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

31–40 of 103 posts

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

#31

Post by jbattle »

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…

Around Chicago we have problems with Asian carp making their way closer and closer to the great lakes. I've often suggested they be renamed 'river tuna' and our problems will be solved.

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

#32

Post by mapt »

jlgreco wrote: post #17
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.

I'm less convinced - sushi outside of a restaurant context, from the similarity in presentation style and selection in the DC area at least, seems to be outsourced to daily deliveries from regional suppliers

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

#34

Post by jlgreco »

mapt wrote: post #32
jlgreco wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm less convinced - sushi outside of a restaurant context, from the similarity in presentation style and selection in the DC area at least, seems to be outsourced to daily deliveries from regional suppliers

Hmm, I wasn't aware of that, I thought they usually just had the butcher or somebody throw it together in house. That was just a guess though.

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

#35

Post by biot »

I've never had tuna that looked like escolar, assuming the comparison pictures in a Google image search are accurate:

https://www.google.com/search?q=escolar+vs+tuna&tbm=isch

Particularly this image:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7tZTQT-lBpA/TJARkX5NXeI/AAAAAAAAAg...

If I received sushi or maki that claimed to be tuna but looked like a ghost I would send it back. Is the use of escolar as tuna a regional thing, or is some escolar a pink/red color?

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

#36

Post by whyenot »

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…

A great example is slimehead (Hoplostethus atlanticus), known in the US market by the more familiar name orange roughy. H. atalanticus is very long lived (up to ~150 years) and has a low reproductive rate. Forty years ago orange roughy was not commercially harvested. Today, the species has been so effectively harvested by bottom trawling that in most fisheries, the species has crashed.

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

#37

Post by Klinky »

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.

Just because you didn't have a serious reaction, doesn't mean others won't. Mislabeling of food products is not an acceptable solution. Those with food allergies need to know what is going into their food.

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

#38

Post by astine »

chourobin wrote: post #19
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?

Not individually, but there are groups who attempt to keep track of which cause the most damage when you eat it. It's not likely to solve the problem in the long run though, because there are a lot of people who just don't care. Personally, I think the world should look to the Iceland model and institute strict quotas across the board.

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

#39

Post by rayiner »

So my dad grew up in Bangladesh, a country of rivers with a strong tradition of eating fish. He told me that when he was growing up, there were hundreds of different kinds of fish in the market and even the local river. Today, as a result of run off from intensive agriculture, that variety is almost totally gone.

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

#40

Post by gsnedders »

chourobin wrote: post #19
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?

If you can get another people to do so that fishing them becomes uneconomical.
Post reply on HN