Conservation Genetics

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 1383–1387 | Cite as

Genetic identification of threatened shark species in pet food and beauty care products

  • Diego CardeñosaEmail author
Research Article


Contemporary global demand for shark commodities such as fins, meat, and liver oil, is arguably the main driver of shark overexploitation trends observed in the last three decades. Shark are most commonly traded for their fins to be used in different Asian countries as a soup delicacy. Nevertheless, shark meat trade has increased substantially in the last decade, while liver oil trade is still largely unknown. Shark liver oil is highly valuable in the cosmetic industry as a moisturizer, while shark meat is directly consumed in a large number of countries but the whole extent of its uses is unknown. Here I used a multiplex mini-barcode PCR protocol to identify traces of shark DNA in beauty care and pet food products, in order to identify them to the genus and/or species level. All products tested for this study were not labeled as containing elasmobranch-based ingredients. I tested 87 pet food products, 63% amplified successfully, and 70% of those were identified as the Endangered shortfin mako shark. I also tested twenty-four cosmetics, where 3 (12.5%) amplified successfully, containing blue shark, scalloped hammerhead and blacktip shark. This study highlights the need for more labeling controls, since shark populations could benefit if consumers have the alternative to choose whether or not to purchase products containing threatened shark species in order to decrease the global demand.


Food mislabeling Isurus oxyrinchus Pet food Squalene Shark conservation 



I would like to thank the Sharkwater Team for their generous contribution to this study. This manuscript is dedicated to the memory of Rob Stewart, a passionate and dedicated individual who inspired people to protect and speak up for sharks and the oceans.


  1. Arrizabalaga H, de Bruyn P, Diaz GA et al (2011) Productivity and susceptibility analysis for species caught in Atlantic tuna fisheries. Aquat Living Resour 24:1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker MJ, Schluessel V (2005) Managing global shark fisheries: suggestions for prioritizing management strategies. Aquatic Conserv 15:325–347. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barreto R, Ferretti F, Flemming JM et al (2016) Trends in the exploitation of South Atlantic shark populations. Conserv Biol 30:792–804. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkeley SA, Campos WL (1988) Relative abundance and fishery potential of pelagic sharks along Florida’s east coast. Mar Fish Rev 50:9–16Google Scholar
  5. Buencuerpo V, Rios S, Morón J (1998) Pelagic sharks associated with the swordfish, Xiphias gladius, fishery in the eastern North Atlantic Ocean and the Strait of Gibraltar. Fish Bull 96:667–685Google Scholar
  6. Cardeñosa D, Fields A, Abercrombie D et al (2017) A multiplex PCR mini-barcode assay to identify processed shark products in the global trade. PLoS ONE 12:e0185368–e0185369. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardeñosa D, Fields AT, Babcock E et al (2018) CITES-listed sharks remain among the top species in the contemporary fin trade. Conserv Lett 43:e12457-7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke S, Sato M, Small C, et al (2014) Bycatch in longline fisheries for tuna and tuna- like species: a global review of status and mitigation measures. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No 341, Rome, pp 1–236Google Scholar
  9. Clarke TM, Espinoza M, Ahrens R (2015) Elasmobranch bycatch associated with the shrimp trawl fishery off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, Central America. Fish Bull 114:1–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cortés E (2002) Catches and catch rates of pelagic sharks from the northwestern Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. ICCAT Coll Vol Sci Pap 54:1164–1181Google Scholar
  11. Cortés E, Brown CA, Beerkircher L (2007) Relative abundance of pelagic sharks in the western north Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Gulf Caribb Res 19:37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cortés E, Arocha F, Beerkircher L et al (2009) Ecological risk assessment of pelagic sharks caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries. Aquat Living Resour 23:25–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dent F, Clarke S (2015) State of the global market for shark products. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 590. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  14. Dulvy NK, Baum JK, Clarke S et al (2008) You can swim but you can’t hide: the global status and conservation of oceanic pelagic sharks and rays. Aquat Conserv 18:459–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FAO (2001) Codex general standard for the labelling of prepackaged foods, in Codex Stan 1985 (Rev. 1-1991), pp 1–62. Accessed 24 May 2007
  16. FAO (2016) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2016. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome, pp 1–204Google Scholar
  17. Fields AT, Abercrombie DL, Eng R et al (2015) A novel mini-DNA barcoding assay to identify processed fins from internationally protected shark species. PLoS ONE 10:e0114844. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Fields AT, Fischer GA, Shea SKH et al (2017) Species composition of the international shark fin trade assessed through a retail-market survey in Hong Kong. Conserv Biol 32:376–389. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Huxley-Jones E, Shaw JLA, Fletcher C et al (2012) Use of DNA barcoding to reveal species composition of convenience seafood. Conserv Biol 26:367–371. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacquet JL, Pauly D (2008) Trade secrets: renaming and mislabeling of seafood. Mar Policy 32:309–318. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marko PB, Nance HA, Guynn KD (2011) Genetic detection of mislabeled fish from a certified sustainable fishery. CURBIO 21:R621–R622. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nakano H, Honma M (1997) Historical CPUE of pelagic sharks caught by the Japanese longline fishery in the Atlantic Ocean. Col Vol Sci Pap ICCAT 46:393–398Google Scholar
  23. Quinto CA, Tinoco R, Hellberg RS (2016) DNA barcoding reveals mislabeling of game meat species on the U.S. commercial market. Food Control 59:386–392. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ropicki AJ, Larkin SL, Adams CM (2010) Seafood substitution and mislabeling: WTP for a locally caught grouper labeling program in Florida. Mar Resour Econ 25:77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ruiz-Valdepeñas Montiel V, Gutiérrez ML, Torrente-Rodríguez RM et al (2017) Disposable amperometric polymerase chain reaction-free biosensor for direct detection of adulteration with horsemeat in raw lysates targeting mitochondrial DNA. Anal Chem 89:9474–9482. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Shea KH, To AWL (2017) From boat to bowl: patterns and dynamics of shark fin trade in Hong Kong—implications for monitoring and management. Mar Policy 81:330–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shokralla S, Gibson JF, Nikbakht H et al (2014) Next-generation DNA barcoding: using next-generation sequencing to enhance and accelerate DNA barcode capture from single specimens. Mol Ecol Resour 14:892–901. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Simpfendorfer C, Cortés E, Heupel M, et al (2008) An integrated approach to determining the risk of overexploitation for data-poor pelagic Atlantic sharksGoogle Scholar
  29. Springer S, French PM (1944) Vitamin A in shark liver oils. Ind Eng Chem 36:190–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Worm B, Davis B, Kettemer L et al (2013) Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks. Mar Policy 40:194–204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wu J (2016) Shark fin and mobulid ray gill plate trade. TRAFFIC Report, pp 1–94Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Marine and Atmospheric SciencesStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.Fundación Colombia AzulBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations