Yale-NUS College researchers have detected traces of shark meat in a third of pet food samples collected in Singapore, including those by notable brands Whiskas and Purina, in what is believed to be the first study of its kind done here.

Researchers Benjamin J Wainwright and Ian French studied 45 different pet food products from 16 brands sold in Singapore. None had listed sharks as an ingredient, with most brands using generic terms such as “fish”, “ocean fish”, “white bait” or “white fish”.

Mr French, a graduating student majoring in environmental studies at Yale-NUS College, said: “Under current regulations, vague labels such as ‘white fish’, ‘ocean fish’ or ‘white bait’ in pet food are allowed. These labels enable companies to sell mixtures of fish without specifying, or even possibly knowing, their corresponding species identities.”

He added: “The majority of pet owners are likely lovers of nature, and we think most would be alarmed to discover that they could be unknowingly contributing to the overfishing of shark populations.”

He and Assistant Professor Wainwright, who has worked on numerous marine conservation programmes in the tropics, looked at 144 samples.

They used a technique called “DNA barcoding” by matching DNA extracted from the pet food samples against global databases to help identify the animal species contained in them.

Similar to how barcode labels help to identify different products, “DNA barcoding” uses a short, signature genetic region to identify a species of animal.

The research paper, published in peer-reviewed research journal Frontiers in Marine Science on March 4, stated that the most commonly identified species in the samples were the blue shark, silky shark and whitetip reef shark.

Both the silky shark and the whitetip reef shark are listed as “vulnerable” in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List and the blue shark is listed as “near threatened”.

The silky shark is also listed in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) Appendix II, meaning that its trade must be controlled to avoid overconsumption because it would threaten survival of the species.

The paper suggested that after high-value fins from sharks have been removed, the pet food industry may have processed shark carcasses instead of wasting it.

However, the researchers are “sceptical that this is the sole reason sharks end up in pet food”.

Although Mr French noted that the full scale of seafood mislabelling in Singapore is difficult to estimate, he finds it “striking that nearly one-third of the samples contained shark DNA”.

“Moreover, this is at least the fourth study in the past four years to expose mislabelling practices locally,” he added.

A study last year by Yale-NUS College found that 26 per cent of all seafood samples taken from supermarkets here are mislabelled and a study in 2018 co-authored by researchers from the National University of Singapore (NUS) identified endangered sharks sold under the overarching label of “fins”.

Although there is no clear scientific evidence for the health impact on pets consuming shark meat, Mr French noted that previous research has shown that there are high levels of mercury in sharks, which may lead to mercury poisoning among cats and dogs.

WHAT PET FOOD COMPANIES SAY

Pet food companies contacted by TODAY insisted that their products do not contain shark meat. 

Mr Kenneth Koh, chief executive officer and brand owner of Kit Cat, said that the detection of shark DNA does not mean that the pet food has shark meat.

He contacted the factories manufacturing Kit Cat’s products and they declared that there is no shark content or endangered species of fishes in the products.

“They believe that perhaps, the ocean is already contaminated with shark carcasses and the tuna (in canned pet food) had consumed shark's carcasses in the ocean and hence, there is shark DNA in the tuna.

“No one will use shark meat for cat food as everyone is conscious about sharks these days. It is also difficult to fish for sharks and it is much more expensive than tuna,” Mr Koh added. 

“So it does not make much sense to use shark meat inside any cat food products.”

Nestle, the parent company of Purina pet food brand, told TODAY: “There are no Purina products that use shark as an ingredient in its formula and we comply with industry regulations and guidelines to list all ingredients in our pet foods.”

The company also said that it has responsible sourcing guidelines to ensure that all wild-caught and farmed seafood supplied to Purina comes from responsible sources.

“They must not source fish and seafood ingredients that contain IUCN red-listed endangered species and must not acquire or capture any illegal, unregulated and unreported seafood.”

Mars Petcare similarly said that the company does not source any endangered fish species, as defined by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and it does not include sharks in its recipes.

“As a global leader in pet care and nutrition, Mars Petcare is responsible for feeding and care of millions of pets every day. If true, this is a deeply worrying study,” the company, which owns pet food brands Whiskas and Sheba, said.

“We do not use sharks in our supply chain. From this study, it asks us to look for the potential cross-contamination, for example, whether tuna intake may have caused cross-contamination.

“We have reached out to our suppliers of the products indicated in the report to reiterate our clear standards and expectations and understand where control processes need to be strengthened, if needed.”

TODAY has approached the Animal and Veterinary Service for comments.

Source:
courtesy of TODAY

by CHARLENE GOH

If you have any stories or news that you would like to share with the global online community, please feel free to share it with us by contacting us directly at [email protected]