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

59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 103 posts

Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna

#11

Post by jlgreco »

dragonwriter wrote: post #6
jlgreco wrote: post #2

Perhaps, given the dire state of tuna supplies and consumers who apparently cannot tell the difference without resorting to testing, we should be encouraging mislabeling. Insisting on a particular rare fish while another more common fish satisfies you just as well is exceptionally silly. Of course it is near impossible to convince consumers of this, but business owners have apparently figured out a solution themselve…

> Perhaps, given the dire state of tuna supplies and consumers who apparently cannot tell the difference without resorting to testing, we should be encouraging mislabeling. Yes, because fighting ignorance with lies that cater to it is much better than fighting it with information.

You could, and should, do both of course.

If the FDA sanctioned the practice and published lists of approved fish substitutions then only uninformed consumers would be unaware of the possibility that they were being gouged for cheap fish (you can see that gouging as a reward to restaurants that refuse to serve real tuna, and an informal punishment for consumers who are trying to get tuna). These uninformed consumers are presumably un-reached by your media campaign to cut back on tuna consumption.

It also eases the transition from tuna to other fish. I like tuna-salad sandwiches, I eat them a few times a month. I wouldn't know if the tuna in them wasn't real tuna, in fact I hope it isn't. I would have no idea what "escolar salad" is though. Mislabeling allows me to get what I want without unnecessary environmental impact.

Also, mislabeling fish is not unprecedented, but done for worse reasons in the past. See Vietnamese catfish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basa_fish#.22Catfish_war.22_in_....

Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna

#13

Post by skore »

I've always wondered - at what level is a person contributing to the Tuna shortage? I rarely eat fish to begin with, have yet to go to a sushi place. But I do have a can of Tuna on Pizza about every month. Is that already too much?

Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna

#14

Post by nmcfarl »

mh- wrote: post #5

now, now.. surely this is just splitting hairs. 84% of fish samples labeled "white tuna" were actually escolar, a fish that can cause prolonged, uncontrollable, oily anal leakage. oh.

Yeah - but it doesn't unless you it quite a good bit of it. And of course it's super yummy. It would of course be better if it was just labeled as escolar (as it is at my local sushi joint)

Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna

#16

Post by dragonwriter »

jlgreco wrote: post #11
dragonwriter wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps, given the dire state of tuna supplies and consumers who apparently cannot tell the difference without resorting to testing, we should be encouraging mislabeling. Yes, because fighting ignorance with lies that cater to it is much better than fighting it with information.

You could, and should, do both of course. If the FDA sanctioned the practice and published lists of approved fish substitutions then only uninformed consumers would be unaware of the possibility that they were being gouged for cheap fish (you can see that gouging as a reward to restaurants that refuse to serve real tuna, and an informal punishment for consumers who are trying to get tuna) . These uninformed consumers…

> You could, and should, do both of course.

No, you should just use the truth, since the lies combat the truth.

If you prevent mislabeling, the rare fish becomes expensive rather than cheap-and-adulterated, the price differences drive lots of the people that think they prefer the rare fish to settle and try the cheaper, less rare, fish, and to the extent that the cheaper fish actually is suitable, people learn and it becomes popular.

If there is a risk of this transition happening too slowly to meet some social good (like, preserving the rare fish), you enact appropriate protections to the rare fish (either quotas, taxes, or outright bans) that restrict the supply or drive up the retail price, which accelerates the process of conversion.

> It also eases the transition from tuna to other fish.

No, it actually delays the conversion of demand by masking the cost and delaying people trying the other fish as itself and learning that it is acceptable.

Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna

#17

Post by jlgreco »

elliott34 wrote: post #8

wait so , if I go buy tuna sushi roll from my grocery store in boston for 8$, what's the probability it's actually tuna

Probably around 82%. I imagine grocery store sushi has more in common with the rest of grocery store fish than it does with sushi shop sushi. The grocery store probably buys the fish for both from the same chain of suppliers.

Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna

#18

Post by mmariani »

mh- wrote: post #5

now, now.. surely this is just splitting hairs. 84% of fish samples labeled "white tuna" were actually escolar, a fish that can cause prolonged, uncontrollable, oily anal leakage. oh.

> oily anal leakage

> To be frankly and bluntly specific - and I'm sorry for this - consumption of escolar causes explosive, oily, orange diarrhea. People have reported that the discharges are often difficult to control and accidents can happen while passing gas.

Ewww!

Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna

#19

Post by chourobin »

richardjordan wrote: post #3

The shocking depletion of the world's fisheries over the last century and a half is one of the great tragedies of our modern civilization. We're causing mass extinction on a level we have to go back to the fossil record to see. We're eating fish that was previously thrown back or used as bait, often just giving it bogus pretty names (like Chilean Sea Bass). I live in the US for now but having grown up in Europe I und…

Just curious, would it help to boycott eating certain fish on the endangered specifies list?

Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna

#20

Post by Nrsolis »

jlgreco wrote: post #11
dragonwriter wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps, given the dire state of tuna supplies and consumers who apparently cannot tell the difference without resorting to testing, we should be encouraging mislabeling. Yes, because fighting ignorance with lies that cater to it is much better than fighting it with information.

You could, and should, do both of course. If the FDA sanctioned the practice and published lists of approved fish substitutions then only uninformed consumers would be unaware of the possibility that they were being gouged for cheap fish (you can see that gouging as a reward to restaurants that refuse to serve real tuna, and an informal punishment for consumers who are trying to get tuna) . These uninformed consumers…

If you ate escolar, you'd really want to know it before you put that fish in your mouth.

Escolar contains a minute amount of a toxin that will irritate your gastro system. You'll be in the bathroom for hours if you eat enough of it, usually just a few pieces.

Some people have a more significant reaction than just mild irritation.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/facts-faits/escolar-esc...

http://blog.medellitin.com/2008/12/escolar-world-most-danger...

Post reply on HN