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

41–50 of 103 posts

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

#41

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

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…

1. Put the damn escolar in a round can next to the tuna, priced less than the tuna (raise the price of tuna).

2. Watch as escolar salad sandwiches become popular. (some will even claim it tastes better)

EDIT: PS Print "It helps keep you regular!" on the label.

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

#42

Post by dsrguru »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #10
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 happens with "bacalhau" (norwegian codfish). It's appreciated by the europeans for ages, but overfishing made it prohibitively priced. Now you have 5 or 6 different fish sold under this name at markets, fished on Alaska and China, but they taste all the same so it makes no difference (only on the price). The word "bacalhau" now refers more to the kind of preparation (dried fish) than the species itself. It could…

Except escolar is a lot more toxic than tuna.

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

#43

Post by jlgreco »

gnaritas wrote: post #27
dragonwriter wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

"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®"

Agreed. I like the way @noonespecial puts it downthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6266772)

"To me tuna is a taste, not a species."

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

#44

Post by dragonwriter »

jlgreco wrote: post #22
dragonwriter wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Real tuna already is expensive, but that isn't helping the fish.

It isn't helping the fish because consumer demand for tuna isn't dropping, in part because consumers are insulated from the actual cost of real tuna by mislabelling; if consumer "tuna" was only real tuna (and thus, the supply was restricted to the supply of real tuna, driving the price of consumer "tuna" way up), there would be more consumer experience with tuna substitutes under their own name (rather than mislabelled as tuna), and the demand would shift to the acceptable substitutes (which clearly exist, otherwise they wouldn't be acceptable mislabelled as tuna.)

> 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.

But if suppliers make more money selling escolar as "tuna", it will make it that much harder to by escolar as escolar.

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

#45

Post by dsr_ »

GigabyteCoin wrote: post #24
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.

Chickpea salad (onions, celery, mayo) is remarkably similar to tuna salad or chicken salad made with the same additions.

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

#46

Post by jlgreco »

Klinky wrote: post #37
jlgreco wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I can't really speak to that but I assume the FDA can. If escolar is too dangerous to label as Tuna I am sure they can find other fish that are not. If they okay a fish substitution, I am happy.

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

#47

Post by fnayr »

For an article waxing on about the mislabeling of tuna, it should do a better job not generalizing facts about different species of tuna with all tuna.

> given the dire state of the world's tuna supply

Only some species are overfished. Albacore tuna, for example, are not threatened at all. In fact there's no limit in the US on how many you can catch (non-commercially).

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

#48

Post by stephencanon »

dsr_ wrote: post #45
GigabyteCoin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Chickpea salad (onions, celery, mayo) is remarkably similar to tuna salad or chicken salad made with the same additions.

I absolutely love chickpea salad (just ate it for dinner, in fact), but it bears essentially no resemblance to either chicken or tuna salad. Both the taste and texture are radically different.

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

#49

Post by Nrsolis »

jlgreco wrote: post #46
Klinky wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I can't really speak to that but I assume the FDA can. If escolar is too dangerous to label as Tuna I am sure they can find other fish that are not. If they okay a fish substitution, I am happy.

You're making a gross assumption if you think the FDA is worried about things like this. Fish mislabeling has been reported as far back as 2005 and nothing has changed.

The FDA is overworked and underfunded. They have their hands full regulating an industry that is constantly out-maneuvering them. Between the drug lobbyists and the supplement industry, we're lucky we have any resources left to dedicate to food safety.

Go do some research into how many actual FDA inspectors are covering the multitude of just meat producers and you'll grasp the scale of the problem.

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

#50

Post by bostonvaulter2 »

skore wrote: post #13

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?

Perhaps it depends if it was farm raised
Post reply on HN