1 in 5 Seafood Samples Is Fake, Report Finds(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
1 in 5 Seafood Samples Is Fake, Report Finds
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/science/seafood-samples-mislabelling.html
128 comments
High suffering/kg ratio, really?
That's actually in interesting (and possibly helpuful) ratio... I've often thought I'd rather only have to kill one animal (cow) for ~200 meals than 100 animals (chickens) for the same number of meals...
An interesting metric for sure, but probably one that oversimplifies the nuances of animal welfare ethics. I'd personally rather 100 chickens experience mild discomfort than one cow meet with prolonged suffering. (Not that this specifically should happen with modern slaughter methods, but as a thought experiment.)
> probably one that oversimplifies the nuances of animal welfare ethics.
certainly.
certainly.
That's why I only eat blue whale meat.
Suffering doesn't matter to dead things. If you're going to kill something, how much it suffered will be irrelevant the second it dies.
The problem with suffering is not that it has the magical quality of being called 'suffering'. The problem with suffering is that it results in poor decision-making. This means two things:
1. For an individual, death does much more to reduce decision-making ability than suffering.
2. Animals don't usually make good decisions regardless. Especially if they were raised to be slaughtered.
The problem with suffering is not that it has the magical quality of being called 'suffering'. The problem with suffering is that it results in poor decision-making. This means two things:
1. For an individual, death does much more to reduce decision-making ability than suffering.
2. Animals don't usually make good decisions regardless. Especially if they were raised to be slaughtered.
> If you're going to kill something, how much it suffered will be irrelevant the second it dies.
No. Just because something bad that happened is in the past, doesn't make it OK that it happened in the first place. (just to be clear, I am ok with killing animals and eating them, I would just prefer that it be done humanely).
I'm afraid I don't understand the argument you are trying to make with the rest of your comment...
No. Just because something bad that happened is in the past, doesn't make it OK that it happened in the first place. (just to be clear, I am ok with killing animals and eating them, I would just prefer that it be done humanely).
I'm afraid I don't understand the argument you are trying to make with the rest of your comment...
Do you think a cheetah knows anything about speed records? Who's the fastest cheetah? It doesn't matter who the fastest cheetah was because cheetahs don't keep records. And that chicken you ate -- Did someone record how much it suffered? Then it doesn't matter how much it suffered. The point is, if you are willing to kill something -- to erase its state of mind (the majority of its 'record') from existence -- then you're actively making its suffering irrelevant. If someone starts my house on fire, that fact becomes irrelevant when they detonate a nuclear explosion on it.
>Just because something bad that happened is in the past, doesn't make it OK that it happened in the first place.
It is ok that it happened. It's ok that everything in the past happened. It's not ok to forget that it happened, or to fail to learn from it. But killing something is a great big "fuck you" to that thing's memory and learning facilities, so there's quite a lot of hypocrisy wrapped up in thinking that killing something is ok if it didn't suffer.
Suffering and death are bad for reasons. Those reasons provide proportionality to ethical evaluations.
>Just because something bad that happened is in the past, doesn't make it OK that it happened in the first place.
It is ok that it happened. It's ok that everything in the past happened. It's not ok to forget that it happened, or to fail to learn from it. But killing something is a great big "fuck you" to that thing's memory and learning facilities, so there's quite a lot of hypocrisy wrapped up in thinking that killing something is ok if it didn't suffer.
Suffering and death are bad for reasons. Those reasons provide proportionality to ethical evaluations.
> there's quite a lot of hypocrisy wrapped up in thinking that killing something is ok if it didn't suffer.
I believe this to be your central point? It seems we will have to agree to disagree.
I believe this to be your central point? It seems we will have to agree to disagree.
We can just disagree.
I don't know, suffering/kg ratio. 100% of the meat I've eaten was murdered, and I'm not sure it matters much beyond that.
I think it matters. Why can't we give them a good (at least decent) life? Then they just have "one bad day".
What's the SI unit for suffering? How do you calibrate your measurement instruments?
If you have a genuine ethical objection to causing suffering to other living creatures, you can be vegan, lacto-vegetarian, or you can eat meat certified as jhatka by a trusted authority. It is never necessary for you to compare suffering ratios.
If you truly want to minimize the pain you send out into the world, it's zero. That is an easily achievable number. Go vegan. Be kind to everyone. Good luck on your path to enlightenment. If you aren't going for zero, why would you bother half-assing it?
For the record, I don't care whether or not my meal has ever screamed in agony. I can still respect the beliefs of those who do care. But I also don't wish to hear any of them preach to me about it, or let them trick me into enduring some sort of ideological sales pitch.
If you have a genuine ethical objection to causing suffering to other living creatures, you can be vegan, lacto-vegetarian, or you can eat meat certified as jhatka by a trusted authority. It is never necessary for you to compare suffering ratios.
If you truly want to minimize the pain you send out into the world, it's zero. That is an easily achievable number. Go vegan. Be kind to everyone. Good luck on your path to enlightenment. If you aren't going for zero, why would you bother half-assing it?
For the record, I don't care whether or not my meal has ever screamed in agony. I can still respect the beliefs of those who do care. But I also don't wish to hear any of them preach to me about it, or let them trick me into enduring some sort of ideological sales pitch.
If you re-read the comment above, you will see that it is not preaching. It is careful to say "for people who try to ... minimize inflicting suffering" -- leaving room for those (like you) who don't care.
Further, I think you are creating an unhelpful dichotomy between zero and nonzero. This dichotomy is not necessary.
It is reasonable to try to reduce suffering, but not drive it to zero (whatever that might imply). Perhaps there's more to the cost function (e.g., endangered species), or perhaps one is skeptical (like you seem to be) that you can measure suffering precisely enough to drive it to zero.
You say zero is easily achievable, but I doubt this. One can argue that the migrant labor that picked your carrots suffered, or that tiny insects were harmed in harvesting your vegetables (not a strawman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism). I'm not advocating that position, but I do claim that "zero" is not easily achievable, if you look carefully.
Further, I think you are creating an unhelpful dichotomy between zero and nonzero. This dichotomy is not necessary.
It is reasonable to try to reduce suffering, but not drive it to zero (whatever that might imply). Perhaps there's more to the cost function (e.g., endangered species), or perhaps one is skeptical (like you seem to be) that you can measure suffering precisely enough to drive it to zero.
You say zero is easily achievable, but I doubt this. One can argue that the migrant labor that picked your carrots suffered, or that tiny insects were harmed in harvesting your vegetables (not a strawman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism). I'm not advocating that position, but I do claim that "zero" is not easily achievable, if you look carefully.
If I look too carefully, I see a slightly contagious, very mild, and benign form of insanity.
If you see suffering everywhere you look, the real problem may be in your way of seeing things.
