Advertisement

Elasmobranchs Consumption in Brazil: Impacts and Consequences

  • Hugo BornatowskiEmail author
  • Raul R. Braga
  • Rodrigo P. Barreto
Part of the Coastal Research Library book series (COASTALRL, volume 22)

Abstract

Commercial fisheries struggle to apply regulatory and legal mechanisms that depend on reliable species-specific data, and the shark industry faces an even greater obstacle to transparency with sellers changing product names to overcome consumer resistance. Fraudulent representation or mislabeling of fish, including sharks and rays, has been recorded in some countries. In Brazil, for instance, sharks are sold as “cação” – a popular name attributed for any shark or ray species; however, according to consumer’s knowledge of a large city of southern Brazil, more than 70% of them are often unaware that “cação” refers to sharks. Today, the Brazilian market has a high interest in encouraging people to eat “cação” meat, mainly because of their attractive prices. This raise a number of questions, mainly in respect to the knowledge of people/consumers, as what are they eating, and why the Brazilian meat market has grown so much in the last years.

References

  1. Amorim AF, Arfelli CA, Fagundes L (1998) Pelagic elasmobranchs caught by longliners off southern Brazil during 1974–97: an overview. Mar Freshw Res 49:621–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbuto M, Galimberti A, Ferri E, Labra M, Malandra R, Galli P, Casiraghi M (2010) DNA barcoding reveals fraudulent substitutions in shark seafood products: the Italian case of “palombo” (Mustelus spp.) Food Res Int 43:376–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barreto RP (2015) Historia de vida e vulnerabilidade dos tubarões oceânicos do Atlantico Sul. PhD Thesis, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  4. Barreto RR, Lessa RP, Hazin FH, Santana FM (2011) Age and growth of the blacknose shark, Carcharhinus acronotus (Poey 1860) off the northeastern Brazilian coast. Fish Res 110:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barreto R, Ferretti F, Mills J, Amorim A, Andrade H, Worm B, Lessa R (2016) Trends in the exploitation of South Atlantic shark populations. Conserv Biol 30:792–804CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Baum JK, Myers RA, Kehler DG, Worm B, Harley SJ, Doherty PA (2003) Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the northwest Atlantic. Science 299:389–392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonfil R (1994) Overview of world elasmobranch fisheries. Fisheries technical papers. RomeGoogle Scholar
  8. Bornatowski H, Vitule JRS, Abilhoa V, Corrêa MFM (2011) Unconventional fishing for large sharks in the state of Paraná southern Brazil: a note of concern. J Appl Ichthyol 27:1108–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bornatowski H, Braga RR, Vitule JRS (2013) Shark mislabeling threatens biodiversity. Science 340:923CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bornatowski H, Braga RR, Vitule JRS (2014) Threats to sharks in a developing country: the need for effective and simple conservation measures. Natureza Conserv 12(1):11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bornatowski H, Braga RR, Kalinowski C, Vitule JRS (2015) “Buying a Pig in a Poke”: the problem of Elasmobranch meat consumption in Southern Brazil. Ethnobiol Lett 6(1):196–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brazil (1990) Lei n. 8.078, de 11 de setembro de 1990. Dispõe Sobre a Proteção do Consumidor e dá Outras Providências. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília, DF, 12 set. 1990. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/ leis/l8078.htm. Accessed 15 Sep 2016
  13. Brazil (2014) Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Portarias 445, de 17 de Dezembro de 2014, Diário Oficial da União http://pesquisaingovbr/imprensa/jsp/visualiza/indexjsp?data=18/12/2014&jornal=1&pagina=110&totalArquivos=144. Accessed 18 Oct 2016Google Scholar
  14. Camhi M, Fowler S, Musick J, Bräutigam A, Fordham S (1998) Sharks and their relatives, ecology and conservation. Occas. Paper IUCN Spec. Surv. Comm. 39 pGoogle Scholar
  15. Carvalho DC, Palhares RM, Drummond MG, Frigo TB (2015) DNA barcoding identification of commercialized seafood in south Brazil: a governmental regulatory forensic program. Food Control 50:784–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarke S, Yokawa K, Matsunaga H, Nakano H (2011) Analysis of North Pacific shark data from Japanese commercial longline and research/training vessel records. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Pohnpei, MicronesiaGoogle Scholar
