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 account Open 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..

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.

Claims the paper makes

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

A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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%).”
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Seafood loss · plain
  “bycatch represented 16-32% of total loss.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
- Also stated in: § 3.6. Nutrition · hedged
  “we also found that the seafood that is wasted could conservatively provide the equivalent of the total yearly 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.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > Abstract
Strength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
- Also stated in: § 3.6. Nutrition · hedged
  “we also found that the seafood that is wasted could conservatively provide the equivalent of the total yearly 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.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > Abstract
Strength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We estimate that 40-47% of the edible U.S. seafood supply went uneaten in this period.”
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Seafood loss · hedged
  “we estimated that 44% of the edible U.S. seafood supply (range: 40-47%) was lost annually from 2009 to 2013.”
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · hedged
  “We estimate that 40-47% of the U.S. seafood supply was lost annually from 2009 to 2013.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
- Also stated in: § 3.6. Nutrition · hedged
  “we also found that the seafood that is wasted could conservatively provide the equivalent of the total yearly 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.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > Abstract
Strength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
- Also stated in: § 3.6. Nutrition · hedged
  “we also found that the seafood that is wasted could conservatively provide the equivalent of the total yearly 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.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > Abstract
Strength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
- Also stated in: § 3.6. Nutrition · hedged
  “Conservative (low end) estimates indicate that the above-described loss of seafood in the U.S. supply meant losing 208 billion grams of protein, 1.8 trillion mg of EPA+DHA, and 1.1 trillion kilocalories in 2012 (Table 2).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The seafood that is lost could fill 36% of the gap between current consumption and U.S. Department of Agriculture-recommended levels.”
- Also stated in: § 3.6. Nutrition · hedged
  “Our analysis found that the lost seafood could fill 36% of the weekly gap between median seafood consumption (among adults) and USDA-recommended levels.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- 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.

