supply chain. The use of such tools in the seafood supply chain is also becoming a requirement in developed importer countries for safeguarding public health and demonstrating that the seafood originates from legal and sustainably managed fisheries or is cultured according to codes of good practices [1]. The aquaculture sector would also benefit from international standards and certification systems to promote socially and environmentally acceptable products and the development of policy frameworks that consider food safety needs in developing fishmeal and aquaculture industries [8]. 2
Seafood traceability Traceability is critical to guarantee the quality of food products and minimize food safety risks. If a contaminated product is detected on the global market, the information provided by traceability should make it possible to easily trace back the origin of the problem, thus facilitating the application of an effective contingency plan and clarification of responsibilities. Traceability also provides a product value guarantee that fulfills the demand of modern consumers for high-quality standards, which is particularly relevant for seafood products [9]. Seafood traceability may also promote the sustainable management of fisheries [10]. However, most fisheries worldwide are still unsustainable [11] and constitute a global problem that jeopardizes the natural balance of marine ecosystems and seafood supply for future generations [12]. Another recurrent issue in seafood trade is fraudulent mislabeling of product origin, which can be easily addressed with an operational and validated traceability system [13–16]. Such geographic traceability procedures would be paramount to demonstrate that a particular seafood product was legally caught, which could ultimately contribute to minimizing fraud and improving fisheries management. The European Union (EU) and USA are among the top seafood consumers per capita [1], which may explain their efforts to reduce supply chain risks and improve food safety and quality through regulatory requirements launched in 2002 (EU directive 178/2002 [17] and the US Bioterrorism and Response Act [18]). It is acknowledged that, within the international food trade, there is an increased understanding of traceability concerns and a commitment to improve traceability, which would also contribute to minimizing illegal and unreported fisheries [19]. This is particularly notable for the EU, because it currently has superior seafood traceability regulations and requirements compared with the top countries within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [20]. However, a new integrated approach will be required to deal with the incorporation of national economies into the Single Market and the increasing complexity of the seafood supply chain (Figure 1) brought about by developments in seafood processing and new distribution patterns. A recent study on seafood traceability regulations and requirements enforced in several countries concluded that seafood traceability is still facing serious challenges and noted a lack of information on routine audits of traceability practices [20]. The implementation of seafood traceability regulations is also problematical for addressing issues associated with certificate of origin, especially when seafood products are imported from developing countries. Nevertheless, EU legislation has specific requirements for seafood traceability. Particularly, article 58 of EC 1224/2009 requires that ‘all lots of fisheries and aquaculture products shall be traceable at all stages of production, processing and distribution, from catching or harvesting to retail stage’. More recently, the European regulation (EC) No 1379/2013 ‘on the common organization of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products’ further contributes to the implementation of seafood traceability. For instance, this regulation requires that the category of fishing gear or
TIBTEC-1254; No. of Pages 6
Opinion
Trends in Biotechnology xxx xxxx, Vol. xxx, No. x
production method (i.e., caught or farmed) is provided, together with geographical detail on the catch area. Similarly, the US legislation (Section 10816 of the 2002 Farm Bill) also requires that all seafood products display their country of origin and production method. However, and in contrast to the EU (EC No 1379/2013), US legislation does not specifically apply to processed items (e.g., cooked, smoked, or cured). In January 2015, the US Administration announced the Recommendations of the Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud (Billing code 3510-22-P), in which a traceability program is suggested. After implementation, this program expects to provide information on the harvesting vessel, fishing gear, species name, form, and quantity of the product, and the location and date of both harvest and offload, as already done in the EU. Despite this development of the legal framework of seafood traceability, its implementation is still facing challenges [20]. Traceability of certified products could be maintained using relatively straightforward handling and record-keeping procedures [1]. By contrast, competent authorities still lack cost-effective ready-to-use methods that enable the thorough implementation of validation procedures to address seafood certification of origin. Nonetheless, there have been notable biotechnological advances that can have direct application to the geographic traceability of seafood. Biotechnological tools for seafood traceability The use of food traceability mechanisms, such as biotechnological tools for authentication or origin certification of food products, is becoming increasingly important in the food sector, in particular for seafood [14–16,21]. Different methods have been developed for, and applied to, seafood traceability (Table 1). Geochemical tools, particularly trace element fingerprinting (TEF), allow the distinction of populations or stocks using the elemental profile of mineral structures, such as mollusk shells (Figure 2A), invertebrate statoliths, and fish otoliths [22,23]. Given that these mineral structures grow throughout the year and their compositions are affected by local environmental conditions, TEF appears to be a reliable and accurate method to distinguish specimens from geographically close populations [24–26].
Furthermore, TEF is also a relatively fast and low-cost method compared with biochemical and molecular tools (Table 1). The main limitation of TEF is the need for hardmineralized structures to be present in the products that are to be screened. This limits the scope of geochemical methods to particular groups of organism and, most importantly, impairs their application to a range of processed products, such as canned food and fish fillets, that have been previously cleaned from shells or fish bones. Lipid analysis has traditionally been important in biology and chemistry because lipids are essential components of cells and tissues membranes. Lipids are also important sources of metabolic energy, with an important role in the physiology and reproductive processes of aquatic organisms [27]. Consequently, lipids have been used as biomarkers of biochemical and ecological environmental conditions [28]. Fatty acids (FA) are a diverse group of lipids and their composition is affected by several intrinsic (e.g., age, sex, reproductive cycle, and phylogeny) and extrinsic (e.g., diet, temperature, depth, and salinity) factors. Extrinsic factors are particularly useful for geographical traceability, because the FA composition contributes to the regulation of cell membranes fluidity that is known to adjust to the physicochemical conditions of each particular environment [29]. Moreover, the diet available for aquatic organisms varies with habitat and ecosystem, thus ultimately affecting FA composition of the organism [30,31]. Consequently, FA composition is useful for distinguishing species or production methods, because wild-caught and aquaculture organisms have contrasting feeding regimes. Although the characterization of dietary FA may be useful for traceability purposes, food availability also varies seasonally in most aquatic environments [32]. This may be a major drawback when comparing tissue samples collected in different seasons for geographic traceability (Box 1). To minimize the effect of seasonality associated with diet, it is important to use tissues, such as the adductor muscle of bivalves (Figure 2A), that are rich in polar lipids and, thus, are less prone to shifts due to feeding regimes [33,34]. This approach is also relatively low cost and fast once the FA extraction and quantification protocol has been optimized. One of the main constraints of biochemical analysis is that lipids are susceptible to oxidation, which impedes the monitoring of lipids in processed products (Table 1).
Table 1. Pros and cons of biotechnological tools (analysis of trace elements, FA, and DNA) for seafood geographical traceability (origin and/or production method) Tool Analysis of trace elements (e.g., TEF)
Analysis of FA
Analysis of DNA (e.g., PCR-specific primers, real-time PCR, PCR-DGGE, barcoding, or microarrays)
Pros Low cost Fast No post-harvesting shift and/or degradation Relatively simple methodology Low cost Fast Relatively simple methodology Highly sensitive and accurate Species specific
Cons Cannot be applied in processed products or those with no mineral structures
Cannot be applied in all processed products Lipids are susceptible to oxidation
Complex methodologies DNA susceptible to degradation Time consuming Cannot be applied to all processed products Does not distinguish specimens from geographically close populations 3
TIBTEC-1254; No. of Pages 6
Opinion
Trends in Biotechnology xxx xxxx, Vol. xxx, No. x
mostly for species identification [40–42]. DNA-based methods are still unable to differentiate between organisms of the same species that are from geographically close populations due to gene flow between such populations [43,44]. Although DNA-based tools are probably the most accurate due to the advances in molecular biology over the past decade, their use still involves significant costs, compared with elemental and lipid analysis. However, prices of molecular equipment and reagents are continuously decreasing and so it is likely that such tools will become more economical to use in the future. At present, it is our opinion that geochemical tools, particularly TEF, are the most suitable to address seafood origin certification, because there is no post-harvesting shift and/or degradation associated with bacterial action as recorded for biochemical and DNA tools. However, TEF cannot be applied to processed food or organisms without mineral structures. Molecular tools are still being developed with notable improvements every year (e.g., [45]) and, therefore, we anticipate that future research will largely target PCR-based tools. Moreover, a greater understanding of how geochemical, biochemical, and DNA signatures are preserved throughout the food supply chain will enable the development and implementation of a better traceability system (Box 1).
(A)
(B)
TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure 2. Sampling seafood for geographic traceability. (A) Sampling tissue from cockles (Cerastoderma edule) for biochemical analysis and from its shell for geochemical analysis. (B) Non-invasive and nondestructive sampling of mucus from sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) for molecular analysis of its microbial community. Reproduced, with permission, from Pedro Farias.
Molecular methods currently used in traceability systems rely on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for DNA amplification [13,14,16,35]. PCR is a sensitive method that provides a product for several other molecular techniques [e.g., PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and next-generation sequencing]. The selection of the most suitable molecular approach depends on the question being addressed. For instance, PCR-DGGE of bacterial communities living on the tissue of seafood products (Figure 2B) has been the molecular tool most widely used thus far for the determination of geographical origin [36–38]. The rationale for this method is that different bacterial communities are associated with organisms from different geographical locations. Although PCR-DGGE has yet to be used for processed seafood, it has already proved to be a reliable tool for monitoring fresh seafood products [39]. DNA barcoding has also been extensively used, but
Box 1. Outstanding questions Are biotechnological tools accurate regardless of environmental variability? Are traceability tools accurate throughout the seafood supply chain? Can science-driven tools be applied and implemented on a dailybasis routine? 4
Implementation Despite the recent advances in legal frameworks addressing seafood traceability and the biotechnological tools that may help to enact this legislation, to the best of our knowledge, their implementation by competent authorities is still poorly developed. Nevertheless, EU legislation (EC No 1379/2013) indicates that ‘for the purpose of consumer protection, competent national authorities (. . .) should make full use of available technology, including DNAtesting, in order to deter operators from falsely labeling catches’. Current seafood traceability procedures are limited to record-keeping methodologies implemented by legitimate suppliers, processors, packers, and traders. However, competent authorities do not yet have effective and accurate tools to assess and/or validate origin certifications claimed by fishermen, producers, or traders. It is important to note that different players in the supply chain, as well as legal authorities, can have different needs and requirements for traceability tools, which may consequently affect their implementation. The implementation of traceability tools by players in the supply chain (e.g., fishermen, producers, and traders) is still suffering from technical and motivational challenges [1,46]. Some companies are already moving from paperbased traceability systems to automated data collection, with new tools available for tracing food products throughout the supply chain [46]. However, geochemical, biochemical, and/or molecular tools, which are already available and may be important for present and near-future needs for certification of origin, may not be implemented unless new methodological guidelines for certification are established. Additionally, traceability tools may be used for product differentiation. For instance, different suppliers selling the same product (e.g., sea bass cultured in farm A or farm B) may be able to differentiate their product if a
TIBTEC-1254; No. of Pages 6
Opinion reliable biotechnological method is used for certification of origin. Such tools may also be critical to denounce the abuse of certification of origin by dishonest fishermen, producers, or traders. Furthermore, a seafood producer that uses sustainable methods, such as organic aquaculture, will be able to differentiate the production or harvesting method using scientifically validated tools. The implementation of biotechnological tools for origin certification by competent authorities is a challenging task that is still in its infancy. Geochemical, biochemical, and molecular traceability tools require lab work and expert knowledge and are far from being an off-the-shelf toolbox for in situ application at different trading locations throughout the supply chain (Figure 1). Consequently, competent authorities have to invest in logistical and manpower assets to perform the lab work and analyses or outsource this work to certified laboratories. Both options have high financial costs, which are only justified if the legal framework requires such traceability protocols and, more importantly, if consumers demand and acknowledge the importance of such traceability information. Under this paradigm, it is critical that the information available to consumers is expanded to foster their confidence in food safety. Ultimately, this requires increased education efforts to help consumers understand the importance of traceability protocols in highly perishable products, such as seafood. It is our opinion that current methodological limitations (Table 1) will be overcome by further development of the biotechnological tools currently available. The perfect tool to trace seafood products should be fast, simple, cheap, and reliable so that it can be widely applied without major financial burdens and logistical restrictions. Moreover, it must successfully assist in the fight against fraud, as well as illegal, unreported, and unregulated fisheries. Currently, while the ‘perfect tool’ has yet to be developed and validated, the best approach is likely the combined use of multiple tools that complement each other to maximize their accuracy and reliability [4]. Future implementation of traceability protocols for origin certification should avoid past mistakes and capitalize on previous successes recorded in the implementation of similar methods. For instance, routine analysis addressing mislabeling of seafood products is becoming more frequent in various countries. However, the use of different methods, the inconsistency of reference data, and the lack of standardization in testing between laboratories may lead to inconsistent results across countries [35,47] and, ultimately, affect the credibility of these procedures. Concluding remarks and future perspectives The seafood industry is growing rapidly and has been notably boosted by the input of aquaculture. Simultaneously, the increasing awareness and concern of consumers are driving authorities to enforce legislation and develop reliable procedures to verify the authenticity of claims issued by seafood traders. Biotechnological developments have been observed, but further optimization of available tools is still needed to maximize their global implementation at any time point throughout the seafood supply chain and, ultimately, address societal needs
Trends in Biotechnology xxx xxxx, Vol. xxx, No. x
(Box 1). Besides their use for geographical seafood traceability, further development of these tools may also contribute to the assessment of fishing or production practices, processing methods, transport conditions, and store shelftime. Finally, seafood traceability data will certainly provide key information for the better management of fish stocks, which is critical in view of current overfishing practices for food and for feed [48]. Acknowledgments M.C.L., T.P., and F.R. were supported by PhD scholarships (SFRH/BD/ 63783/2009, SFRH/BD/51041/2010 and SFRH/BD/84263/2012, respectively) funded by the Fundac¸a˜o para a Cieˆncia e Tecnologia (QRENPOPH-Type 4.1 – Advanced training, subsidized by the European Social Fund and national funds MEC). This work was supported by PROMAR, a Portuguese instrument for the sectors of fisheries and aquaculture funded by the European Fisheries Fund, within the research project RASTREMAR – Use of molecular tools in the traceability of marine food products (PROMAR 31-03-05-FEP-0015), and by National Funds through the Portuguese Science Foundation within project PEst-C/MAR/LA0017/ 2013. The authors acknowledge two anonymous reviewers for the important comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript.
References 1 FAO (2014) The State of World Fisheris and Aquaculture: Opportunities and Challenges, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2 Cao, L. et al. (2015) China’s aquaculture and the world’s wild fisheries. Science 347, 133–135 3 Asche, F. (2014) Exchange Rates and the Seafood Trade, FAO/ GLOBEFISH 4 Parren˜o-Marchante, A. et al. (2014) Advanced traceability system in aquaculture supply chain. J. Food Eng. 122, 99–109 5 Aung, M.M. and Chang, Y.S. (2014) Traceability in a food supply chain: safety and quality perspectives. Food Control 39, 172–184 6 Stringer, C. et al. (2011) Shifting post production patterns: exploring changes in New Zealand’s seafood processing industry. N. Z. Geog. 67, 161–173 7 Fleming, A. et al. (2014) Climate change risks and adaptation options across Australian seafood supply chains – a preleminary assessment. Climate Risk Manag. 1, 39–50 8 Lazarda, J. et al. (2014) Assessing aquaculture sustainability: a comparative methodology. Int. J. Sustainable Dev. World Ecol. 21, 503–511 9 Pieniak, Z. et al. (2013) Consumer knwoledge and use of information about fish and aquaculture. Food Policy 40, 25–30 10 Helyar, S.J. et al. (2014) Fish product mislabelling: failings of traceability in the production chain and implications for illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. PLoS ONE 9, e98691 11 Worm, B. et al. (2009) Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325, 578–585 12 McCauley, D.J. et al. (2015) Marine defaunation: animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347, 1255641 13 Galimberti, A. et al. (2013) DNA barcoding as a new tool for food traceability. Food Res. Int. 50, 55–63 14 Teletchea, F. (2009) Molecular identification methods of fish species: reassessment and possible applications. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries 19, 265–293 15 Armani, A. et al. (2012) Fish fraud: The DNA challenge. Anim. Sci. Rev. 227, 227–239 16 Rasmussen, R.S. and Morrissey, M.T. (2008) DNA-based methods for the identification of commercial fish and seafood species. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 7, 280–295 17 European Comission (2002) Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council. pp. L31/31 – L31/24, Official Journal of the European Communities 18 FDA (2002) The U.S. Bioterroristm Act of 2002, US FDA 19 Pramod, G. et al. (2014) Estimates of illegal and unreported fish in seafood imports to the USA. Mar. Policy 48, 102–113 20 Charlebois, S. et al. (2014) Comparison of global food traceabiilty regulations and requirements. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 13, 1104–1123 5
TIBTEC-1254; No. of Pages 6
Opinion 21 Ayala-Zavala, J.F. et al. (2014) Nanotechnology tools to achieve food safety. In Practical Food Safety: Contemporary Issues and Future Directions (Bhat, V. and Go´mez–Lo´pez, V.M., eds), pp. 341–353, John Wiley & Sons 22 Carson, H.S. et al. (2013) Temporal, spatial, and interspecific variation in geochemical signatures within gish otoliths, bivalve larval shells, and crustacean larvae. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 473, 133–148 23 Reis-Santos, P. et al. (2012) Temporal variability in estuarine fish otolith elemental fingerprints: implications for connectivity assessments. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 112, 216–224 24 Sorte, C.J.B. et al. (2013) Elemental fingerprinting of mussel shells to predict population sources and redistribution potential in the Gulf of Maine. PLoS ONE 8, e80868 25 D’Avignon, G. and Rose, G.A. (2013) Otolith elemental fingerprints distinguish Atlantic cod spawning areas in Newfoundland and Labrador. Fish. Res. 147, 1–9 26 Broadaway, B.J. and Hannigan, R.E. (2012) Elemental fingerprints used to identify essential habitats: Nantucket Bay Scallop. J. Shellfish Res. 31, 671–676 27 Arts, M. et al. (2009) Lipids in Aquatic Ecosystems, Springer 28 Berge´, J-P. and Barnathan, G. (2005) Fatty acids from lipids of marine organisms: molecular biodiversity, roles as biomarkers, biologically active compounds, and economical aspects. Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol. 96, 49–125 29 Hall, J.M. et al. (2002) Eicosapentaenoic acid regulates scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) membrane fluidity in response to cold. Biol. Bull. 202, 201–203 30 Gonzalez, L. et al. (2010) Bioenergetics of small pelagics in upwelling systems: relationship between fish condition, coastal ecosystem dynamics and fisheries. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 410, 205–218 31 Kelly, J. and Scheibling, R. (2012) Fatty acids as dietary tracers in benthic food webs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 446, 1–22 32 Ezgeta-Balic´, D. et al. (2012) Seasonal fatty acid profile analysis to trace origin of food sources of four commercially important bivalves. Aquaculture 334–337, 89–100 33 Grahl-Nielsen, O. et al. (2010) Fatty acid composition in adductor muscle of juvenil scallops (Pecten maximus) from five Norwegian populations reared in the same environment. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 38, 478–488 34 Olsen, B.R. et al. (2009) Population study of Astarte sulcata, da Costa, 1778 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) from two Norwegian fjords based on the fatty acid composition of the adductor muscle. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 37, 662–669
6
Trends in Biotechnology xxx xxxx, Vol. xxx, No. x
35 Herrero, B. et al. (2010) Rapid identification of seaweeds in food products by PCR combined with ALF-RFLP and FINS methodologies. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58, 11586–11592 36 Tatsadjieu, N.L. et al. (2010) Study of the microbial diversity of Oreochromis niloticus of three lakes of Cameroon by PCR-DGGE: application to the determination of the geographical origin. Food Control 21, 673–678 37 Montet, D. et al. (2008) Application of PCR-DGGE in determining food origin: cases studies of fish and fruits. Asp. Appl. Biol. 87, 11–22 38 Le Nguyen, D.D. et al. (2008) Determination of fish origin by using 16S rDNA fingerprinting of bacterial communities by PCR-DGGE: an application on Pangasius fish from Viet Nam. Food Control 19, 454–460 39 Hovda, M.B. et al. (2007) Characterization of the dominant bacterial population in modified atmosphere packaged farmed halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) based on 16S rDNA-DGGE. Food Microbiol. 24, 362–371 40 Di Pinto, A. et al. (2013) DNA barcoding for detecting market substitution in salted cod fillets and battered cod chunks. Food Chem. 141, 1757–1762 41 Armani, A. et al. (2015) DNA and Mini-DNA barcoding for the identification of Porgies species (family Sparidae) of commercial interest on the international market. Food Control 50, 589–596 42 Carvalho, D.C. et al. (2015) DNA Barcoding identification of commercialized seafood in South Brazil: a governamental regulatory forensic program. Food Control 50, 784–788 43 Calve`s, I. et al. (2013) Genetic structure of European flounder Platichthys flesus: effect of both the southern limit of the species’ range and chemical stress. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 472, 257–273 44 Coscia, I. et al. (2013) Modelled larval dispersal and measured gene flow: seascape genetics of the common cockle Cerastoderma edule in the southern Irish Sea. Conserv. Genet. 14, 451–466 45 Ulrich, R.M. et al. (2015) A handheld sensor assay for the identification of grouper as a safeguard against seafood mislabelling fraud. Food Control 53, 81–90 46 Donnelly, K.A-M. and Olsen, P. (2012) Catch to landing traceability and the effects of implementation – a case study from the Norwegian white fish sector. Food Control 27, 228–233 47 Turchini, G.M. et al. (2009) Traceability and discriminating among differently farmed fish: a case study on Australian murray cod. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57, 274–281 48 Griffiths, A.M. et al. (2014) Current methods for seafood authenticity testing in Europe: is there a need for harmonisation? Food Control 45, 1–6