  17. Cortés E, Brooks L, Scott G (2002) Stock assessment of large coastal sharks in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-2/03-177Google Scholar
  18. Dent F, Clarke S (2015) State of the global market for shark products. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture technical paper no. 590. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  19. Dias ACL, Guimarães JRD, Malm O, Costa PAS (2008) Mercúrio total em músculo de cação Prionace glauca (Linnaeus, 1758) e de espadarte Xiphias gladius Linnaeus, 1758, na costa sul-sudeste do Brasil e suas implicações para a saúde pública. Cad Saúde Pública 24(9):2063–2070CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Domingo A, Forselledo R, Miller P, Jiménez S, Mas F, Pons M (2014) General description of longline fisheries. ICCAT manual, 312. Available from http://wwwiccates/Documents/SCRS/Manual/CH3/CHAP_3_1_2_LL_ENGpdf. Assessed 05 October 2016Google Scholar
  21. Dulvy NK, Harisson LR, Carlson JK et al (2014) Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. elife 3:e00590CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Escobar-Sánchez O, Galván-Magaña F, Rosíles-Martínez R (2011) Biomagnification of mercury and selenium in blue shark Prionace glauca from the Pacific Ocean off Mexico. Biol Trace Elem Res 144:550–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Estrella F, Raposo G, Pascolli J, Gonzalez JG, Motta FS, Moura RL (2014) Comercialização de pescado nas cidades de São Paulo e Rio de Janeiro. https://wwwsosmaorgbr/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ESTUDO-PESCADO-2014_Relatorio-Finalpdf. Assessed 02 Nov 2016Google Scholar
  24. Ferretti F, Worm B, Britten GL, Heithaus MR, Lotze HK (2010) Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecol Lett 13:1055–1071PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Garcia VB, Lucifora LO, Myers RA (2008) The importance of habitat and life history to extinction risk in sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras. Proc R Soc B 275:83–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hazin FHV, Broadhurst MK, Amorim AF, Arfelli CA, Domingo A (2008) Catches of pelagic sharks by subsurface longline fisheries in the South Atlantic Ocean during the last century: a review of available data with emphasis on Uruguay and Brazil. In: Camhi MD, Pickitch EA (eds) Sharks of the open ocean: biology, fisheries and conservation. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 213–227Google Scholar
  27. Holden MJ (1974) Problems in the rational exploitation of elasmobranch populations and some suggested solutions. In: Harden-Jones FR (ed) Sea fisheries research. Elek Science, London, pp 117–138Google Scholar
  28. Hutchings JA (2000) Collapse and recovery of marine fishes. Nature 406:882–885CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) (2016) Avaliação do risco de extinção dos elasmobrânquios e quimeras no Brasil: 2010–2012. Available in: http://www.icmbio.gov.br/cepsul/especies-ameacadas.html. Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  30. Jacquet JL, Pauly D (2008) Trade secrets: renaming and mislabeling of seafood. Mar Policy 32:309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lamendin R, Miller K, Ward RD (2015) Labelling accuracy in Tasmanian seafood: an investigation using DNA barcoding. Food Control 47:436–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lessa RP, Santana FM, Rincón G, Gadig OBF, El-Deir ACA (1999) Biodiversidade de elasmobrânquios do Brasil. Recife Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA), Projeto de Conservação e Utilização Sustentável da Diversidade Biológica Brasileira (PROBIO)Google Scholar
  33. Lessa RP, Batista V, Santana FM (2016) Close to extinction? The collapse of the endemic daggernose shark (Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus) off Brazil. Global Ecol Conserv 7:70–81Google Scholar
