Comment by dandandans | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dandandans | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

> 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

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.

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.)

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

>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?

>> 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.

If you click through to the ingredients section you'll see:

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.

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?

> 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.

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?

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.

(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 :)

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.

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...

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.

> 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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

> 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).

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).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com