Show all 49 claims

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

In the paper
“Despite these challenges, global availability of seafood per capita has risen in recent decades due to growth in aquaculture production (FAO, 2014b).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites FAO, 2014b
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Seafood available to United States (U.S.) consumers (i.e., the edible seafood supply) includes a variety of wild caught and aquacultured species, both from domestic sources and imported from as many as 138 nations (Kirkley et al., 2006).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kirkley et al., 2006
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For fish populations to rebound, it is necessary to reduce or avoid harvesting some fish species for a period of time (among other approaches) (Worm et al., 2009), thereby significantly reducing the amount of harvested wild seafood.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Worm et al., 2009 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Five of the top-ten most consumed species in the U.S. are sourced mostly from aquaculture (National Fisheries Institute, 2014;NOAA, 2013b).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites National Fisheries Institute, 2014
- Not checked yetcites NOAA, 2013b
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Aquaculture, the rearing of aquatic plants and animals in controlled settings, grew at an annual rate of 8.6% from 1980 to 2012, and now provides about half of all seafood consumed globally (FAO, 2014b).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites FAO, 2014b
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Fish, crustaceans, and shellfish (which we refer to as seafood or fish) play an important role in human nutrition as a source of protein and healthy fats (Gormaz et al., 2014).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gormaz et al., 2014 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“While global harvests of wild seafood have remained static since the 1990s, certain fisheries have collapsed and no longer provide a significant food source for humans (FAO, 2014b).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites FAO, 2014b
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Historically, fish were an abundant source of food for many civilizations, though overfishing and habitat destruction over several hundred years have greatly reduced global fish stocks and damaged aquatic ecosystems (Jackson et al., 2001;Lotze et al., 2006).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jackson et al., 2001 source
- Not checked yetcites Lotze et al., 2006 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Current estimates suggest that in the overall U.S. food system, 31-40% of the postharvest food supply is lost (Buzby et al., 2014;Hall et al., 2009).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buzby et al., 2014
- Not checked yetcites Hall et al., 2009 source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Buzby et al. (2014) at the USDA estimated that at the retail and consumer levels, 39% of seafood in the U.S. is lost; they estimated per capita seafood loss based on this quantity (Fig. 1).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buzby et al., 2014
Strength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Gustavsson et al. (2011) reported that the North America and Oceana region (Canada, U.S., Australia, and New Zealand) had the highest fraction of seafood loss (50%) of any region in the world.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gustavsson et al., 2011
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In this model, preventing loss at the source is prioritized, followed by feeding hungry people, feeding animals, industrial uses, composting, and landfilling or incineration.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites EPA, 2014
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Jahns et al. (2014) determined that 80-90% of Americans were not meeting seafood recommendations; and women, young people, and people with lower incomes consumed less seafood.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jahns et al., 2014 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The 2010 U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend increasing seafood consumption to 8 ounces per person per week, and consuming a variety of seafood in place of some meat and poultry (USDA, 2010).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites USDA, 2010
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Achieving government-recommended consumption levels would require doubling the U.S. seafood supply and nutrition programs targeting specific groups of consumers.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The amount of seafood available to U.S. consumers has remained relatively constant for four decades.
In the paper
“According to their research, losses were primarily attributable to bycatch (when fishers catch and discard non-target species) and consumers.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gustavsson et al., 2011
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“While a slightly higher proportion of seafood than of other food types is lost at the consumer level (Buzby et al., 2014), the total amountof loss from chicken, beef, or pork, for example, is larger due to a larger supply of these animal products (Fig. 1) (USDA, 2014a).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites USDA, 2014a
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“While a slightly higher proportion of seafood than of other food types is lost at the consumer level (Buzby et al., 2014), the total amountof loss from chicken, beef, or pork, for example, is larger due to a larger supply of these animal products (Fig. 1) (USDA, 2014a).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buzby et al., 2014
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Increasing this supply places greater burden on marine ecosystems, and could contribute to food insecurity in low-income countries and coastal communities (Brunner et al., 2009;Greene et al., 2013;Jenkins et al., 2009).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brunner et al., 2009 source
- Not checked yetcites Greene et al., 2013 source
- Not checked yetcites Jenkins et al., 2009 source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the U.S. is the second largest seafood importer in the world, with imports worth $17.6 billion in 2012 (FAO, 2014a).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites FAO, 2014a
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the Marine Stewardship Council includes bycatch as part of their sustainable fisheries certification system (Marine Stewardship Council)”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Marine Stewardship Council
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thomson estimates that by the consumer level, food contains about triple the embodied energy of food at the farm level (Thompson, 2011).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Thompson, 2011
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Fish caught as bycatch in this region include flounder, croaker, sole, halibut, hake and other species which are edible and considered fisheries in their own right (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2011).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites National Marine Fisheries Service, 2011
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines recommendation to more than double seafood intake.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 6. Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites USDA, 2010
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Lost food has important implications for public health, natural resource use, and resiliency in the face of climate change (Cuellar and Webber, 2010;Dorward, 2012;Lewison et al., 2011;Parfitt et al., 2010), and the issue is gaining traction among a wide range of stakeholders.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cuellar and Webber, 2010 source
- Not checked yetcites Dorward, 2012 source
- Not checked yetcites Lewison et al., 2011 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Loss prevention would reduce unnecessary production and harvesting, which would improve the ecological sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture, contribute to increased future food security, and reduce the carbon and energy (Cuellar and Webber, 2010) used in production and trade per unit of seafood consumed.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cuellar and Webber, 2010 source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Louisiana Foods Total Catch Market has been selling fresh fish caught in the Gulf of Mexico that would otherwise be considered bycatch to chefs and consumers since 2011 (Louisiana Foods Total Catch Market, 2015).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Louisiana Foods Total Catch Market, 2015
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedSingle case
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some loss is unavoidable including due to the high perishability of seafood, changing circumstances after sellers and households make procurement decisions, and the reality of variation in demand.”
- Also stated in: § 6. Conclusions · plain
  “A portion of the loss of seafood is unavoidable, especially because seafood can spoil quickly compared to other foods”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 4. Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.

