Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

whichfish.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#71

Post by anonymous246 »

fishyfish wrote: post #52

One odd thing about this list: There are 6 instances where species are listed as okay to eat if they are from the US while not okay to eat if they are from elsewhere. There are 0 instances where the opposite is true. # yes Barramundi (US/Europe/Australia) # yes Barramundi (Closed Production) # no Barramundi (Other) # yes Catfish (US Farmed) # no Catfish (Other) # yes Crayfish (US) # no Crayfish (Other) # yes Herring…

No, imho it's not bias. For wild fish, the US enforces the quantity of fish that can be taken much more effectively, than, say China/Japan.

Second, the regulations/practices on the environmental impact of fish farms on the nearby sea are probably better in the US than elsewhere (many fish farms are in the backwaters of an ocean).

Do you really find it hard to believe that the USA has higher standards of environmental protection than other countries?

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#72

Post by rwolf »

Alex3917 wrote: post #23
davidhollander wrote: post #2

SeafoodWatch already has a pretty solid iPhone and Android app that does this[1], but I'm all for more options and having raw JSON available. [1] http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_i...

You can also get the same information online here: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1540 (eco best / worst) http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=17694 (health best / worst) You can even get a pocket guide that goes into your wallet that you can take out whenever you go into a sushi restaurant or fish market. Here in NYC there are a lot of hedge fund managers with serious neurological problems from eating sushi every da…

Thanks a lot for posting the pocket guide. I like pretending to know what I'm doing when I eat sushi, and that guide will help to artificially limit my options so it looks less like I'm choosing at random (and eating healthier to boot!).

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#73

Post by rwolf »

Tichy wrote: post #70
trotsky wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And vegetables and fruits? Well, practically all of the mass produced ones never EVER saw any soil or real sunlight but artificial gel to grow on Wait, what? You are going off the deep end here. I assure you that the exact opposite is true - practically all mass produced produce touches soil and uses real sunlight. The economics don't support your premise at all. Have you never been to rural areas? I assure you they…

"Have you never been to rural areas? I assure you they are not lined with industrial warehouses and artificial lighting systems." You are aware that Farmville != rural areas in the real world? There are movies and books depicting the industrial rising of cattle (for example "Eating Animals" does a nice, graphics job). You can spot the "pink lakes" which result from the waste output of industrial pig farming on Google…

The things you are saying are true about livestock. The commenters above are talking about fruits and vegetables specifically. It makes sense to me that a dirt patch and sunlight out in Ohio are cheaper than setting up hydroponics plants.

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#74

Post by kahawe »

riffic wrote: post #51
simonsarris wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does all broccoli look the same? Surely pre-industry, there were numerous varieties of broccoli. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not. If you are sincere then you are mistaken beyond your wildest dreams. All cultivars of the broccoli species look magnificently different. Broccoli, kale, collard greens, Chinese broccoli, cauliflower, Romanesco broccoli and broccoflower, cabbage, brussels sprouts, a…

you're missing the point. The point is, monocultures in agriculture can cause major issues. see the banana

There was an interesting read on HN not too long ago about the "biggest mistake" of humanity... and it was settling down and growing crops instead of hunting and gathering which allegedly made life easier but according to the article it actually made things much worse in terms of health, time invested in order not-to-starve and a big point were monocultures: humans feed on hardly any diversity which can lead to all sorts of malnourishment and they found proof of that in lots of bones from ancient civilizations after their culture had moved to farming.

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#75

Post by kahawe »

Tichy wrote: post #70
trotsky wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And vegetables and fruits? Well, practically all of the mass produced ones never EVER saw any soil or real sunlight but artificial gel to grow on Wait, what? You are going off the deep end here. I assure you that the exact opposite is true - practically all mass produced produce touches soil and uses real sunlight. The economics don't support your premise at all. Have you never been to rural areas? I assure you they…

"Have you never been to rural areas? I assure you they are not lined with industrial warehouses and artificial lighting systems." You are aware that Farmville != rural areas in the real world? There are movies and books depicting the industrial rising of cattle (for example "Eating Animals" does a nice, graphics job). You can spot the "pink lakes" which result from the waste output of industrial pig farming on Google…

This might apply more here in Europe than in the USA, considering you have such an abundance of land available. But our cheaper vegetables are notoriously grown in glasshouses in the Netherlands and Spain over here and they do not touch any real soil; and it is ultimately cheaper and allows for better use of the space since they can grow on several levels and harvesting is much easier than having to dig something in and later out in the field.

