CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 110Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityFood Industry and Aquatic BiologyMarine and fisheries research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 46 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions

Open access
Love, Dave C., Fry, Jillian P., Milli, Michael C., Neff, Roni A.·2015·Global Environmental Change
DOI 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.013
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Based on the average level of seafood consumption in the United States (U.S.), the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans encourages citizens to double their intake to improve the health of their diets. The future availability of seafood, however, is threatened by overfishing, unsustainable seafood farming practices, ocean pollution and acidification, and other factors. The growing global population and advancing ecological threats such as climate change are placing increasing demands and constraints on U.S. and global seafood supplies. Waste reduction has the potential to support increased seafood consumption without further stressing aquatic resources. It is essential to quantify waste levels in order to effectively target and design waste reduction interventions. Accordingly, we used previous multi-country regional research and updated datasets to calculate a country-specific (U.S.) estimate of seafood loss for the years 2009–2013. We estimate that 40–47% of the edible U.S. seafood supply went uneaten in this period. The greatest portions of this loss occurred at the levels of consumers (in and out of home) (51–63% of loss attributed to consumption), bycatch discarded by commercial fishers (16–32%), and in distribution and retail operations (13–16%). Based on conservative estimates, this waste represents 208 billion grams of protein, 1.8 trillion mg of eicosapentaenoic (EPA) and docosahexaenoic (DHA) acids (i.e., omega-3 fatty acids), and 1.1 trillion kilocalories. The seafood that is lost could fill 36% of the gap between current consumption and U.S. Department of Agriculture-recommended levels. As another way of understanding the magnitude of loss, this lost seafood could provide the total yearly target quantity of protein for 10.1 million men or 12.4 million women, EPA + DHA for 20.1 million adults, and calories for 1.5 million adults. The lost nutrition estimates we provide are meant to be illustrative of the issue’s significance and magnitude. While a significant portion of the loss could be prevented or recovered for human consumption, we do not intend to suggest that all of it could or should become food for humans. Bycatch is generally best left in the water; some seafood loss is not culturally acceptable, marketable, nutritious or safe; and a portion of loss is also unavoidable. Instead, we discuss waste prevention strategies involving governments, businesses, and consumers that can be employed to reduce seafood loss and create a more efficient and sustainable seafood system..

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study estimates that 40–47% of the edible U.S. seafood supply was lost annually from 2009 to 2013, with major losses at consumption, bycatch, and distribution/retail stages. It quantifies the nutritional value of that loss and discusses prevention strategies across government, business, and consumers.

Key findings

  • From 2009–2013, 40–47% of the edible U.S. seafood supply went uneaten; total loss along the supply chain was 1.0 MMT (range 0.82–1.3 MMT), and loss-adjusted supply was 1.4 MMT (range 1.2–1.5 MMT).
  • Loss was greatest at consumption (abstract: 51–63% of loss attributed to consumption; Results text: consumption represented 41–56% of total loss), bycatch discarded by commercial fishers (16–32%), and distribution/retail (13–16%). Edible bycatch associated with the U.S. seafood supply was 0.26 MMT (range 0.14–0.41 MMT).
  • Conservative low-end estimates for 2012 indicate lost seafood represented 208 billion grams of protein, 1.8 trillion mg EPA+DHA, and 1.1 trillion kilocalories.
  • The lost seafood could fill 36% of the weekly gap between median adult seafood consumption and USDA-recommended levels, and could provide the yearly protein target for 10.1 million men or 12.4 million women, EPA+DHA for 20.1 million adults, and calories for 1.5 million adults.

Methods

  • The authors used Internet searches and a chain-sampling approach—not a systematic review—to identify government reports, peer-reviewed papers, and data sources on seafood supply and loss, cataloging data elements in Excel and scoring data quality/generalizability.
  • They selected 2009–2013 as the most recent five-year range with high-quality data from most sources, then multiplied total edible seafood supply by loss fractions at specific supply-chain steps, using high and low estimates to produce yearly ranges and 25th/50th/75th percentile estimates.
  • Nutritional content of lost seafood was modeled assuming lost seafood roughly parallels the top ten most commonly consumed U.S. seafood types; cooked poundage was estimated by multiplying lost amount by 0.8 to account for moisture loss, and results were also expressed as population-level nutrition and person-years.

Limitations

  • The paper states it could not attribute loss to specific species, production-level loss was limited to bycatch and excluded other wild-caught loss due to lack of data, bycatch data have considerable uncertainty from low monitoring, and national aquaculture processing loss estimates were unavailable.
  • The paper states nutritional estimates were based on the distribution of consumed fish types rather than actual lost species, and loss was modeled by applying pre-determined percentages to overall supply, so estimates would not rise or fall with loss-reduction behavior unless underlying loss percentages are modified.
  • The text also makes evident that data quality and generalizability varied widely: production data were generally good, while supply-chain and consumption data were low-to-moderate quality and generalizability; export data were scored low quality, processed-product loss estimates did not exist and expert opinion was used, and consumer loss estimates were low quality.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.013

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 46 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 49 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 24
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 29
45 of 45

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    50% of imported seafood comes from wild capture fisheries (with bycatch estimates) and half from aquaculture (bycatch is not applicable).

    “Imported bycatch loss was calculated based on the assumption that 50% of imported seafood comes from wild capture fisheries (with bycatch estimates) and half from aquaculture (bycatch is not applicable) (NOAA, 2013b).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    50% of bycatch fish were inedible (bones, viscera, tails, heads, etc.).

    “Consistent with previous reports, we assume that 50% of bycatch fish were inedible (bones, viscera, tails, heads, etc.) (Gustavsson et al., 2013), and these fractions were not included as food loss because these parts are not typically consumed in the U.S.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The nutrient content of seafood that is lost roughly parallels that of the most commonly consumed species in the U.S.

    “We modeled the nutritional content of lost seafood based on the assumption that the nutrient content of seafood that is lost roughly parallels that of the most commonly consumed species in the U.S.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The amount of seafood available to U.S. consumers has remained relatively constant for four decades.

    “The amount of seafood available to U.S. consumers, however, has remained relatively constant for four decades.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Seafood is particularly important among types of lost food because of its high protein and omega-3 fatty acid content.

    “From a nutritional standpoint, seafood assumes particular importance among types of lost food due to its high protein and omega-3 fatty acid content.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Data about the specific fish types lost in the U.S. are absent.

    “In the absence of data about the specific fish types lost in the U. S.”
6 of 6

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Abstract and results give conflicting shares of loss at consumption

    Major

    The abstract attributes 51-63% of total seafood loss to consumption, while the results give 41-56% for the same share. These ranges disagree at both ends.

  • Reported seafood supply does not equal imports plus domestic production minus exports

    Minor

    The reported 8.4 MMT entering the U.S. minus 2.9 MMT exported leaves 5.5 MMT, not the stated 5.7 MMT. The 0.2 MMT difference exceeds rounding to one decimal place.

    Reported 5.7 · recomputed 5.5

  • Upper EPA + DHA person-years do not match the reported quantity

    Minor

    At the stated target of 250 mg per day, 48,920,752 person-years account for 4.46 trillion mg of EPA + DHA, not the table's upper estimate of 6.25 trillion mg.

    Reported 6250000000000 · recomputed 4464018620000

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 36 references

2 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. SeafoodHealthFacts.org, (2008) Seafood Health Facts: Making Smart Choices Balancing the Benefits and Risks of Seafood Consumption, In: A joint project of Oregon State University, C.U., the Universities of Delaware, Rhode Island, Florida & California and the Community Seafood Initiative. (Ed.).
  2. Thompson, F., 2011. Setting priorities for resource productivity, In: Institute, M.G. (Ed.).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Love, D. C., Fry, J. P., Milli, M. C., & Neff, R. A.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Love, Dave C.
ORCID
Venue
Global Environmental Change
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
35
Pages
116-124
ISSN
0959-3780 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.013
OpenAlex
W1436938390
Cited by
107
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 3
FWCI
10.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Global Environmental Change (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Industry and Aquatic Biology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Marine and fisheries research
Keywords
seafood waste, food loss, food loss prevention, bycatch, consumer food waste, omega-3 fatty acids, dietary intake, seafood consumption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review