4.7 Letter

Chemical profiling of Ulva species for food applications: What is in a name?

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 361, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.130084

Keywords

EU regulation; Gut weed; Molecular taxonomy; Non-novel food; Sea lettuce

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Seaweeds are increasingly utilized in European cuisine, with a focus on molecular techniques for accurate species identification. Various Ulva species have been consumed as food, highlighting the need for genetic identification to ensure food safety and quality standards are met. Recommendations are made for expanding the acceptance of different Ulva species for food consumption in Europe.
Seaweeds are increasingly used in European cuisine. Until the recent use of molecular techniques, species identification was solely based on morphology which cannot easily discriminate morphologically simple but phenotypically plastic taxa such as the green algal genus Ulva. For example, current taxonomic protocol effectively reassigned the previously known European. Ulva lactuca L.' under the name Ulva fenestrata Postels & Ruprecht. Also, the presumptive Ulva lactuca approved by the Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM, Joint Research Center, European Commission) as Certified Reference Material (CRM) for analytical quality assurance was genetically identified as U. rigida C.Agardh. It is very likely that different Ulva species under various names have been consumed as food not only in Europe, but also worldwide. In this regard, when chemical composition and nutritional quality of different seaweed species meet a set of food standard criteria, and food safety hazards are mitigated, they should be endorsed for consumption. In the case of Ulva, we propose that different bladed and tubular species should generally be accepted for food consumption in Europe.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available