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

91–100 of 103 posts

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

#91

Post by sliverstorm »

benihana wrote: post #82
sliverstorm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ironically, recreational hunters solved this problem a long time ago. Give people a private plot and a quota and they will make sure populations stay healthy in that plot and surrounding areas. There are more whitetail deer in North America now after these kinds of hunting practices than there were when the first European settlers arrived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer#Human_interac...

That's basically my point, though. The problem with the ocean is that this sort of solution has not been implemented and may in fact be very difficult to implement. The ocean is difficult to fence off, and the actors are basically states who have no superior authority that can truly enforce such things.

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

#92

Post by samstave »

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…

This is the primary reason that I think that restricting commercially farming Tilapia on-land, in large scale closed systems, in states like California is ridiculous.

I have been looking at all the amazing open space on the Island of Alameda - where the old Navy base was; I think that a company using the warehouse/open space to create an industrial sized version of Gardenpool.org's closed loop Tilapia setup would be an amazing opportunity.

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

#93

Post by apendleton »

benihana wrote: post #82
sliverstorm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ironically, recreational hunters solved this problem a long time ago. Give people a private plot and a quota and they will make sure populations stay healthy in that plot and surrounding areas. There are more whitetail deer in North America now after these kinds of hunting practices than there were when the first European settlers arrived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer#Human_interac...

While in general you're right, deer aren't a great example. Deer populations in much of the US are actually higher than they historically would have been, largely because predator populations have been artificially and dramatically constrained. Most deer predators, but especially gray wolves, are also livestock predators, which has justified their population control.

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

#94

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #89
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…

Why is farming superior to properly managed wild fisheries? Over fishing is the problem. I don't see farming as the obvious solution. Farmed fish are loaded with toxins, as I understand it. The pollution is also a problem. Even farming cattle in the way we do it is not really sustainable. There is a strong case to be made that hunted venison should be a staple meat at grocery stores. There is also a strong argument t…

> Why is farming superior to properly managed wild fisheries? Over fishing is the problem.

... and over fishing occurs because management of wild stock is clearly not working.

Plus, there's a lot of waste in the chain that is diminished on fish farming.

> Farmed fish are loaded with toxins, as I understand it. The pollution is also a problem.

The toxins in farmed fish, mainly in salmon, are just a reflex of the toxins everywhere in the habitat (pesticides, untreated sewage), bad methods (fish fed with chicken waste) and lack of regulation. It's a non-issue where they don't crap on their own food and do it right (Chilean salmon, for instance).

> Even farming cattle in the way we do it is not really sustainable.

I agree. But the sad truth is that beef and bacon sells, and the planet would be devoid of mammals by tomorrow morning if we switched overnight to hunting game. Human population only got to the current size exactly because we raise cattle (among other things).

On top of that, there are ways to farm native species inside their own habitat, which helps bringing the population levels back to normal, like in your Buffalo example.

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

#95

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #94
a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is farming superior to properly managed wild fisheries? Over fishing is the problem. I don't see farming as the obvious solution. Farmed fish are loaded with toxins, as I understand it. The pollution is also a problem. Even farming cattle in the way we do it is not really sustainable. There is a strong case to be made that hunted venison should be a staple meat at grocery stores. There is also a strong argument t…

> Why is farming superior to properly managed wild fisheries? Over fishing is the problem. ... and over fishing occurs because management of wild stock is clearly not working. Plus, there's a lot of waste in the chain that is diminished on fish farming. > Farmed fish are loaded with toxins, as I understand it. The pollution is also a problem. The toxins in farmed fish, mainly in salmon, are just a reflex of the toxin…

> management of wild stock is clearly not working

So fix it. If the USN blew a few ships in treaty violation out of the water things would change quickly.

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

#96

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #95
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is farming superior to properly managed wild fisheries? Over fishing is the problem. ... and over fishing occurs because management of wild stock is clearly not working. Plus, there's a lot of waste in the chain that is diminished on fish farming. > Farmed fish are loaded with toxins, as I understand it. The pollution is also a problem. The toxins in farmed fish, mainly in salmon, are just a reflex of the toxin…

> management of wild stock is clearly not working So fix it. If the USN blew a few ships in treaty violation out of the water things would change quickly.

You can find projections on the web so I'm not going to link here, but even if fishing got 100% regulated we would be past the capacity for the next years (other things factored in, as coastal pollution, desertification of corals and global warming).

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

#97

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#98

Post by Roboprog »

jsherry wrote: post #87
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…

Terrible headline for sure. But in sushi restaurants, this mislabeling is actually very common. More often than not, escolar is labeled white tuna. You know it is escolar when it's a pure white and opaque fish with a buttery taste, which although mislabeled, is not at all unpleasant. Rumor has it that of you eat too much, it also gives you diarrhea but fortunately I've never had enough of it to test that theory. As f…

I followed the link about the "olestra fish". You have to eat over 6 ounces. You eat two days worth of meat in one meal, you get what's coming to ya'.

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

#99

Post by noonespecial »

Tyrant505 wrote: post #84
noonespecial wrote: post #7

I always kind of knew that the $5 tuna roll couldn't possibly have come from a $100k fish transported from market in an amored car. I can't tell the difference. To me tuna is a taste, not a species. For the poor overfished creature that is tuna, maybe it's better this way.

You do realize how big that $100k fish is right?

I believe the fish in question is the bluefin which averages 500lbs or so. Apparently they can sell for much more (even 10x more) than $100k! Even if every pound of the fish became sushi and there was zero markup from the ($100k) fish market price, I figure each piece of sushi should still cost around $12. My feeling is it should probably be more like $36.

I just figured the "tuna" at most sushi joints was one of the lesser species of tuna like albacore or something else entirely.

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

#100

Post by jcampbell1 »

jlgreco wrote: post #72
stephencanon wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I ate bluefin salad sandwiches every day for over a year. You are allowed to catch one per year for recreational purposes. You can't sell the meat though. What the hell else are you going to do with 300lbs of frozen tuna in a chest freezer? Bluefin doesn't even taste very good.

If you want a shit ton of bluefin tuna, go to north carolina in the winter. For about $1000, you can hire a boat and catch one. You'll have 200-400lbs of tuna, and and entire belly of o-toro. A year later, you will never want to eat tuna again.

Post reply on HN