The worse part still remains: chemicals, pesticides and lots and lots of genetically altered vegetables and fruits. You cannot even use their seeds to grow new ones; you have to buy seeds from e.g. Monsanto each year along with all the chemicals you need to grow that stuff.

You have to watch "We Feed the World"!

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#76

Post by kahawe »

trotsky wrote: post #50
kahawe wrote: post #25

Can't eat beef because of mad cow and the heavy medication used in breeding; same goes for pigs and chicken and all other mass-produced meat. On top of that you have the question of animal cruelty and the questionable necessity of killing animals to eat them attached to it. Plus it is generally not that healthy to eat it all the time and you shouldn't eat meat more than once or twice a week or so. Can't eat fish for…

And vegetables and fruits? Well, practically all of the mass produced ones never EVER saw any soil or real sunlight but artificial gel to grow on Wait, what? You are going off the deep end here. I assure you that the exact opposite is true - practically all mass produced produce touches soil and uses real sunlight. The economics don't support your premise at all. Have you never been to rural areas? I assure you they…

Well, even with local farmers you do not escape the mass food production industry, really. AFAIK there are hardly any farmers left who do NOT grow their vegetables and fruits with actual, natural seeds but rely on those genetically modified super-seeds from Monsanto and other companies. These do not bear usable seeds, you cannot plant them in the next year. Plus they need all sorts of chemicals and pesticides to grow, still.

> We've been doing it this way for thousands of years

And for the bigger part of those thousands of years, on average we barely made it to the age of 30, let alone 40. It is good if you can trust local folk but it is better to have professional inspections because there is a lot that can still go wrong in farming and your local farmers might just miss or not know about something crucial. Or maybe I am just used too much to the German way of things already.... inspections and checks for everything.

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#77

Post by Tichy »

rwolf wrote: post #73
Tichy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Have you never been to rural areas? I assure you they are not lined with industrial warehouses and artificial lighting systems." You are aware that Farmville != rural areas in the real world? There are movies and books depicting the industrial rising of cattle (for example "Eating Animals" does a nice, graphics job). You can spot the "pink lakes" which result from the waste output of industrial pig farming on Google…

The things you are saying are true about livestock. The commenters above are talking about fruits and vegetables specifically. It makes sense to me that a dirt patch and sunlight out in Ohio are cheaper than setting up hydroponics plants.

Missed that, sorry :-(

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#78

Post by tjpick »

jellicle wrote: post #12

This is a silly list. Not because fish aren't important, but because there's no way to take action on this list. Studies have shown that a huge amount of fish is mislabelled. Yes, pick up a piece of xxxx from a seafood market and the odds are that it's not xxxx. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/science/earth/27fish.html Consumers have no effective way to verify what they're eating. This is a situation where there is…

> Consumers have no effective way to verify what they're eating.

Buy whole fish. It's much harder to be lied to when you can look the fish in the eye.

Re: Which Fish: With fish stocks under pressure, which are okay to eat?

#79

Post by trotsky »

kahawe wrote: post #76
trotsky wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And vegetables and fruits? Well, practically all of the mass produced ones never EVER saw any soil or real sunlight but artificial gel to grow on Wait, what? You are going off the deep end here. I assure you that the exact opposite is true - practically all mass produced produce touches soil and uses real sunlight. The economics don't support your premise at all. Have you never been to rural areas? I assure you they…

Well, even with local farmers you do not escape the mass food production industry, really. AFAIK there are hardly any farmers left who do NOT grow their vegetables and fruits with actual, natural seeds but rely on those genetically modified super-seeds from Monsanto and other companies. These do not bear usable seeds, you cannot plant them in the next year. Plus they need all sorts of chemicals and pesticides to grow…

Just to give you a picture, I get most of my vegetables from a Community Supported Agriculture farm here in the spring and summer. They give me a box of what is available. Onions, peppers, beets, potatoes, cucumbers, fennel, tomatoes, garlic and cilantro have been some of the recent arrivals. Spring had lots of lettuces and spinach, in the future there will be squash. Some are local heirlooms, they certainly aren't from gene hack labs. The jalapenos growing in my garden came from Amish farm stocks in the next county. The pork chops and sausage in my freezer grew up a few miles away.

With all that said, I could be at the white house for a state dinner in an hour if they ever asked me.

I don't know how possible it is to manage a large global society this way, but it works OK at a micro level.

http://www.localharvest.org/csa/

Post reply on HN