But since suffering (in this context) is an essentially subjective thing, you can't go mixing it with an objective measurement like kilograms and make it more objective. Drawing up a "suffering per kilogram ratio" is exactly as subjective as simply asking whether cows suffer more than fish in the process of becoming human food. It isn't useful to anyone, except possibly those who published the ratios, being little more than an organized expression of their opinions.
The implication I draw from the very existence of a suffering/kg ratio is that those who invented it must believe that there is an acceptable level of suffering that any one person may cause, and that ratio may be a useful tool for staying under that threshold. That's like starting every morning by swearing into the mirror that you won't make any more than two people cry today. If it really is valuable to you that you don't make people cry, why wouldn't you say you don't want to do that to anyone, ever? It may be inevitable that it happens, but a practically unachievable goal is still a goal.
If you see suffering everywhere you look, the real problem may be in your way of seeing things.
But since suffering (in this context) is an essentially subjective thing, you can't go mixing it with an objective measurement like kilograms and make it more objective. Drawing up a "suffering per kilogram ratio" is exactly as subjective as simply asking whether cows suffer more than fish in the process of becoming human food. It isn't useful to anyone, except possibly those who published the ratios, being little more than an organized expression of their opinions.
The implication I draw from the very existence of a suffering/kg ratio is that those who invented it must believe that there is an acceptable level of suffering that any one person may cause, and that ratio may be a useful tool for staying under that threshold. That's like starting every morning by swearing into the mirror that you won't make any more than two people cry today. If it really is valuable to you that you don't make people cry, why wouldn't you say you don't want to do that to anyone, ever? It may be inevitable that it happens, but a practically unachievable goal is still a goal.
"...those who invented it must believe that there is an acceptable level of suffering that any one person may cause..."
I'd suggest that quantity is one thing to put into the multi-objective optimization problem we all are unconsciously solving. If you choose to interpret it as a threshold, that's OK, but others might treat it differently.
In particular, your construction of "won't make any more than two people cry today" is pure straw man based on your invented threshold rule.
Here's a different analogy. The speed limit on my drive to work today is 65 mph. I drove 70 most of the way. I don't have a hard rule that I can go at most 5 mph over the speed limit, but I do look at [my_speed - limit] as a factor in my driving, and try to keep this difference reasonably small.
I'd suggest that quantity is one thing to put into the multi-objective optimization problem we all are unconsciously solving. If you choose to interpret it as a threshold, that's OK, but others might treat it differently.
In particular, your construction of "won't make any more than two people cry today" is pure straw man based on your invented threshold rule.
Here's a different analogy. The speed limit on my drive to work today is 65 mph. I drove 70 most of the way. I don't have a hard rule that I can go at most 5 mph over the speed limit, but I do look at [my_speed - limit] as a factor in my driving, and try to keep this difference reasonably small.
But do you consider "reasonably small" in relation to the magnitude of the posted limits? Do you drive 30 mph when the posted limit is 25? If not, you might be interested in "speeding ratios".
But in order to really fit the speeding analogy around animal suffering, you also have to live in a world where speedometers and radar measurement devices don't exist. You're speeding if anyone thinks you might be going faster than the limit, even if nobody can really know for certain.
We don't have any animal suffering meters, or posted limits. We know a limit exists, but we apparently don't know where exactly to draw the line. Clearly, a puppy mill that abuses its livestock and runs pit fights will get the operator thrown in jail. But a battery farm that slices the beaks off of chickens and crams them into cages too small for them to stand in will get ag-gag laws that protect the owners from both punishment and scrutiny. Dogs are cuter than chickens, and less marketable as food, you see. In that world--the world we live in--a suffering per kilogram ratio is just pissing into the wind.
But in order to really fit the speeding analogy around animal suffering, you also have to live in a world where speedometers and radar measurement devices don't exist. You're speeding if anyone thinks you might be going faster than the limit, even if nobody can really know for certain.
We don't have any animal suffering meters, or posted limits. We know a limit exists, but we apparently don't know where exactly to draw the line. Clearly, a puppy mill that abuses its livestock and runs pit fights will get the operator thrown in jail. But a battery farm that slices the beaks off of chickens and crams them into cages too small for them to stand in will get ag-gag laws that protect the owners from both punishment and scrutiny. Dogs are cuter than chickens, and less marketable as food, you see. In that world--the world we live in--a suffering per kilogram ratio is just pissing into the wind.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/advanced-veganism
> I'm a sado-vegan. I only eat plants that have been proven to actively signal other plants when being killed.
I've never understood why moral vegetarians seem to think that hurting and killing plants is so much better than hurting and killing fleas. Plants are well-established to react to injuries and to communicate to other nearby plants when they're under attack. If you're going to argue that you have a moral obligation not to hurt chickens, you need to at least be ready to argue that you don't have the same obligation not to hurt onions, which feel strongly enough about being attacked that they actively fight back.
> I'm a sado-vegan. I only eat plants that have been proven to actively signal other plants when being killed.
I've never understood why moral vegetarians seem to think that hurting and killing plants is so much better than hurting and killing fleas. Plants are well-established to react to injuries and to communicate to other nearby plants when they're under attack. If you're going to argue that you have a moral obligation not to hurt chickens, you need to at least be ready to argue that you don't have the same obligation not to hurt onions, which feel strongly enough about being attacked that they actively fight back.
Continuing your reasoning, I don't understand why people abstain from rape or murder, if they are going to eat food anyway.
The vegetarians argue that the problem with eating animals is that they feel pain. We know that this is true of plants. They just don't care about plants. They need to make an argument on the premise "plants are morally worthless because they are plants", which would be true, not on the premise "plants are morally worthless because they don't feel pain", which is false.
People abstain from murder (and rape, though that's much less analogous to the dietary debate) because society sanctions murder and rape, and where it doesn't, because the victims and their families are likely to take exception. (Compare traditional Icelandic law, where killing a person was legal under a variety of circumstances, but concealing the fact that you'd done so was criminal. Consider that the United States fully criminalized rape within marriage in 1993.)
The second of those reasons does not, and will never, apply to food animals. They have no power to take retribution. The first one doesn't, but can; it is the reason Brahmins eat a strict vegetarian diet. But it is not particularly compelling; very few people are impressed by the argument "you should abstain from meat because it makes me happy when I can make other people obey my commands".
And that's what leaves moral vegetarians in the ridiculous position of arguing from known-false premises. It doesn't mean I can't laugh at them for trying.
People abstain from murder (and rape, though that's much less analogous to the dietary debate) because society sanctions murder and rape, and where it doesn't, because the victims and their families are likely to take exception. (Compare traditional Icelandic law, where killing a person was legal under a variety of circumstances, but concealing the fact that you'd done so was criminal. Consider that the United States fully criminalized rape within marriage in 1993.)
