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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
38 Not checked yet · 28 Own result · 15 Own method · 10 Own interpretation · 3 No basis given
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Seafood loss · plain
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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
- Also stated in: § 3.6. Nutrition · hedged
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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
- Also stated in: § 3.6. Nutrition · hedged
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%).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Seafood loss · hedged
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%).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
- Also stated in: § 3.6. Nutrition · hedged
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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
- Also stated in: § 3.6. Nutrition · hedged
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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
- Also stated in: § 3.6. Nutrition · hedged
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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
- Also stated in: § 3.6. Nutrition · hedged
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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
- Also stated in: § 3.6. Nutrition · hedged
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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
- Also stated in: § 3.6. Nutrition · hedged
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
“From 2009 to 2013, 8.4 million metric tons (MMT) of edible seafood entered the U.S. from imported (4.8 MMT) and domestic (3.6 MMT) sources (Fig. 2).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.1. Seafood production
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Throughout the supply chain loss was largest in production (due to bycatch, reported above) and consumption (median: 0.59 MMT; range: 0.50-0.68MMT) (Fig. 3a).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.3. Seafood loss
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When comparing our lossadjusted supply to the USDA loss-adjusted supply (USDA, 2014a), our data provides a range of values that spans the USDA point value for most years (Table 1).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.4. Loss-adjusted seafood supply
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites USDA, 2014a
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Consumption represented 41-56% of total loss.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.3. Seafood loss
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“From 2009 to 2013, 8.4 million metric tons (MMT) of edible seafood entered the U.S. from imported (4.8 MMT) and domestic (3.6 MMT) sources (Fig. 2).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.1. Seafood production
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“At the consumption level, 87-90% of loss came from fresh and frozen seafood and the remainder came from loss of processed seafood.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.3. Seafood loss
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Edible bycatch from domestic and imported harvests were 0.05 MMT and 0.21 MMT, respectively.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.2. Bycatch
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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).
- The authors state this as an assumption: 50% of bycatch fish were inedible (bones, viscera, tails, heads, etc.).
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
“From 2009 to 2013, the edible weight of the U.S. edible seafood supply reported by NMFS was 2.1 MMT (range: 2.1-2.2MMT), which was not adjusted for loss, and serves as the starting point for seafood loss calculations in Fig. 2.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.1. Seafood production
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“70-85% of all loss associated with bycatch, because the vast majority of the U.S. seafood supply is imported.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.3. Seafood loss
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“From 2009 to 2013, 8.4 million metric tons (MMT) of edible seafood entered the U.S. from imported (4.8 MMT) and domestic (3.6 MMT) sources (Fig. 2).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.1. Seafood production
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 loss-adjusted seafood supply was 1.4 MMT (range: 1.2-1.5 MMT) from 2009 to 2013 (Figs. 2 and 3c).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.4. Loss-adjusted seafood supply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Edible bycatch from domestic and imported harvests were 0.05 MMT and 0.21 MMT, respectively.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.2. Bycatch
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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).
- The authors state this as an assumption: 50% of bycatch fish were inedible (bones, viscera, tails, heads, etc.).
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Over one third of the U.S. supply (2.9 MMT) was exported to as many as 157 other countries (Kirkley et al., 2006), and the remaining 5.7 MMT comprised the U.S. edible seafood supply.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.1. Seafood production
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Over one third of the U.S. supply (2.9 MMT) was exported to as many as 157 other countries (Kirkley et al., 2006), and the remaining 5.7 MMT comprised the U.S. edible seafood supply.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.1. Seafood production
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kirkley et al., 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 total loss along the supply chain was 1.0 MMT (range: 0.82-1.3MMT) (Fig. 3b).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.3. Seafood loss
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 estimated there was 0.26 MMT of edible bycatch (range: 0.14-0.41MMT) associated with the U.S. seafood supply (Fig. 2, Supporting information Table S9).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.2. Bycatch
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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).
- The authors state this as an assumption: 50% of bycatch fish were inedible (bones, viscera, tails, heads, etc.).
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 study finds that 40-47% of the U.S. seafood supply is lost.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 6. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“In our study, the bycatch rate from domestic fisheries was higher than bycatch rates from imports”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 found that seafood lost from the U. S. food supply contains vast quantities of protein and omega-3 fatty acids.”
- Also stated in: § 6. Conclusions · hedged
“Estimated annual nutrients lost to the U.S. food supply due to seafood loss, based on median waste estimates from 2009 to 2013.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Seafood is particularly important among types of lost food because of its high protein and omega-3 fatty acid content.
- Also stated in: § 6. Conclusions · hedged
In the paper
“Stakeholders and researchers have been using these regional estimates as a proxy for U.S. seafood loss (Gunders, 2012).”
