Abstract
Demand for seafood products is increasing worldwide, contributing to ever more complex supply chains and posing challenges to trace their origin and guarantee legal, well-managed, sustainable sources from confirmed locations. While DNA-based methods have proven to be reliable in verifying seafood authenticity at the species level, the verification of geographic origin remains inherently more complex. Both genetic and stable isotope analyses have been employed for determining point-of-origin with varying degrees of success, highlighting that their application can be effective when the right tool is selected for a given application. Developing an a priori prediction of their discrimination power for different applications can help avoid the financial cost of developing inappropriate reference datasets. Here, we reviewed the application of both techniques to seafood point-of-origin for 63 commercial finfish species certified by the Marine Stewardship Council, and showed that, even for those species where baseline data exist, real applications are scarce. To fill these gaps, we synthesised current knowledge on biological and biogeochemical mechanisms that underpin spatial variations in genetic and isotopic signatures. We describe which species’ biological and distribution traits are most helpful in predicting effectiveness of each tool. Building on this, we applied a mechanistic approach to predicting the potential for successful validation of origin to three case study fisheries, using combined genetic and isotopic methodologies to distinguish individuals from certified versus non-certified regions. Beyond ecolabelling applications, the framework we describe could be reproduced by governments and industries to select the most cost-effective techniques. Graphic abstract
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; St John Glew Katie 2
; Trueman, Clive 2
; Mariani, Stefano 3
; Buckley, Leah 4 ; Neat Francis 5 ; Longo, Catherine 4
1 University of Salford, School of Science, Engineering and Environment, Salford, UK (GRID:grid.8752.8) (ISNI:0000 0004 0460 5971); Liverpool John Moors University, School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool, UK (GRID:grid.8752.8)
2 University of Southampton, Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre Southampton, Southampton, UK (GRID:grid.5491.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9297)
3 Liverpool John Moors University, School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool, UK (GRID:grid.5491.9)
4 Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK (GRID:grid.502875.d) (ISNI:0000 0004 9414 2922)
5 Sasakawa Global Ocean Institute, World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden (GRID:grid.37472.35) (ISNI:0000 0004 0617 9718)





