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

71–80 of 103 posts

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

#71

Post by lmkg »

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.

Uh no, not really. Key word: "can."

I've had Escolar before. Like, went to the supermarket, bought a few pounds of big ol' chunks that were labeled "Escolar," and served said fish as the main entree for dinner. I do not recall anal leakage.

They're fatty. That's it. A cooked Escolar will taste like it was fried in butter, even if you put it in the pan totally dry. Absent food sensitivities (which probably exist), I doubt it causes any leakage beyond that caused by any other source of the same amount of fat, oil, or grease.

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

#72

Post by jlgreco »

stephencanon wrote: post #65
GoodIntentions wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure almonds are nearly the same amount of protein per ounce as tuna..

More than everything except bluefin, according to the internet.

And I am pretty sure that bluefin is never used for tuna salad anyway. It is too expensive.

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

#73

Post by Tyrant505 »

acslater00 wrote: post #67

This headline is preposterously misleading. This is a link to the actual study. Page 16 is relevant. http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/National_Seafo... The group tested 114 tuna samples. Of those 114, 66 were of a fish that the vendor was calling "White Tuna". Have you ever eaten something called White Tuna? Neither have I. It's a fairly unpopular sushi fish sold sparsely around the country. Why does it…

Thanks for this response; I don't have to read the article now. One thing about the "White Tuna" sashimi, almost every sushi place around me has it, North Jersey, NYC included.. I've had it.. but now know its not real tuna as it seems. Just FYI.

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

#74

Post by Zigurd »

I've defended all kinds of threads from the "Why is this on HN?" whiners. I'm having a a little trouble with how the choice between yellow waxy buildup in your asscheeks and mercury dementia is an issue. Is sushi that big a Silicon Valley thing?

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

#75

Post by reneherse »

GoodIntentions wrote: post #59
reneherse wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almonds, chickpeas? I love them both but they're no substitute if your diet requires a decent amount of protein.

Pretty sure almonds are nearly the same amount of protein per ounce as tuna..

Ah, definitely more than I thought. Owing to personal dietary/health requirements, I'm always on the lookout for good sources of low-carb protein, and it's even better if the environmental impact is low.

The macro-nutrient ratios of these three foods (tuna, almonds, and garbanzo beans) are radically different, however. Without breaking down the macro categories into finer detail, here's a rough comparison:

-The tuna is high in protein and contains almost no carbs, and a moderate amount of fat.

-Almonds are nearly as high in protein but have many times the amount of fat (note: that's not necessarily a bad thing)

-Chickpeas have a moderate amount of protein, but are much higher in carbohydrates than the other two.

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

#76

Post by rogerbinns »

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?

The Monterey Bay Aquarium has seafood watch. This includes iOS and Android apps to check while on the go.

http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx

You can also download and print:

http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/downlo...

"The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch program creates science-based recommendations that help consumers and businesses make ocean-friendly seafood choices."

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

#77

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

soci wrote: post #57
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've been in sea fish farms and I'm a spearfisher hobbyst myself. Beyond the notion that fish farms are a sustainable source of fish meat, the fact is that fish farming needs a fodder supply to feed the fish. Fish eat fish, remember? This means in its majority the fodder produced nowadays comes from wild fish, probably a cheaper one to catch than de one in the farming nets. So wild fish still needs to be catched. But…

> Beyond the notion that fish farms are a sustainable source of fish meat, the fact is that fish farming needs a fodder supply to feed the fish.

This is not the only model. There are fish, specially freshwater, you can feed on algae and micro crustaceans, which in turn consume organic waste from traditional farming. That's where research is going into, and where fish farming is more promising, not the sea net model.

Tilapia is produced in large scale this way quite successfully, and is a desirable meat that sells for a good price here in Brazil.

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

#78

Post by wahnfrieden »

Tyrant505 wrote: post #73
acslater00 wrote: post #67

This headline is preposterously misleading. This is a link to the actual study. Page 16 is relevant. http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/National_Seafo... The group tested 114 tuna samples. Of those 114, 66 were of a fish that the vendor was calling "White Tuna". Have you ever eaten something called White Tuna? Neither have I. It's a fairly unpopular sushi fish sold sparsely around the country. Why does it…

Thanks for this response; I don't have to read the article now. One thing about the "White Tuna" sashimi, almost every sushi place around me has it, North Jersey, NYC included.. I've had it.. but now know its not real tuna as it seems. Just FYI.

Also known as "shiro maguro" (白鮪) which also means white tuna.

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

#79

Post by jlgreco »

acslater00 wrote: post #67

This headline is preposterously misleading. This is a link to the actual study. Page 16 is relevant. http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/National_Seafo... The group tested 114 tuna samples. Of those 114, 66 were of a fish that the vendor was calling "White Tuna". Have you ever eaten something called White Tuna? Neither have I. It's a fairly unpopular sushi fish sold sparsely around the country. Why does it…

So are you saying that the researchers went to Sushi shops and only tested sushi that was labeled as "white tuna" and deliberately avoided samples that were just labeled "tuna"?

The study claims that 95% of tested sushi places were selling mislabeled seafood, but you claim that selling "white tuna" is not common. Can you give us a bit more to go on here?

I really wish tacking CSV files of the raw data onto the end of papers was more of a thing... Charts are such a royal pain in the ass if you are trying to find information that the authors aren't intentionally spoon-feeding you with them.

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

#80

Post by nostromo »

acslater00 wrote: post #67

This headline is preposterously misleading. This is a link to the actual study. Page 16 is relevant. http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/National_Seafo... The group tested 114 tuna samples. Of those 114, 66 were of a fish that the vendor was calling "White Tuna". Have you ever eaten something called White Tuna? Neither have I. It's a fairly unpopular sushi fish sold sparsely around the country. Why does it…

I don't each much sushi, but in the grocery store "White Tuna" is common. However, it's usually marked "Albacore White Tuna" to signify that it is not escolar but in fact albacore tuna.

For example, from Trader Joe's: http://yeastfreeliving.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/4-8-10...

Post reply on HN