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

Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems
Jackson, J. B. C., Kirby, M. X., Berger, W. H., Bjorndal, K. A., Botsford, L. W., Bourque, B. J., Bradbury, R. H., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J. A., et al. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1059199 · Cited by 6,652
Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas
Lotze, H. K., Lenihan, H. S., Bourque, B. J., Bradbury, R. H., Cooke, R. G., Kay, M. C., Kidwell, S. M., Kirby, M. X., Peterson, C. H., & Jackson, J. B. C. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1128035 · Cited by 3,402
Untitled work
(2011) · FAO eBooks · Cited by 3,368
Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0126 · Cited by 3,197
Rebuilding Global Fisheries
Worm, B., Hilborn, R., Baum, J. K., Branch, T. A., Collie, J. S., Costello, C., Fogarty, M. J., Fulton, E. A., Hutchings, J. A., Jennings, S., et al. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1173146 · Cited by 2,216
The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2026
Alder, J., Ryder, J., Friedman, K., Beveridge, M., Barange, M., Taconet, M., Camilleri, M., Franz, N., Barros, P., Mannini, P., et al. (2013) · FAO eBooks · doi:10.4060/cd8357en · Cited by 2,117
Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: Trends and future prospects
Tacon, A. G. J., & Métian, M. (2008) · Aquaculture · doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.08.015 · Cited by 2,115
Dietary Guidelines for Americans
DeSalvo, K. B., Olson, R., & Casavale, K. O. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.18396 · Cited by 1,067
A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards
Alverson, D. L. (1994) · Biodiversity Heritage Library (Smithsonian Institution) · Cited by 1,027
Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system?
Troell, M. F., Naylor, R. L., Métian, M., Beveridge, M. C. M., Tyedmers, P. H., Folke, C., Arrow, K. J., Barrett, S. A., Crépin, A., Ehrlich, P. R., et al. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1404067111 · Cited by 804

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

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.).
Thompson, F., 2011. Setting priorities for resource productivity, In: Institute, M.G. (Ed.).

Sorted by citations

Items 101–110 of 110

Different Approaches for Treating Aquaculture Wastewater and Its Reuse
Gogoi, M. (2024) · Clean Energy Production Technologies · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-3458-0_5
The information age is starting to transform fishing worldwide
Sullivan, N. P. (2022) · doi:10.64628/aai.vqgjs49gt
Sigmoidal methane dynamics in fishery and slaughterhouse waste digestion revealed by AIC-guided kinetic modeling and 16S profilingPreprint
Wu, H., Jeon, Y.-H., Kwon, J.-H., & Kim, W. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5914730
Feasibility, co-benefits, and trade-offs of climate mitigation and adaptation strategies in blue food systems
Wong, A., Jonell, M., Tigchelaar, M., Troell, M. F., Wabnitz, C. C. C., Allison, E. H., Deering, K., Henriksson, P. J. G., Kleisner, K. M., Koehn, J. Z., et al. (2026) · Environmental Research Food Systems · doi:10.1088/2976-601x/ae7a77
Hidden Nutrient Resource: Repurposing Fish Consumption Waste for Sustainable Aquaculture
Kasikci, N., Tacer‐Tanas, Ş., Korkmaz, F., & Arslan, M. (2026) · Thalassas An International Journal of Marine Sciences · doi:10.1007/s41208-026-01167-4
Animal-Origin Food Waste Across Global Supply Chains: Trends, Upcycling Strategies, and Circular Economy Solutions
Gonçalves, J., Guiné, R. P. F., Ribeiro, P. A. P., Florença, S. G., Cruz‐Lopes, L., Anjos, O., & Sun, D. (2026) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods15122202
Application of bio-based intelligent packaging in processed food
Pathare, P. B., Gaikwad, P. S., Sharma, P., & Venugopal, A. P. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-43964-3.00003-8
Evaluation of Catfish Skin Gelatin-Based Edible Antimicrobial Coating with Lactic Acid and Potassium Sorbate on the Shelf Life and Quality of Fresh Catfish Fillets
Parraga, K., Songy, H., & Watts, E. G. (2026) · Gels · doi:10.3390/gels12070584
Impact of Sustainable Practices on Retail Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review
Salvador-Reyes, R., Acuña, V. G. T., & Barzola, L. A. Z. (2026) · LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology (LACCEI) · doi:10.18687/laccei2026.1.1.510
Unveiling the functional potential of marine by-products
Batool, J., Nadeem, M. F., Saleem, H., Chohan, T. A., Gill, M. S. A., Khurshid, U., Khursheed, A., & Anwar, S. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-34071-0.00011-7

Authors: Love, D. C., Fry, J. P., Milli, M. C., & Neff, R. A.
Affiliations: Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author: Love, Dave C.
ORCID: Fry, Jillian P.
Neff, Roni A.
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: hybrid
doi.org
Licence: cc-by
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
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

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

Abstract

Overview

AI snapshot

TL;DR

Key findings

Methods

Limitations

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks