1 in 5 Seafood Samples Is Fake, Report Finds

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

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?

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).

There's a 0% chance there's a single gram of Kobe beef in those.

The same result applies to software security.

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.

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.

Why, killohurts, of course.

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.

You could go with millihitlers. https://www.reddit.com/comments/dlu96/new_si_unit_one_hitler...

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.

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...

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.

  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.