Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

hakaimagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–179 of 179 posts

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#171

Post by [deleted] »

yissp wrote: post #88
cheese_goddess wrote: post #51

> In 1953, 13 companies produced 3.4 million kilograms of fish sticks. A year later, four million kilograms were produced by another 55 companies. This surge in popularity was partly due to a marketing push that stressed the convenience of the new food: “no bones, no waste, no smell, no fuss,” as one Birds Eye advertisement proclaimed. A dirty lie, at least when it comes to "no waste", when you consider that the skin…

If people bought whole fish instead, do you think those parts wouldn't still go to waste? I guess you could use them for stock, but really, how many people would bother. If anything, I would guess food processing companies would have an easier time finding some use for them (like you said, as pet food or whatever).

[deleted]

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#172

Post by cheese_goddess »

tofof wrote: post #119
cheese_goddess wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also see: epicanthic folds. You've heard of the killing of dolphins by Japanese fishermen, but not of the similar practice of killing of pilot whales in the Faroe islands where people are distinctly not of Asian descent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_the_Faroe_Islands

Maybe that's got more to do with the fact that the Faroe Islands have a population of 52,000 while Japan's population is 125,410,000? Surely the fishing practices of the nation 2400x larger are going to be more impactful by at least an order of magnitude or two. Edit: We don't have to guess. Using 1986 numbers since this is when I remember the world being peak-Save-The-Whales (Star Trek IV's release year). Admittedly…

"The Cove" is about a traditional annual dolphin hunt in one Japanese village, called Taiji, similar to the traditional annual hunt of pilot whales at the Faroes. The two are directly comparable.

The numbers you quote are for fish, without distinction (and they may well exclude cetaceans, actually). The Taiji hunt has a quote of about 2000 animals. The Faroese hunt doesn't have a quote as far as I can tell but it catches 500 to 1000 animals on average according to wikipedia. Look it up yourself if you're interested.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#173

Post by cheese_goddess »

jdminhbg wrote: post #93
cheese_goddess wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note the oxymoron in that advert: "Fresh Frozen!".

That's not an oxymoron. It means they were frozen right away after being caught. A similar term today used especially for things like shrimp is "Individual Quick Frozen" or IQF. Shrimp are frozen on the boat that catches them.

Do you think anyone ever freezes food when it's already unfit for consumption? "Fresh frozen" is nothing more than marketing speak.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#174

Post by samatman »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #170
samatman wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you make such a confident assertion, filled with such vitriol, when it's completely wrong? I don't understand your motivation for this. Here, this link will set you straight, and it has a real discussion of the actual downsides and consequences of this practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_meal Rather than what you said, which is complete nonsense. I'd accuse you of lying, since you used that word, b…

Your link makes it clear that fish meal is made from fish bones and entrails that are inedible by humans, not their heads, skins and tails that I'm talking about and which are edible. Plus, it's made from by-catch which is not mant for human consumption anyway: > Fishmeal is made from the bones and offal left over from fish caught by commercial fisheries. The vast majority of the fish from which fishmeal is manufactu…

You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#175

Post by BucketsMcG »

supernova87a wrote: post #108

Funny that we have certain collective nouns that don't cross meat types. -- Fish sticks -- Chicken nuggets or fingers -- Shrimp poppers And beef / pork don't seem to ever fall into those. (pork sticks?? Beef nuggets??) Maybe because beef, pork seem worthy of preserving identity as a piece of a distinguishable reputable whole parent, while fish, chicken, are sometimes almost.... um, extruded and need a noun of their o…

What's a sausage if it's not an extruded pork stick?

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#176

Post by jdminhbg »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #173
jdminhbg wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an oxymoron. It means they were frozen right away after being caught. A similar term today used especially for things like shrimp is "Individual Quick Frozen" or IQF. Shrimp are frozen on the boat that catches them.

Do you think anyone ever freezes food when it's already unfit for consumption? "Fresh frozen" is nothing more than marketing speak.

There is a pretty wide span of time between catch and "unfit for consumption."

This particular product may be totally lying about how fresh they froze their fish, but it's still not an oxymoron.

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#177

Post by cheese_goddess »

samatman wrote: post #174
cheese_goddess wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your link makes it clear that fish meal is made from fish bones and entrails that are inedible by humans, not their heads, skins and tails that I'm talking about and which are edible. Plus, it's made from by-catch which is not mant for human consumption anyway: > Fishmeal is made from the bones and offal left over from fish caught by commercial fisheries. The vast majority of the fish from which fishmeal is manufactu…

You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

Excuse me but, do you have some weird behavioural problem? You burst out of nowhere telling me I'm filled with vitriol, you throw a blunt link at my comment without explaining why it disagrees with what I say, and when I quote from it a part that shows that your comment is irrelevant to what I say you resort to insults?

What exactly are you trying to say? What is it that you don't like with my original comment? What do you disagree with? How does your fish meal link disagree with it? Can you articulate all that clearly, or do you just want to pick a fight?

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#178

Post by [deleted] »

jdminhbg wrote: post #176
cheese_goddess wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think anyone ever freezes food when it's already unfit for consumption? "Fresh frozen" is nothing more than marketing speak.

There is a pretty wide span of time between catch and "unfit for consumption." This particular product may be totally lying about how fresh they froze their fish, but it's still not an oxymoron.

[deleted]

Re: The Unlikely Success of Fish Sticks

#179

Post by StanislavPetrov »

shkkmo wrote: post #141
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm sort of unclear where you are goin with your argument? The argument is that its magical thinking that the earth, which has finite resources, can support an infinite number of people, if we only, "manage the resources right". Its a question of reality, not morality, but unfortunately some have a hard time separating the two concepts. > Are you arguing we need to kill of people or economically retard developing co…

> its magical thinking that the earth, which has finite resources, can support an infinite number of people, if we only, "manage the resources right" I have not met a single person that thinks the earth can support an infinite number of people. If that is the position you are arguing against, I believe it is a strawman and a waste of your time. > Nobody has to be killed off, but what we should be doing is setting as…

>If you are concerned about reducing it further, western "baby subsidies" aren't a good place to start.

Nowhere did I say the subsidies should be western. Naturally the subsidies need to be global to affect the largest areas of population growth. This would have the added benefit of helping pull those in the poorest countries on earth out of dire poverty.

Post reply on HN