59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna
theatlantic.com
59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna
1–10 of 103 posts
Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna
#2Perhaps, 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 themselves.
(To keep it safe, the FDA could create lists of fish that may be substituted and labelled as each other.)
Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna
#3The 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 understand the situation there better. Nationalistic arguments resting on protecting 'traditional' livelihoods and preserving centuries old fishing villages have been used to continue subsidizing an industry with much larger collective fishing fleet than is possibly justifiable. Of course nowhere in this "tradition" argument is it ever acknowledged that traditionally we used vastly less sophisticated machinery and mechanisms so catches per fisherman were obviously dramatically lower - and we were STILL depleting stocks.
This is no different to any of our resource extraction industries sadly. Give rights to extract resource. Rights holders make tons of money. Use money to pervert political process and buy protection against breaches of law and regulation. Deplete resource. Move on.
Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna
#4Perhaps, 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 is NOT a stupid idea
Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna
#5now, 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.
Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna
#6Perhaps, 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…
> 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.
Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna
#7I always kind of knew that the $5 tuna roll couldn't possibly have come from a $100k fish transported from market in an amored car.
I can't tell the difference. To me tuna is a taste, not a species. For the poor overfished creature that is tuna, maybe it's better this way.
Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna
#8wait so , if I go buy tuna sushi roll from my grocery store in boston for 8$, what's the probability it's actually tuna
Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna
#9now, 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.
Yikes.
Good thing I never liked Tuna.
Re: 59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna
#10Perhaps, 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 be the same with tuna ("tuna" being, any red meat fish with the same consistency and similar taste).