The second of those reasons does not, and will never, apply to food animals. They have no power to take retribution. The first one doesn't, but can; it is the reason Brahmins eat a strict vegetarian diet. But it is not particularly compelling; very few people are impressed by the argument "you should abstain from meat because it makes me happy when I can make other people obey my commands".
And that's what leaves moral vegetarians in the ridiculous position of arguing from known-false premises. It doesn't mean I can't laugh at them for trying.
> What's the SI unit for suffering?
Why, killohurts, of course.
Why, killohurts, of course.
> What's the SI unit for suffering?
You could go with millihitlers. https://www.reddit.com/comments/dlu96/new_si_unit_one_hitler...
You could go with millihitlers. https://www.reddit.com/comments/dlu96/new_si_unit_one_hitler...
Solution: eat cheap vegan food. The risk of a fake apple or carrot scandal is exactly zero.
Actually, fake apples -- i.e. apples that are not the variety claimed, or grown in the place or the way advertised -- are a real possibility in some places. Depends on economic incentives.
http://www.freshplaza.com/article/120094/China-30-40-procent...
Yes, there's even fake tofu.
http://www.freshplaza.com/article/120094/China-30-40-procent...
Yes, there's even fake tofu.
Did not know that! I guess growing at home is the only way to be really sure what we're eating.
I recall a recent article on much of olive oil being counterfeit. It made me think how easy it would be to dupe other foods, and I suspect a lot of food is fake or falsely labeled.
How easy would it be to pass a regular banana off as an organic banana? How easy is it to label one thing as something else? Makes you think a bit.
How easy would it be to pass a regular banana off as an organic banana? How easy is it to label one thing as something else? Makes you think a bit.
Here's another perspective on it, how often will you notice? If you don't then does it matter?
Before I seem contrarian, I will note that I love sashimi, and of course I can tell the difference between tuna and salmon sashimi. I don't want to think I have a dull tongue, but other times, when I'm just hungry, I don't care. I see the point of worrying about being ripped off when thinking you are buying high end fish, but if I buy cheap fish in a meal from a stall, I don't really expect much in the way of authenticity, so I'm not sure I would care. Perhaps I am just more forgiving.
Before I seem contrarian, I will note that I love sashimi, and of course I can tell the difference between tuna and salmon sashimi. I don't want to think I have a dull tongue, but other times, when I'm just hungry, I don't care. I see the point of worrying about being ripped off when thinking you are buying high end fish, but if I buy cheap fish in a meal from a stall, I don't really expect much in the way of authenticity, so I'm not sure I would care. Perhaps I am just more forgiving.
Put simply: It matters because taste is not the only criteria used to select which seafood to buy.
One might make a choice based on mercury content, environmental friendliness, dietary restrictions (medical or philosophical), to support (or abstain from supporting) a particular industry, or something else entirely.
To allow fraud which can't be detected on the palate is to deny buyers their freedom to choose based on any criteria other than taste.
It is not up to the producer what criteria buyers use when choosing their purchases.
Also, if the consumer shouldn't care, the producer shouldn't either. If the producer thinks it shouldn't matter what it says on the label, well then... no harm in putting the right thing on the label, right? No? I guess it matters then.
One might make a choice based on mercury content, environmental friendliness, dietary restrictions (medical or philosophical), to support (or abstain from supporting) a particular industry, or something else entirely.
To allow fraud which can't be detected on the palate is to deny buyers their freedom to choose based on any criteria other than taste.
It is not up to the producer what criteria buyers use when choosing their purchases.
Also, if the consumer shouldn't care, the producer shouldn't either. If the producer thinks it shouldn't matter what it says on the label, well then... no harm in putting the right thing on the label, right? No? I guess it matters then.
Of course it matters, you're being defrauded as a consumer.
Aside from that, it could have health ramifications. Most people eat organic to avoid herbicide exposure, and most people use olive oil because it's considered healthy. Obviously there are countless examples. You should get what you pay for.
Aside from that, it could have health ramifications. Most people eat organic to avoid herbicide exposure, and most people use olive oil because it's considered healthy. Obviously there are countless examples. You should get what you pay for.
Here's another perspective on it, how often will you notice? If you don't then does it matter?
Shocking, the oil actually smelled like olives vs the stuff in the bottle, which usually smells like nothing. That oil also had a sharp olive taste which is actually missing from the store purchased stuff as well. There is a bit of an olive oil industry starting in texas as well, and that stuff when purchased directly from a farm (orchard?) tastes like olives as well. Makes me wonder if 100% of the olive oil i've been purchasing in the last decade is fake, or per some of the articles strongly cut.
BTW: Its not a function of the age either AFAIK, I purchased nearly a gallon when overseas and it lasted me over a year, all the while maintaining the distinctive smell and taste.
"Olive oil" by nature (without even getting into fakes) has a fairly wide expected gamut -- extra virgin, virgin, refined, and pomace oils (all of which but the last can be marketed as unqualified "olive oil", though in practice that generally mean either refined or a blend of mostly refined and some virgin.)
A place that is doing something like artisanal premium extra virgin olive oil (which is what it sounds like you were getting) should have exactly the relation to generic "olive oil" that you describe, even if nothing involved is fake or adulterated in any way.
Which is not to say a lot of what you are buying as generic "olive oil" might not be fake (there's plenty of independent reason to suspect that), but what you describing doesn't really indicate that.
A place that is doing something like artisanal premium extra virgin olive oil (which is what it sounds like you were getting) should have exactly the relation to generic "olive oil" that you describe, even if nothing involved is fake or adulterated in any way.
Which is not to say a lot of what you are buying as generic "olive oil" might not be fake (there's plenty of independent reason to suspect that), but what you describing doesn't really indicate that.
The whole deal with food regulation is it's very hard for a consumer to test for toxic substances/purported nutrition etc. It absolutely matters even if you don't notice.
This is talking about the identity of fish though, I'd guess that this is not talking about the toxicity of the meat. The article does mention that they are certain species which are known for higher toxic chemical contents, so that can be an issue.
However, isn't the toxicity of the meat is a separate issue? I have no idea how the FDA tests for that (sample testing?) but it probably isn't just discrimination on the species of the fish.
However, isn't the toxicity of the meat is a separate issue? I have no idea how the FDA tests for that (sample testing?) but it probably isn't just discrimination on the species of the fish.
It's highly correlated to species of fish; some species have much, much higher levels of toxins such as mercury, depending on where they live, where they are on the food chain, etc. You can't separate the two.
It matters because its the consumers responsibility to know what they are buying. Obviously for a consumer to do their due diligence a product must be what is claims to be.
As the article said, the mercury content of different fish can be a very big deal for certain people (especially pregnant women).
That is a good point, when it is a health issue related to the type of species, I can agree. That seems like a regulatory issue and the FDA or other regulatory agencies should care.
