Las pruebas de ADN muestran lo que realmente hay en los filetes de tiburón de las tiendas de pescado y papas fritas de Australia Occidental

DNA testing has revealed that many shark products sold in Western Australian fish-and-chip shops contain species other than those advertised, according to new research from Murdoch University. The study, published in Marine and Freshwater Research, examined 167 cooked shark products collected from 132 fish-and-chips shops across the state. Researchers used DNA sequencing to determine the actual species present in these items, finding significant discrepancies between the labels and the contents. The analysis showed that 56% of the samples were labeled with vague terms such as “shark,” “flake,” or “fish and chips.” These broad descriptors made it impossible for consumers to know precisely which species they were purchasing. A further 35% of the products were mislabeled, meaning the species listed on the packaging did not match the species identified through genetic testing. Only 26% of the samples included information about their origin, further complicating efforts to trace the seafood back to its source. Dr. Md Robiul Hasan, lead author of the study and a researcher at Murdoch University’s Centre for Sustainable Aquatic Ecosystems, explained that the findings underscore a broader issue of transparency in seafood labeling. He noted that consumers are increasingly interested in knowing the species, origin, and sustainability of the food they eat, yet this information is often missing or misleading in the case of cooked shark products. The study identified 16 different species within the samples, including 11 shark species. Among them were dusky, gummy, and whiskery sharks, all of which were commonly labeled as “shark” despite originating from distinct biological groups. Even products marketed under specific species names, such as “gummy shark” or “bronze whaler,” occasionally failed to match the advertised species. This suggests that mislabeling may stem from the complexities of commercial fishing and seafood processing rather than deliberate fraud. Hasan emphasized that the study does not imply widespread intent to deceive. Instead, he pointed to the economic similarities among several species as a potential factor contributing to confusion during the supply chain process. “Many of the species identified in this study have similar commercial values, so mislabeling may reflect the complexity of commercial fishing, seafood processing and supply chains rather than intentional substitution,” he stated. To address these issues, the researchers recommended implementing stricter seafood labeling regulations. They suggested mandating the use of standardized fish names for cooked seafood products, requiring origin disclosures, and introducing routine DNA audits to ensure labeling accuracy. Such measures, they argued, would empower consumers to make more informed choices regarding sustainability, health, and provenance. The study also highlighted the need for regional monitoring, as the shark species found in Western Australia differ from those reported in similar studies conducted elsewhere in the country. Most of the sampled products came from species associated with Western Australia’s managed shark fisheries, suggesting local fishing practices play a key role in shaping the market offerings. International conservation assessments classify some of the identified species as globally threatened, though only one sample was found to include a species listed as threatened under Australian conservation laws. This discrepancy underscores the importance of localized data collection and regulatory oversight in ensuring both consumer safety and environmental protection.