§ 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 Gunders, 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We were unable to account for non-bycatch seafood losses during the production phase (including aquaculture and wild caught seafood) due to lack of available data.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.3. Seafood loss
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In fact, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data suggest that adults consume a median of only 3.0 ounces per person per week (Papanikolaou et al., 2014) from a U.S. edible seafood supply of 4.5 ounces per person per week (NOAA, 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 Papanikolaou et al., 2014
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“fish spoil quickly due to digestive enzymes, microbial spoilage, and oxidation, which change the odor, flavor and texture of fish (Ghaly et al., 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 Ghaly et al., 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consumer loss estimates for seafood were of low quality because the methods used to develop loss estimates were imprecise and relied on proxy data in some cases.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.5. Data quality and generalizability to the U.S.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The methods were, however, nationally representative in scope.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.5. Data quality and generalizability to the U.S.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our bycatch estimates did not include marine mammals and birds impacted by commercial fishing because these animals are not typically consumed in the U.S.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 2.1. Seafood loss
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Byproducts (heads, bones, offal) at the production and processing levels are often rendered into fish meal and oil which are ingredients in animal and pet feed and fertilizer (Tacon and Metian, 2008).”
§ 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 Tacon and Metian, 2008
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In fact, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data suggest that adults consume a median of only 3.0 ounces per person per week (Papanikolaou et al., 2014) from a U.S. edible seafood supply of 4.5 ounces per person per week (NOAA, 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 NOAA, 2014a
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“which makes imported seafood a larger fraction of total bycatch”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 4. Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the absence of data about the specific fish types lost in the U. S., the nutritional estimates were calculated based on the distribution of fish types consumed in the U.S. (Supporting information Table S13-15).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 5. Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Supporting information Table S13-15
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Data about the specific fish types lost in the U.S. are absent.
In the paper
“90% of the U.S. seafood supply is imported (NOAA, 2014b)”
§ 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 NOAA, 2014b
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“roughly three-quarters of the catch brought aboard shrimp trawling vessels in the Gulf of Mexico is discarded as bycatch (Supporting information Table S11) (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 Supporting information Table S11
- Not checked yetcites National Marine Fisheries Service, 2011
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“If all the lost seafood along the supply chain were instead eaten, it would fill over 1/3 of the gap between USDA-recommended and actual consumption with no increase in fishing or aquaculture production.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 4. Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“low levels of monitoring may result in considerable uncertainties in bycatch data (Keledjian et al., 2014).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 5. Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Keledjian et al., 2014
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“These estimates would be higher if we included the nutritional value of parts of fish eaten elsewhere, but commonly rejected in the U.S., such as heads.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 5. Limitations and future research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“preventing losses late in the food chain is particularly impactful, because at that point seafood includes all the embodied energy used in harvesting, processing, distribution, and preparation, and most importantly, cooling throughout the food chain.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 4. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 24
- Probably not a substantial claim. 29
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
“It appears the loss-adjusted supply has been decreasing slightly from 2009 to 2013, primarily due to decreases in seafood production (Table 1).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.4. Loss-adjusted seafood supply
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For EPA + DHA levels, the high-end estimate is 6.3 trillion mgmore than triple the low-end estimatedue to the broad ranges of values for some species.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.6. Nutrition
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data sources we used varied widely in their data quality and generalizability to the U.S., which affects our ability to accurately and confidently estimate loss at each stage of the supply chain (Fig. 5).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.5. Data quality and generalizability to the U.S.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After reviewing the available data on seafood supply and loss we selected the year range 2009-2013 as the most recent five-year range with high quality data available from most sources.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 2.1. Seafood loss
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, production level data was of good quality and highly generalizable to the U.S., while data along the supply chain and consumption was of low to moderate quality and low to moderate generalizability.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.5. Data quality and generalizability to the U.S.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, production level data was of good quality and highly generalizable to the U.S., while data along the supply chain and consumption was of low to moderate quality and low to moderate generalizability.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.5. Data quality and generalizability to the U.S.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We report the findings using the low-end estimates, even though these were often substantially lower than the median or high-end estimates.We made this conservative decision because the findings are not based on the actual distribution of seafood types lost, which is unknown.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 2.2. Nutrition
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Beyond that, it seems likely that most uneaten seafood at the consumer, food service and retail levels goes to landfills.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 1. Introduction
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We report seafood loss to two significant figures to indicate that these are not precise measurements.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 2.1. Seafood loss
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“loss was modeled by applying pre-determined percentages, based on research, to the overall supply.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 5. Limitations and future research
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were some limitations in our ability to attribute loss to specific species, so instead we attributed loss based on categories of products (fresh and frozen; and processed).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 5. Limitations and future research
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“the loss estimates will change as the food supply changes, but will not rise or fall as loss reduction behaviors improve, unless the underlying loss percentages are modified based on findings from further research.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 5. Limitations and future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Creating markets for bycatch species runs the risk of incentivizing their capture and creating fishing pressure for species currently viewed as bycatch.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 4. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Modeled results could change as more information about the specific species lost becomes available.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.6. Nutrition
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Loss at the production level was limited to bycatch and did not include other types of loss associated with wild caught seafood due to a lack of data.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 5. Limitations and future research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The nutritional findings are strengthened by averaging results across ten seafood types, and we present the low-end figures as conservative estimates.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 5. Limitations and future research
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“The loss exacts financial costs up and down the supply chain, and causes unnecessary losses to fisheries and other parts of our ecosystem needed for food security and our long-term survival.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 6. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
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
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 6. Conclusions · plain
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.”