It matters for organic food, because people buy organic food for ethical reasons that don't necessarily have any relationship to quality.
"Do you care" seems easily demonstrated by what you thought you ordered.
If I don't care what kind of fish I am getting, I order fish and chips, or fish tacos.
If I care what kind of fish, I order tuna or eel or salmon or trout...
If I don't care what kind of fish I am getting, I order fish and chips, or fish tacos.
If I care what kind of fish, I order tuna or eel or salmon or trout...
Escolar substitution is a definite cause for concern, due to its laxative effect.
Escolar contains a natural wax ester that can cause digestive distress and diarrhea for days.
It's been banned in Japan for 40 years.
The USDA banned it in the 90s and then unbanned it in 1998.
It's been banned in Japan for 40 years.
The USDA banned it in the 90s and then unbanned it in 1998.
My understanding is that these types of dupes have been going on for decades. I didn't know about the deceptions in white fish, but my mom has frequently told me that my grandpa (a Swedish commercial fisherman who emigrated to New Jersey) often identified shark being sold as swordfish or other muscular, and more expensive, fish.
If you look at the provided Seafood Fraud map, most of the SF Bay Area 'mislabeling' incidents come from one report dated 2008 [1]. So yes, it's at least 8 years old at this time.
[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320708...
[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320708...
Very small sample sized and dated. However, we shouldn't extrapolate either way whether things have improved, stayed the same, or deteriorated.
I don't think it's a coincidence that these fake food articles—truffle oil, olive oil, seafood—are springing up after Larry Olmsted recently published Real Food/Fake Food: Why You Don’t Know What You’re Eating and What You Can Do about It.
Olmsted exposes rampant fraudulent labeling and deceptive practices in the food industry, including Parmesan cheese, olive oil, truffle oil, seafood (salmon, snapper, white tuna, shrimp), Kobe beef, and more.
I'm about halfway through the book, and it's shocking. It's definitely changed how I shop for certain food and what I order in restaurants.
Olmsted exposes rampant fraudulent labeling and deceptive practices in the food industry, including Parmesan cheese, olive oil, truffle oil, seafood (salmon, snapper, white tuna, shrimp), Kobe beef, and more.
I'm about halfway through the book, and it's shocking. It's definitely changed how I shop for certain food and what I order in restaurants.
How can our government be failing us so miserably? Ensuring that our food is safe and properly labeled should be the most basic duties of a government. And yet they are failing us miserably. In April of 2011, a paper was published showing that 69% of store-bought olive oil was fake,[1] and yet the government has done practically nothing to protect us.
In 2013, there was the Salmonella Heidelberg outbreak causing deadly brain absences in children and making hundreds sick. But nothing was done for over a year.[2] Instead of fixing the problems here, the government reacts by allowing China to process our chicken making the problem that much harder trace.[3]
We’ve let Industry and lobbyists take our democracy from us with their super pacs and regulatory capture. When are people going to get fed up with this and demand that our government starts protecting us instead of the industry?
[1] http://olivecenter.ucdavis.edu/research/files/report041211fi...
[2] http://www.laweekly.com/restaurants/foster-farms-finally-rec...
[3] https://www.davidwolfe.com/usda-shipping-chickens-china-proc...
In 2013, there was the Salmonella Heidelberg outbreak causing deadly brain absences in children and making hundreds sick. But nothing was done for over a year.[2] Instead of fixing the problems here, the government reacts by allowing China to process our chicken making the problem that much harder trace.[3]
We’ve let Industry and lobbyists take our democracy from us with their super pacs and regulatory capture. When are people going to get fed up with this and demand that our government starts protecting us instead of the industry?
[1] http://olivecenter.ucdavis.edu/research/files/report041211fi...
[2] http://www.laweekly.com/restaurants/foster-farms-finally-rec...
[3] https://www.davidwolfe.com/usda-shipping-chickens-china-proc...
Look on the bright side: We got an experiment showing what happens when we let the market solve an issue involving an invisible quality.
The same result applies to software security.
The same result applies to software security.
Something something free markets fix everything.
Hmmmm.... The gov't has done nothing at this point, yet someone discovered there were fake foods, shared the information and consumers are now aware and avoiding them.
So yeah, I'd say the free markets are working.
So yeah, I'd say the free markets are working.
So someone doing something is automatically attributed to the free market? Im not sure that is how it works.
And it only took a few decades. And every time there's some major olive oil scandal, we don't end up with less adulterated olive oil.
I don't have an opinion on free vs. regulated, but I wouldn't agree that free markets are working the way you claim.
I don't have an opinion on free vs. regulated, but I wouldn't agree that free markets are working the way you claim.
Well, it looks like the free markets moved faster than the gov't in this case.
Something something information asymmetry problem
[deleted]
Well, how much is a kid really worth? Sure, if it's your kid, a ton, but really it's like a decade or two before we even start evaluating potential. Losing 10-30% probably isn't that big of a deal.
There are a few influential thinkers who talked about this in the past, Jonathan swift is worth looking into.
There are a few influential thinkers who talked about this in the past, Jonathan swift is worth looking into.
Just to add to your links: http://reprints.longform.org/bug-system-hylton
fun quotes:
But when federal limits are breached, and officials believe that a recall is necessary, their only option is to ask the producer to remove the product voluntarily. Even then, officials may only request a recall when they have proof that the meat is already making customers sick. As evidence, the F.S.I.S. typically must find a genetic match between the salmonella in a victim’s body and the salmonella in a package of meat that is still in the victim’s possession, with its label still attached.
fun quotes:
But when federal limits are breached, and officials believe that a recall is necessary, their only option is to ask the producer to remove the product voluntarily. Even then, officials may only request a recall when they have proof that the meat is already making customers sick. As evidence, the F.S.I.S. typically must find a genetic match between the salmonella in a victim’s body and the salmonella in a package of meat that is still in the victim’s possession, with its label still attached.
> How can our government be failing us so miserably? Ensuring that our food is safe and properly labeled should be the most basic duties of a government.
In the United States food is regulated by the Department of Agriculture. Its FDA regulates food and drug safety. The rest of it works with farmers to increase production and ensure food is produced in volume at the lowest cost.
I think you can see the problem here :-(
We have the same problem at the Department of the Interior which regulates open space and its use and takes care of maximizing the land's economic value (i.e. grants mining and other extractive uses like grazing on public lands).
At least the interior department got free drugs and sex from oil company employees while as far as I can tell the ag department doesn't get that kind of "in kind" industry encouragement: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html
PS: Interior is also responsible with relations with the various tribes, which hasn't worked out too well for them either.
In the United States food is regulated by the Department of Agriculture. Its FDA regulates food and drug safety. The rest of it works with farmers to increase production and ensure food is produced in volume at the lowest cost.
