Dna Barcoding And Its Effects On The Malaysian Market

practice in the fish industry and provides a method of standardization for something as subjective

Many consumers are often not aware that a large number of companies do not label everything they put

To begin, all of us have walked down the grocery store aisle and read labels saying

In the essay, “DNA fingerprinting: Cracking Our Genetic ‘Barcode’,” by Elaine Marieb, illustrates how significant DNA fingerprinting is today. She initiates a candid example of how New York City’s World Trade Center massacre killed more than 3, 000, left millions of bodies distorted, charred, and decayed. It was the staple for the ever-increasing need for DNA fingerprinting.

In order to extract DNA from any living thing, we needed to first gather the materials. Then we began the experiment. Step 1, put in a blender 1/2 cup of split peas (100ml), 1/8 teaspoon table salt (less than 1ml), and 1 cup cold water (200ml). Next, we blended the materials on high for 15 seconds. This allowed the pea cells to separate from each other, so we now had a really thin pea-cell soup. Step 2, poured our thin pea-cell soup through a strainer into another container. Added 2 tablespoons of liquid detergent (about 30ml) and swirled to mix. We then let the mixture incubate for 7 minutes. Poured the mixture into test tubes containers, and filled each about 1/3 full. Step 3, added a pinch of meat tenderizer to each test tube and stirred gently to make sure we didn’t break up the DNA. Step 4, tilted our test tube and slowly poured rubbing alcohol (70-95% isopropyl or ethyl alcohol) into the tube down the side so that it forms a layer on top of the pea mixture. Poured until we had about the same amount of alcohol in the tube as pea mixture. Alcohol is less dense than water, so it floats on top. From there we looked for clumps of white stringy stuff where the water and alcohol layers meet. The white stringy stuff was tangled DNA molecules. Thus, we completed DNA extraction. As we performed the experiment we made no changes to the original protocol.

Save the edited waveform so that you can go back to it later. Paste the edited sequence here:

We have all purchased a new consumer product with several labels, stickers, and product inserts containing warnings, disclaimers and oversimplified directions. The warnings can actually be humorous at times as illustrated in the following examples:

In the article, it talks about two companies, which are Bumble Bee and Chicken of the See. The tuna cans in both two companies are quality unqualified. The article shows the information for the unqualified products and warns people do not eat them. Also, it provides the information of the companies, so people can contact with them if necessary.

The fish are not available in California due to state regulations that ban biotech aquatic organisms (GloFish, 2011). In addition, Singapore – where the fish was originally engineered – has been reluctant to approve its sale (Ely, 2004). This places an additional limit on potential marketing and distribution strategies.

When I first started reading the article I could not believe in the idea of DNA barcoding. As I continued reading I was even more upset with the measure people would go to sale fake goods. I thought that I really do not want anyone missing with my food. The article allowed me to see the bigger picture of DNA Barcoding. People have found ways to made foods look as if we are eating fish, chicken and other goods. I think the DNA Barcoding is a step in the right direction because a lot of are foods are filled with hormones and things that should not go into are body. If DNA Barcoding cuts down on this why not try to find ways to improve and crack down on the fake goods.

Another concern that many consumers and consumer groups have is whether or not these GM salmon should be labeled

Delgado, C. L., Wada, N., Rosegrant, M. W., Meijer, S., & Ahmed, M. (2003). Fish to 2020: supply and demand in changing global markets. Retrieved from http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/books/fish2020/oc44.pdf

Many products are identified by particular brand names, like Levi’s (instead of jeans), Kleenex (instead of tissue), or Band-Aid (instead of adhesive bandages). A brand

Many breeds of fish are being captured at a faster rate than they can reproduce. Some species such as orange roughy fishing became popular in New Zealand in the 1970’s. Over time, it spread to many countries around the world. In the last 20 years, there has been a decline in catch up to 75%. It is no longer common to see in grocery stores as well as restaurants. The amounts of fish that are captured and distributed around the world are alarming opposed to the rate the fish can multiply.

Despite the many positives that come with labeling, mislabeling is negative that hurts labeling legislation. Mislabeling can negatively effects consumers by not allowing them to make informed decisions regarding their labeled purchases and possibly harming their health due to “incorrect” mercury intake. Mislabeling also hurts fisheries because threatened species may be under more fishing pressure than previously assumed. Lastly, mislabeling breaks import and export seafood regulations both internationally and nationally (Jacquet, 2008). Fishermen and seafood companies are misrepresenting their product for one reason and that is financial incentives. Unwanted species can be renamed to sound more appetizing, increasing profits in return (Jacquet, 2008).