8 ms·

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

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.

wfunction 10y ago
> 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12466029
- mcpherrinm 10y ago
  It's mislabelled fish. You can find the report here http://oceana.org/reports/widespread-seafood-fraud-found-new-york-city 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.
  - wfunction 10y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar#Mislabeling
    - chris_7 10y ago
      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.
      - wfunction 10y ago
        > 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.
      - zumu 10y ago
        Escolar, which is often served in lieu of true tuna, is potentially harmful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keriorrhea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keriorrhea
    - undersuit 10y ago
      >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?
- dandandans 10y ago
  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
  - ghshephard 10y ago
    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.
    - chris_7 10y ago
      Getting an Asian-farmed tilapia instead of a US-farmed catfish would not be good.
      - ghshephard 10y ago
        Why is that?
    - nicobn 10y ago
      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.
      - ghshephard 10y ago
        Now we're discussing toxicity. I 100% agree that health standards need to be maintained.
    - dgacmu 10y ago
      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.
SilasX 10y ago
>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?
- ZoF 10y ago
  by* itself (consider me triggered) Agreed, I'd expect it to work that way as well.
- happyslobro 10y ago
  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.
  - SilasX 10y ago
    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.
wyager 10y ago
> 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).
- kwhitefoot 10y ago
  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).
jghn 10y ago
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.

wfunction 10y ago

> 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12466029

mcpherrinm 10y ago
It's mislabelled fish. You can find the report here http://oceana.org/reports/widespread-seafood-fraud-found-new-york-city 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.
- wfunction 10y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar#Mislabeling
  - chris_7 10y ago
    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.
    - wfunction 10y ago
      > 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.
    - zumu 10y ago
      Escolar, which is often served in lieu of true tuna, is potentially harmful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keriorrhea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keriorrhea
  - undersuit 10y ago
    >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?
dandandans 10y ago
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
- ghshephard 10y ago
  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.
  - chris_7 10y ago
    Getting an Asian-farmed tilapia instead of a US-farmed catfish would not be good.
    - ghshephard 10y ago
      Why is that?
  - nicobn 10y ago
    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.
    - ghshephard 10y ago
      Now we're discussing toxicity. I 100% agree that health standards need to be maintained.
  - dgacmu 10y ago
    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.

SilasX 10y ago

>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?

ZoF 10y ago
by* itself (consider me triggered) Agreed, I'd expect it to work that way as well.
happyslobro 10y ago
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.
- SilasX 10y ago
  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.

wyager 10y ago

> 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).

kwhitefoot 10y ago
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).

jghn 10y ago

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.