I think you can see the problem here :-(
We have the same problem at the Department of the Interior which regulates open space and its use and takes care of maximizing the land's economic value (i.e. grants mining and other extractive uses like grazing on public lands).
At least the interior department got free drugs and sex from oil company employees while as far as I can tell the ag department doesn't get that kind of "in kind" industry encouragement: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html
PS: Interior is also responsible with relations with the various tribes, which hasn't worked out too well for them either.
I assume you support increased funding to FDA so they can hire more people and facilities to go after these cases, and that you are persuading others to also support this.
Hiring the right people is likely to be more productive than hiring more. The FDA has a "revolving door" problem with the industries it is supposed to be regulating.
From a NY Times editorial on their poor response to a recent issue with supplements:
Much of the responsibility for the F.D.A.’s sluggish response must fall on Dr. Daniel Fabricant, who left a senior position at the Natural Products Association, a trade group for supplement makers and sellers, to head the F.D.A.’s division of dietary supplement programs in early 2011 and who jumped back to the trade association as its chief executive in the spring of 2014. He has been succeeded at the F.D.A. by several acting directors; the current one is Cara Welch, from the same trade group. Both dragged their feet on BMPEA. [1]
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/conflicts-of-inter...
From a NY Times editorial on their poor response to a recent issue with supplements:
Much of the responsibility for the F.D.A.’s sluggish response must fall on Dr. Daniel Fabricant, who left a senior position at the Natural Products Association, a trade group for supplement makers and sellers, to head the F.D.A.’s division of dietary supplement programs in early 2011 and who jumped back to the trade association as its chief executive in the spring of 2014. He has been succeeded at the F.D.A. by several acting directors; the current one is Cara Welch, from the same trade group. Both dragged their feet on BMPEA. [1]
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/conflicts-of-inter...
Who choose to employ the fix to watch the hen-coop? Did they mysteriously get richer at the same time? Is there no government oversight of this?
I think USA needs to invade itself and bring some democracy along.
I think USA needs to invade itself and bring some democracy along.
You could pay them more. That's the Singapore model of good government (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012-01-25/why-singa...).
Isn't there any kind of quarantine period?
The FDA has its own set of problems. I feel like increasing funding doesn't guarantee that they will spend it on sorting out this fake food business.
This is a Department of Justice problem not an FDA problem FDA is focused on human Heath, not fraud.
Did you really have to link to David Wolfe?
Here are a few notes:
* 91% of seafood consumed in the United States is imported, and half of it is farmed. Yet only one-thousandth of 1 percent of imports are inspected for fraud.
* A study of NYC seafood done by Oceana, a non-profit marine conservation group, found fraud in 58% of retail outlets and 39% of restaurants.
* Every sushi restaurant from which samples were collected—100%—served fake fish
* A supermarket test 2011 found that the five top-selling imported "extra virgin" olive oil brands in the United States failed to meet the basic legal standard 73% of the time.
* In 2001, the USDA banned the importation of Kobe eef due to cases of mad cow disease. The ban was lifted in 2012, but only a handful of restaurants/suppliers are able to obtain real Kobe Beef. Yet, we've all seen Kobe beef plastered everywhere on menus; it's all fake.
* Kobe is a completely unregulated term. Under USDA regulations, the legal requirement for calling something Kobe beef is that it qualifies as beef.
* 91% of seafood consumed in the United States is imported, and half of it is farmed. Yet only one-thousandth of 1 percent of imports are inspected for fraud.
* A study of NYC seafood done by Oceana, a non-profit marine conservation group, found fraud in 58% of retail outlets and 39% of restaurants.
* Every sushi restaurant from which samples were collected—100%—served fake fish
* A supermarket test 2011 found that the five top-selling imported "extra virgin" olive oil brands in the United States failed to meet the basic legal standard 73% of the time.
* In 2001, the USDA banned the importation of Kobe eef due to cases of mad cow disease. The ban was lifted in 2012, but only a handful of restaurants/suppliers are able to obtain real Kobe Beef. Yet, we've all seen Kobe beef plastered everywhere on menus; it's all fake.
* Kobe is a completely unregulated term. Under USDA regulations, the legal requirement for calling something Kobe beef is that it qualifies as beef.
> Every sushi restaurant from which samples were collected—100%—served fake fish
I'm confused, what were they serving instead? Bison? Crab? Chicken? Tofu? Sharks? How can you fake fish?
If I'm being honest, this sounds like an exaggeration to me. Maybe rephrase if that's not what you meant?
(Edit: See my comment below [1] referring to Wikipedia -- it appears it's not even clear these are being mislabeled in the first place. Some people just don't think there is a huge distinction between the species; others do. That's another reason why this seems like a gross exaggeration of what is going on.)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12466029
I'm confused, what were they serving instead? Bison? Crab? Chicken? Tofu? Sharks? How can you fake fish?
If I'm being honest, this sounds like an exaggeration to me. Maybe rephrase if that's not what you meant?
(Edit: See my comment below [1] referring to Wikipedia -- it appears it's not even clear these are being mislabeled in the first place. Some people just don't think there is a huge distinction between the species; others do. That's another reason why this seems like a gross exaggeration of what is going on.)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12466029
It's mislabelled fish.
You can find the report here http://oceana.org/reports/widespread-seafood-fraud-found-new...
There's a chart on page 5 for the substitutions. For example, replacing white tuna with escolar.
You can find the report here http://oceana.org/reports/widespread-seafood-fraud-found-new...
There's a chart on page 5 for the substitutions. For example, replacing white tuna with escolar.
At McDonald's they specifically market it as "the fish" in a non specific way.
In a fine dining establishment they do actually market it as a particular type of fish. And particular types of fish do typically have different attributes (Heavy metal content or fat and oil content, parasite risks).
If I sold you an "i7 with 16gig of ram" but when you opened the computer up it was actually a pentium 4 with 2 gig, you'd be really pissed. If I had just marketed it as "computer" you wouldn't have a basis to be angry.
Imagine if I came back to you and said "oh gee, I guess that happens, knowing what I'm selling you is tough, our records aren't so good."
I would be completely fucking negligent, at best, and more likely I would be dishonest. Particularly when I'm selling an inferior product as a superior one. You'll notice no one ever asks for escolar and gets something that is actually much better. If it happens repeatedly and endemically, it is almost certainly fraud.
They're currently making a lot of money bilking consumers with an inferior product to what they have advertised.
I guess my point is that mislabeled is too generous to the character of the industry. Mislabeled implies someone made a "mistake." "Fake fish" maybe isn't exactly semantically correct, but it is closer to the nature of crime. (Maybe we can agree on "fraudulent fish", I think I like that better.)
In a fine dining establishment they do actually market it as a particular type of fish. And particular types of fish do typically have different attributes (Heavy metal content or fat and oil content, parasite risks).
If I sold you an "i7 with 16gig of ram" but when you opened the computer up it was actually a pentium 4 with 2 gig, you'd be really pissed. If I had just marketed it as "computer" you wouldn't have a basis to be angry.
Imagine if I came back to you and said "oh gee, I guess that happens, knowing what I'm selling you is tough, our records aren't so good."
I would be completely fucking negligent, at best, and more likely I would be dishonest. Particularly when I'm selling an inferior product as a superior one. You'll notice no one ever asks for escolar and gets something that is actually much better. If it happens repeatedly and endemically, it is almost certainly fraud.
They're currently making a lot of money bilking consumers with an inferior product to what they have advertised.
I guess my point is that mislabeled is too generous to the character of the industry. Mislabeled implies someone made a "mistake." "Fake fish" maybe isn't exactly semantically correct, but it is closer to the nature of crime. (Maybe we can agree on "fraudulent fish", I think I like that better.)
It should be called "mislabeled fish" then. "Fake fish" sounds like they're selling you chicken or something, which is way more terrifying for someone trying to eat fish -- not everyone cares exactly what the species is so long as it's fish, but they'd freak out it wasn't even some kind of fish.
Take note of [1]:
> Escolar is considered by the FDA and most fish experts to be Tuna
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar#Mislabeling
Take note of [1]:
> Escolar is considered by the FDA and most fish experts to be Tuna
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar#Mislabeling
>not everyone cares exactly what the species is so long as it's fish, but they'd freak out it wasn't even some kind of fish.
I would say that is about 100% wrong.
I don't order "the fish" in any restaurant. I order what's on the menu, and if the menu says it's snapper, I expect snapper. If it's not snapper, change your menu.
Wouldn't you object to my restaurant serving you Angus beef when you actually ordered the Wagyu?
I would say that is about 100% wrong.
I don't order "the fish" in any restaurant. I order what's on the menu, and if the menu says it's snapper, I expect snapper. If it's not snapper, change your menu.
Wouldn't you object to my restaurant serving you Angus beef when you actually ordered the Wagyu?
>> not everyone cares exactly what the species is
> I would say that is about 100% wrong. I don't order "the fish" in any restaurant.
You aren't everyone. And people generally try not to be sarcastic when ordering, either. Ordering "the fish" in a seafood restaurant would be obviously sarcastic. In another kind of restaurant, it isn't necessarily.
Heck, take a look at "Filet-O-Fish" on McDonald's menu: https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/product/filet-o-fish.html
> Dive into our wild-caught fish sandwich! Sourced from sustainable fisheries, topped with melty American cheese and creamy tartar sauce, and served on a soft, steamed bun.
What kind of fish is it? You have no idea from just looking at the menu. But people order it anyway. Maybe you don't, but you are not everyone.
And no, this isn't the only restaurant (or "food place", or whatever you want to call it) in the world that does this.
> I would say that is about 100% wrong. I don't order "the fish" in any restaurant.
You aren't everyone. And people generally try not to be sarcastic when ordering, either. Ordering "the fish" in a seafood restaurant would be obviously sarcastic. In another kind of restaurant, it isn't necessarily.
Heck, take a look at "Filet-O-Fish" on McDonald's menu: https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/product/filet-o-fish.html
> Dive into our wild-caught fish sandwich! Sourced from sustainable fisheries, topped with melty American cheese and creamy tartar sauce, and served on a soft, steamed bun.
What kind of fish is it? You have no idea from just looking at the menu. But people order it anyway. Maybe you don't, but you are not everyone.
And no, this isn't the only restaurant (or "food place", or whatever you want to call it) in the world that does this.
If you click through to the ingredients section you'll see:
FISH FILET PATTY: Ingredients: Pollock, Water, Vegetable Oil ...
FISH FILET PATTY: Ingredients: Pollock, Water, Vegetable Oil ...
Yes. Did I say it was impossible to figure out?
I thought I was just saying not everyone tries to figure it out before ordering.
I thought I was just saying not everyone tries to figure it out before ordering.
There is a large difference between not saying what type of fish it is, and directly contradicting the truth(lying.)
McDonalds didn't lie in any of that advertising(no matter how gross the food is.) They even had the actual type of fish in a discover-able format which the high end sushi restaurant fails to do and charges you high prices for what might be worse than what McDonalds is selling you; how would you know?
McDonalds didn't lie in any of that advertising(no matter how gross the food is.) They even had the actual type of fish in a discover-able format which the high end sushi restaurant fails to do and charges you high prices for what might be worse than what McDonalds is selling you; how would you know?
> There is a large difference between not saying what type of fish it is, and directly contradicting the truth(lying.)
Uhm, way to take it out of context. I was only bringing up McDonald's in reply to the quote in the parent comment:
>> I don't order "the fish" in any restaurant.
I wasn't using it for any other argument.
Now, in reply to your point: like I said much earlier, as Wikipedia says, the FDA and other "experts" don't consider this to be lying either. So if you have a problem, you should be complaining to them instead.
Uhm, way to take it out of context. I was only bringing up McDonald's in reply to the quote in the parent comment:
>> I don't order "the fish" in any restaurant.
I wasn't using it for any other argument.
Now, in reply to your point: like I said much earlier, as Wikipedia says, the FDA and other "experts" don't consider this to be lying either. So if you have a problem, you should be complaining to them instead.
McDonald's doesn't promise you tuna and doesn't give you tuna.
A sushi restaurant promises you tuna and still doesn't give you tuna.
You don't see anything wrong with that?
A sushi restaurant promises you tuna and still doesn't give you tuna.
You don't see anything wrong with that?
In New England restaurants you'll find 'scrod' on a lot of menus. It means something different in every restaurant.
> Wouldn't you object to my restaurant serving you Angus beef when you actually ordered the Wagyu?
If I cared enough to order such a thing. But it isn't a safety issue, it's a truth in advertising issue. Hard when the truth involved is something like the distinction of champagne vs. sparkling wine.
If I cared enough to order such a thing. But it isn't a safety issue, it's a truth in advertising issue. Hard when the truth involved is something like the distinction of champagne vs. sparkling wine.
(Disclaimer: French speaking)
The whole pooint of having the word "Champagne" is to distinguish the product of a particular geographical region ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_(province) ), in contrast to similar products on the ground that the value add is in the methods and traditions formed over time in that region and different in other regions. Most people swear they notice the difference, but eh. The point still stands in our culture of valueing specific products or methodologies. There's nothing inherently hard in distinguishing productors who're in the business since several generations from the new farm (who might be of equal or superior quality) in $foreignplace who's trying to cash in on the name.
One particular example a bit tangential to the original thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguiole_knife The term is not protected so the market's been flooded with things who share nothing but the shape with the original item. Which incidentally are the gorgeous looking and utterly indestructable :)
The whole pooint of having the word "Champagne" is to distinguish the product of a particular geographical region ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_(province) ), in contrast to similar products on the ground that the value add is in the methods and traditions formed over time in that region and different in other regions. Most people swear they notice the difference, but eh. The point still stands in our culture of valueing specific products or methodologies. There's nothing inherently hard in distinguishing productors who're in the business since several generations from the new farm (who might be of equal or superior quality) in $foreignplace who's trying to cash in on the name.
One particular example a bit tangential to the original thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguiole_knife The term is not protected so the market's been flooded with things who share nothing but the shape with the original item. Which incidentally are the gorgeous looking and utterly indestructable :)
It can be a safety issue if you order fish you thought was caught in the wild but is actually fish farmed in some far-away place to god-knows-what health standard (perhaps fed large doses of antibiotics, etc).
We need transparency or food companies will cut corners at every turn to save costs and put the publics' health at risk.
We need transparency or food companies will cut corners at every turn to save costs and put the publics' health at risk.
While escolar might be considered Tuna according to Wikipedia, here is a quote from the FDA's website: "FDA recommendation: Escolar should not be marketed in interstate commerce" [1] (because of the possible presense of gempylotoxin, a strong purgative oil (can cause severe diarrhea))
1. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/HACCP/ucm078063.h...
1. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/HACCP/ucm078063.h...
To me, the idea of eating something potentially mercury-toxic like tuna or swordfish when expecting something like salmon is pretty terrifying. I stay far away from those things. That seems unlikely to happen, though.
If it's just arctic char marked as salmon, meh.
If it's just arctic char marked as salmon, meh.
> To me, the idea of eating something potentially mercury-toxic like tuna or swordfish when expecting something like salmon is pretty terrifying.
Yes, that's why I very clearly said
> not everyone cares exactly what the species is
And was anyone substituting salmon with tuna in the first place? It's not like every wild substitution is being made. Like I said, the FDA is fine with some of them. Your viewpoint is just fine (and I'm with you honestly) but my point is that a lot of other people have others.
Yes, that's why I very clearly said
> not everyone cares exactly what the species is
And was anyone substituting salmon with tuna in the first place? It's not like every wild substitution is being made. Like I said, the FDA is fine with some of them. Your viewpoint is just fine (and I'm with you honestly) but my point is that a lot of other people have others.
Escolar, which is often served in lieu of true tuna, is potentially harmful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keriorrhea
If you are paying for an expensive fish and are served a cheap one, you are being ripped off. Someone may not care about what kind of fish they receive, but charge them more for that and I would say almost 99% would care.
'Tuna' might not be the best word to describe these fish species served as sushi. In the original Japanese the labeling is much more explicit, where they are called 'maguro' which is less broad a category than 'tuna'. So while escolar may be 'tuna', it's definitely not 'maguro'. In fact escolar has been illegal in Japan for for decades because it's considered harmful due to its diarrhea inducing wax ester content.
Agreed, I did a double take there too. "If not fish, what have I been eating?" But no, I'm still eating fish, and it tastes like all the other fish I get at the same price, unless I pay roughly triple, in which case I get noticeably tastier (apparently of a different species) fish.
Of course, mislabeled food is not fantastic, but I've figured for a while, when I order kobe beef sliders, "Yes, bold faced lies on the menu, but if it tastes good, who cares?" Transparency and reporting can go a long way here; isn't the rest just "market price" of whatever they're calling it today?
Of course, mislabeled food is not fantastic, but I've figured for a while, when I order kobe beef sliders, "Yes, bold faced lies on the menu, but if it tastes good, who cares?" Transparency and reporting can go a long way here; isn't the rest just "market price" of whatever they're calling it today?
If you couldn't tell the difference between chicken and any fish, you probably should avoid it.
You'll notice the difference between escolar/"white tuna" and albacore tuna that we normally eat is that it's a lot cheaper, is oily and it gives you explosive orange diahharea.
You'll notice the difference between escolar/"white tuna" and albacore tuna that we normally eat is that it's a lot cheaper, is oily and it gives you explosive orange diahharea.
Apparently escolar can cause diarrhea. I'd rather be very specific of the species in this case.
When fish is sliced, cut, and prepared, it's difficult to tell exactly what fish you are being served.
According to the book, here are common substitutes:
* Escolar for white tuna
* Asian catfish, ponga, tilapia, hake for grouper
* Tile fish for grouper/halibut/red snapper
* Tilapia for catfish
* Langostino, which is shrimp or crab for lobster
According to the book, here are common substitutes:
* Escolar for white tuna
* Asian catfish, ponga, tilapia, hake for grouper
* Tile fish for grouper/halibut/red snapper
* Tilapia for catfish
* Langostino, which is shrimp or crab for lobster
If it's difficult to tell exactly what fish you are being served, then it probably doesn't matter what fish you are being served.
It certainly does matter.
In terms of texture and taste, white tuna may very well be indistinguishable from escolar for a lot of people. It's still much less desirable than white tuna. Japan has banned escolar in 1977, deeming it toxic.
In terms of texture and taste, white tuna may very well be indistinguishable from escolar for a lot of people. It's still much less desirable than white tuna. Japan has banned escolar in 1977, deeming it toxic.
Now we're discussing toxicity. I 100% agree that health standards need to be maintained.
Oh, yes. Yes indeed. Escolar is quite tasty - I've had it deliberately - but the gastrointestinal side effects can be very nasty. You don't want to go there when you think you're just eating tuna. This is a very underhanded substitution for a supplier or restaurant to make.
Clearly there is a difference if the other fish has negative effects.
A warm glass of milk and a warm glass of milk with ejaculate in it, can you tell the difference? Does it matter?
We were talking fish. Now you are talking about noxious adulterants to milk.
Getting an Asian-farmed tilapia instead of a US-farmed catfish would not be good.
Why is that?
>91% of seafood consumed in the United States is imported, and half of it is farmed. Yet only one-thousandth of 1 percent of imports are inspected for fraud.
That shouldn't, by itself, be a problem, right? Any importation is a big deal that requires a license and someone putting their name down as having responsibility for it.
Even with low inspection, as soon as you find the fraud, you fine that importer and cut them off until they have their act together, right? Why doesn't that work as an incentive to prevent blatant abuses?
That shouldn't, by itself, be a problem, right? Any importation is a big deal that requires a license and someone putting their name down as having responsibility for it.
Even with low inspection, as soon as you find the fraud, you fine that importer and cut them off until they have their act together, right? Why doesn't that work as an incentive to prevent blatant abuses?
Names are cheap. If you need to buy them in bulk as a commodity, that can be arranged.
I was lucky to work in the tame minority of the fishing industry, but we sure heard our fair share of horror stories from the boats registered out of the Philippines and Thailand. Not sure what percentage was true, but the common theme is: humans and their names and families are cheap, if the buyer isn't racist.
