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

21–30 of 103 posts

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

#21

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

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…

I attribute the tragedy to the fact we farm the soil for ages, grow cattle for as much as long, but fishing was always considered cheap, given the sheer size of the ocean (we're far past the regeneration point), when in fact, fish has the biggest potential of all for intensive farming.

Fish farming already is a booming industry in some countries, and the tendency is to double in the next decade. There's a lot to improve yet, specially on small scale and associated with hydroponics, only now we are seeing research into that. If you want to invest, this a good area to put your money.

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

#22

Post by jlgreco »

dragonwriter wrote: post #16
jlgreco wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Real tuna already is expensive, but that isn't helping the fish. By the time it becomes expensive enough to actually kill demand, the species will be in terrible shape.

You can't rely on supply and demand games to keep a species off the brink of extinction, we've learned this too many times the hard way.

> 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.

Informed consumers would be opened up to the new cheaper fish. For example, now that I am aware of it (and specifically aware that it is like tuna), I will make an effort to buy escolar in the future.

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

#23

Post by jlgreco »

Nrsolis wrote: post #20
jlgreco wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.c…

I've surely eaten it many times before without knowing and have been fine. Regardless, an FDA approved list of fish substitutes would be a good idea and would resolve this concern.

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

#24

Post by GigabyteCoin »

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…

This idea is particularly interesting to myself considering my vegetarian girlfriend just made me a "Tuna Sandwhich" where the meat was substituted with soaked almonds, which actually tasted quite good and similar to the Tuna I know and love.

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

#25

Post by sliverstorm »

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…

The biggest challenge with fishing is the ocean is largely a shared resource. The incentive to preserve and protect is much smaller, because you can just fish in international waters or sneak over to somebody else's waters to fish, and conserving in your own waters may be fruitless because other people will come a'fishin!

Basically, one giant global tragedy of the commons.

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

#26

Post by jonahx »

so when i order tuna in a sushi restaurant, what am i actually getting? does this apply to dark red tuna as well as the lighter varieties?

on a similar subject, this is an excellent (and depressing) fresh air episode: http://www.npr.org/2010/07/19/128512740/paul-greenberg-the-f...

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

#27

Post by gnaritas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #16
jlgreco wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People prefer their comforting lies over the harsh reality of the truth. Your answer while perfectly rational, ignores that people aren't; his answer is more likely to affect change because it requires less people to admit they changed. Everyone just pretends it's still Tuna they're selling and eating.

Trying to force people to accept that we're driving an animal to the brink of extinction is a far harder sell than you seem to realize; they don't accept it and can block attempts to do anything about it. It's a losing strategy that will result in extinct tuna.

Finally, it's not a lie, it's a brand change and Tuna is just a word that is the brand really. Tuna should just mean any fish that can pass for tuna in the context of food. We'll call it Tuna®

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

#28

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

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…

>we should be encouraging mislabeling.

Not the explosive diarrhea fish. That's cruel, and wrong. Maybe we should just encourage people to eat the fish we have, but be honest about the label.

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

#29

Post by astine »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #21
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…

I attribute the tragedy to the fact we farm the soil for ages, grow cattle for as much as long, but fishing was always considered cheap, given the sheer size of the ocean (we're far past the regeneration point), when in fact, fish has the biggest potential of all for intensive farming. Fish farming already is a booming industry in some countries, and the tendency is to double in the next decade. There's a lot to impr…

It's worth noting that, in the United States a at least, there is a strong anti-farmed fish movement coming from the environmentalist community. They like to point out all of the damage that fish farming does to a local ecology without acknowledging the much greater damage that catching wild fish does. As a result, there is a lot of hesitation among some consumers to purchase farmed fish.

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

#30

Post by Nrsolis »

jlgreco wrote: post #23
Nrsolis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.c…

I've surely eaten it many times before without knowing and have been fine. Regardless, an FDA approved list of fish substitutes would be a good idea and would resolve this concern.

I have eaten it, had trouble, and didn't put two and two together until I read an article explaining the phenomenon of fish mislabeling.

SO...maybe go do an experiment: Go eat a nice big portion of escolar (nee "white tuna") and report back. For science.

Post reply on HN