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?
In the citing paper
“Love and colleagues 15 also estimated protein losses in seafood waste at 1.8 to 1.9 g per capita per day (calculation by the authors), which is 31% to 37% higher than the estimate of 1.4 g per capita per day from the seafood group from our analysis.”
From Wasted food, wasted nutrients: nutrient loss from wasted food in the United States and comparison to gaps in dietary intake (2017) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“The difference may be because Love and colleagues 15 included the full seafood supply chain and used multiple data sources specifically intended to avoid underestimation of seafood loss.”
From Wasted food, wasted nutrients: nutrient loss from wasted food in the United States and comparison to gaps in dietary intake (2017) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“Love and colleagues 15 provided low and high estimates of the per capita per day caloric value of wasted seafood (9.6 to 11.2 kcal [calculation by the authors]), which is 37% to 60% higher than the estimate of 7 kcal from the seafood group from this analysis.”
From Wasted food, wasted nutrients: nutrient loss from wasted food in the United States and comparison to gaps in dietary intake (2017) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“Two additional studies did not limit their analyses to the retail and consumer levels, but included the entire food supply chain.”
From Wasted food, wasted nutrients: nutrient loss from wasted food in the United States and comparison to gaps in dietary intake (2017) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“Seafood protein -low | 1.4 | 1.8 | e0.4 | e31”
From Wasted food, wasted nutrients: nutrient loss from wasted food in the United States and comparison to gaps in dietary intake (2017) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“Seafood protein -high | 1.4 | 1.9 | e0.5 | e37”
From Wasted food, wasted nutrients: nutrient loss from wasted food in the United States and comparison to gaps in dietary intake (2017) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“Seafood calories -low | 7.0 | 9.6 | e2.6 | e37”
From Wasted food, wasted nutrients: nutrient loss from wasted food in the United States and comparison to gaps in dietary intake (2017) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“Seafood calories -high | 7.0 | 11.2 | e4.2 | e60”
From Wasted food, wasted nutrients: nutrient loss from wasted food in the United States and comparison to gaps in dietary intake (2017) · cites this paper as [15]
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.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > Abstract
“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%).”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.3. Seafood loss
“Consumption represented 41-56% of total loss.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“From 2009 to 2013, 8.4 million metric tons (MMT) of edible seafood entered the U.S. from imported (4.8 MMT) and domestic (3.6 MMT) sources (Fig. 2).Over one third of the U.S. supply (2.9 MMT) was exported to as many as 157 other countries (Kirkley et al., 2006), and the remaining 5.7 MMT comprised the U.S. edible seafood supply.”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 3.1. Seafood production
Reported 5.7 · recomputed 5.5
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“| EPA + DHA, mg a | 1.83 Â 10 12 -6.25 Â 10 12 | 20,087,524-48,920,752 |”
§ Wasted seafood in the United States: Quantifying loss from production to consumption and moving toward solutions > 6. Conclusions
Reported 6250000000000 · recomputed 4464018620000
Citations
Cites
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
(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
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
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
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.).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Missing food, missing data? A critical review of global food losses and food waste data
Xue, L., Liu, G., Parfitt, J., Liu, X., Van Herpen, E., Stenmarck, Å., O’Connor, C., Östergren, K., & Cheng, S. (2017) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b00401 · Cited by 690
Nutritional and environmental losses embedded in global food waste
Chen, C., Chaudhary, A., & Mathys, A. (2020) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104912 · Cited by 408
Aquaculture wastewater treatment technologies and their sustainability: A review
Tom, A. P., Jayakumar, J. S., Biju, M., Somarajan, J., & Ibrahim, M. A. (2021) · Energy Nexus · doi:10.1016/j.nexus.2021.100022 · Cited by 272
Aquaculture: The missing contributor in the food security agenda
Garlock, T., Asche, F., Anderson, J. L., Ceballos‐Concha, A., Love, D. C., Osmundsen, T. C., & Pincinato, R. B. M. (2022) · Global Food Security · doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100620 · Cited by 246
Self-citationCooney, R., de Sousa, D. B., Fernández‐Ríos, A., Mellett, S., Rowan, N. J., Morse, A. P., Hayes, M., Laso, J., Regueiro, L., Wan, A. H. L., et al. (2023) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136283 · Cited by 252
Metadata
- Authors
- Love, D. C., Fry, J. P., Milli, M. C., & Neff, R. A.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Love, Dave C.
- Venue
- Global Environmental Change
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-11
- Volume
- 35
- Pages
- 116-124
- ISSN
- 0959-3780 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- 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