I was lucky to work in the tame minority of the fishing industry, but we sure heard our fair share of horror stories from the boats registered out of the Philippines and Thailand. Not sure what percentage was true, but the common theme is: humans and their names and families are cheap, if the buyer isn't racist.
Doesn't importation require a licensed citizen on the receiving side too though, which the government already has in a database? Those names can't be cheap.
by* itself (consider me triggered)
Agreed, I'd expect it to work that way as well.
Agreed, I'd expect it to work that way as well.
My favorite Kobe lie is "kobe sliders" and "kobe hot dog", particularly when they're priced more or less normally, say < $20.
There's a 0% chance there's a single gram of Kobe beef in those.
There's a 0% chance there's a single gram of Kobe beef in those.
> Yet only one-thousandth of 1 percent of imports are inspected for fraud.
Yes, and? That's how statistical analysis works. You don't sample every single member of the population, as it would be infeasibly expensive. You can get almost as good results for a small fraction of the cost (through random sampling).
Yes, and? That's how statistical analysis works. You don't sample every single member of the population, as it would be infeasibly expensive. You can get almost as good results for a small fraction of the cost (through random sampling).
But when you do find a dud in inspection of say a batch of resistors for television production you reject the entire batch or shipment; you don't ask the supplier politely if they might consider taking it back. In an import context that could mean anything from a single case to a 40ft container or even a whole shipload in the case of fish. That seems to be a big part of the problem; in food inspections the inspectors don't have the same degree of power and authority as quality control inspectors in a factory (well at least in well run factories).
> I don't think it's a coincidence that these fake food articles—truffle oil, olive oil, seafood—are springing up after Larry Olmsted recently published Real Food/Fake Food: Why You Don’t Know What You’re Eating and What You Can Do about It.
If he really did publish recently, it can hardly be anything else; the olive oil and seafood results are many years old. They are more likely to have inspired him to write the book than the other way around.
If he really did publish recently, it can hardly be anything else; the olive oil and seafood results are many years old. They are more likely to have inspired him to write the book than the other way around.
> Kobe beef
Ah ! That explains how you can find kobe beef burger on a motor way dinner chain in Spain for the same price than a regular "gourmet" burger.
Ah ! That explains how you can find kobe beef burger on a motor way dinner chain in Spain for the same price than a regular "gourmet" burger.
If you buy your seafood whole you avoid a lot of frauds; you can't buy a whole cow but you can absolutely buy a whole fish or pieces of salmon cut in front of you. I would not buy seafood any other way (and I'm not sure I ever have -- seafood doesn't stay fresh for a long time, it feels quite dangerous to buy packaged in a supermarket).
Why would you think you cannot buy a whole cow? A large freezer or friends ordering at the same time solves this problem.
Where would you buy it? Unlike fish where the prep is done in front of you, a cow has to be prepped before you even see it, very soon after it dies (or it will explode). And it weights 400 kg.
Or maybe you want to buy it when it's still alive? At least you can walk it back to your place. But good luck dealing with the killing and the blood.
Sometimes you can buy whole parts of game (a leg or a shoulder maybe) but that's about it! ;-)
Or maybe you want to buy it when it's still alive? At least you can walk it back to your place. But good luck dealing with the killing and the blood.
Sometimes you can buy whole parts of game (a leg or a shoulder maybe) but that's about it! ;-)
We call up the rancher / farmer and buy the whole cow then a custom slaughter house / butcher get it and cuts it up. You probably want it hung for 30 days in cold storage. People do this, a co-worker goes out to Montana each year. Some grocery stores in the area do this, it's cheaper than buying the individual pieces.
You can buy a cow and have someone kill it and butcher it. I've known people that have done this.
Trout is usually commercial farm-raised trout. Salmon is usually farm-raised salmon. Beyond that, one wonders.
There's industry-level misrepresentation at play here, not just nefarious one-offs by the local fishmonger. On the Pacific coast of the US many retailers (whole foods, etc.) sell fish from the genus Sebastes ("rockfish") as "pacific snapper," though it isn't in Lutjanidae (snappers). From what I've gathered, this practice is old enough that many of the fishermen don't know it isn't what people on the East Coast would consider a snapper.
Having grown up on the Gulf, I was amazed how cheap snapper was the first time I bought it, then promptly disappointed by how bad it was by comparison.
Having grown up on the Gulf, I was amazed how cheap snapper was the first time I bought it, then promptly disappointed by how bad it was by comparison.
Time to give up fish.
Fish is shit, was a slogan my friend Jan Husar and me came up with.
Fake fish is a real health threat. Farmed fish from SE Asia often contains liver fluke eggs. If you eat these raw you can get cancer of the bike duct. See http://m.cancer.org/cancer/bileductcancer/detailedguide/bile....
That isn't scare mongering. I got this cancer five years ago and now am dying from it. The only cause I could see that made sense was sushi made from raw farmed fish.
Fake fish is a real health threat. Farmed fish from SE Asia often contains liver fluke eggs. If you eat these raw you can get cancer of the bike duct. See http://m.cancer.org/cancer/bileductcancer/detailedguide/bile....
That isn't scare mongering. I got this cancer five years ago and now am dying from it. The only cause I could see that made sense was sushi made from raw farmed fish.
According to Murphy's law, every imaginable scam will happen.
Given the exponential growth in world human population, who knows how for how much longer we will be eating any real fish.
There is tons of abundant delicious fish out there to eat. The problem is that people want to eat the popular ones. Plenty of cultures just eat whatever they catch, and we should too.
There are technologies being developed with which consumers confirm, with a high level of reliability, the source of food items and other goods:
https://www.provenance.org
https://www.provenance.org
As I said in the last fake food thread, this seems to be a problem tech can help solve. If big-brands fake their olive oil, it _should_ be easy to look up. Luckily computers are really good at indexing. A site where brands are rated (rotten tomatoes), and where you can look up groceries (actually, there are already some barcode scanning apps right?) for a 'true' ingredients list.
Sites like these hopefully ride the wave of public frustration and when the fake-food debacle quiets down, it becomes a more regular sort of rating site (i've often wondered which olive oil tastes best, but hard to compare 12 brands when it takes a month to finish 1 bottle)
Sites like these hopefully ride the wave of public frustration and when the fake-food debacle quiets down, it becomes a more regular sort of rating site (i've often wondered which olive oil tastes best, but hard to compare 12 brands when it takes a month to finish 1 bottle)
This is exactly the sort of generally mundane tracking problem that could be solved beautifully using a blockchain for following the supply chain.
This is especially concerning for people who try to avoid farmed fish (to minimize inflicting suffering). Farmed catfish has an incredibly high suffering/kg ratio, 6x that of salmon, 30x that of chicken meat, and 1000x that of beef.
http://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-is-c...