  34. Lopez SA, Abarca NL, Meléndez R (2013) Heavy metal concentrations of two highly migratory sharks (Prionace glauca and Isurus oxyrinchus) in the Southeastern Pacific waters: comments on public health and conservation. Trop Conserv Sci 6:126–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mace GM, Collar NJ, Gaston KJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Akcakaya HR, Leader-Williams N, Milner-Gulland EJ, Stuart SN (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conserv Biol 22:1424–1442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Musick JA (1999) Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals. In: Musick JA (ed) Life in the slow lane: ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals. American Fisheries Society Symposium, Bethesda, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  37. Nelson JS (2006) Fishes of the World, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Oceana (2016) Seafood frau campaign. http://oceanaorg/our-campaigns/seafood_fraud/campaign. Assessed 2 Oct 2016
  39. Palmeira MCA, Rodrigues-Filho LFS, Sales JBL, Vallinoto M, Schneider H, Sampaio I (2013) Commercialization of a critically endangered species (largetooth sawfish, Pristis perotteti) in fish markets of northern Brazil: authenticity by DNA analysis. Food Control 34:249–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pethybridge H, Cossa D, Butler CV (2009) Mercury in 16 Demersal sharks from Southeast Australia: biotic and abiotic sources of variation and consumer health implications. Mar Freshw Res 68:18–26Google Scholar
  41. Priede IG, Froese R, Bailey DM, Bergstad OA, Collins MA, Dyb JE, Henriques C, Jones EG, King N (2006) The absence of sharks from abyssal regions of the world’s oceans. Proc R Soc B 273:1435–1441CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Sampson GS, Sanchirico JN, Roheim CA et al (2015) Sustainability: secure sustainable seafood from developing countries. Science 348(6234):504–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith PJ, Benson PG (2001) Biochemical identification of shark fins and fillets from the coastal fisheries in New Zealand. Fish Bull 99(2):351–355Google Scholar
  44. Smith SE, Au DW, Show C (1998) Intrinsic rebound potentials of 26 species of Pacific sharks. Mar Freshw Res 49:663–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Snelson FF Jr, Roman BL, Burgess GH (2008) The reproductive biology of pelagic elasmobranchs. In: Camhi MD, Pikitch EK, Babcock EA (eds) Sharks of the open ocean: biology, fisheries and conservation. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 24–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stevens JD, Bonfil R, Dulvy NK, Walker PA (2000) The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES J Mar Sci 57:476–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stobutzki IC, Miller MJ, Heales DS, Brewer DT (2002) Sustainability of elasmobranchs caught as bycatch in a tropical prawn (shrimp) trawl fishery. Fish Bull 100:800–821Google Scholar
  48. UNIVALI/CTTMar (2011) Boletim estatístico da pesca industrial de Santa Catarina – Ano 2010. Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Centro de Ciências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar, ItajaíGoogle Scholar
  49. Vannuccini S (1999) Shark utilization and trade. Food and Agriculture Organization technical paper, n.389, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  50. Von der Heyden S, Barendse J, Seebregts AJ, Matthee CA (2010) Misleading the masses: detection of mislabelled and substituted frozen fish products in South Africa. ICES J Mar Sci 67:176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vooren CM (1997) Demersal elasmobranchs. In: Seeliger U, Odebrechet C, Castello JP (eds) Subtropical convergence environments. The coast and sea in the southwestern Atlantic. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 141–146Google Scholar
  52. Walker T (1998) Can shark resources be harvested sustainably? A question revisited with a review of shark fisheries. Mar Freshw Res 49:553–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. WildAid (2007) The end of the line? Global threats to sharks. http://www.wildaid.org. Accessed 10 Mar 2015
  54. Wong EHK, Hanner R (2008) DNA barcoding detects market substitution in North American seafood. Food Res Int 41:828–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugo Bornatowski
    • 1
    Email author
  • Raul R. Braga
    • 2
  • Rodrigo P. Barreto
    • 3
  1. 1.Centro de Estudos do MarUniversidade Federal do ParanáCuritibaBrazil
  2. 2.LEC-Laboratório de Ecologia e Conservação/Universidade Federal do ParanáCuritibaBrazil
  3. 3.Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservação da Biodiversidade Marinha do Sudeste e Sul do Brasil (CEPSUL/ICMBio)ItajaíBrazil

Personalised recommendations