Some theorize that this is due to American's avoiding flavor in general [1].
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/07/01/327248504/the...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-fish-on-my-plate/
It's about his experiment of eating fish as his only protein for a whole year, as well as an investigation of where our fish comes from, fish farming practices, sustainability, etc.
Aside, it may be a good thing Americans don't eat as much seafood as the rest of the world. I'm not sure the oceans could keep up with the demand. Allegedly very few fisheries are well managed.
I'm not arguing for or against the quality of fish protein, just pointing out Polynesians had pigs...
If America was as hungry for seafood as East Asia, fisheries would have depleted enough to create frighteningly high prices long ago, and we'd probably have a thriving aquaculture industry today.
According to this article, based on CO2 production farmed salmon has the same impact as pork:
http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/
Especially near me, where the waterways are also toiletways. You'd have to go out into the lake to escape the toilet and dioxin-laden water, where the fish should never be eaten, and even then you have, like I said above, a limit depending on how much toxic fish you feel comfortable ingesting.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-16/health-warning-over-fi...
http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/toxins-found-at-popular-...
Sydney's ocean beaches are often closed to swimmers because of pollution. Sydney disposes of its sewerage via deep ocean outlets, and this can often make the water quality very bad, depending on ocean currents.
I'm not sure my post warranted a down-vote. Is it because I contradicted you? or do you think I am wrong? I lived on a houseboat on The Georges river/Botany Bay for many years, and have spent some serious time on Sydney's waterways, and offshore. I wouldn't eat anything caught in Sydney's rivers or beaches knowingly.
You can easily observe locals fishing in the river(s) running through Shanghai. The fact that they do it doesn't mean those fish are safe to eat.
Fisheries are being destroyed is because blue water fisheries are a commons -- no nations own them, so whoever vacuums up the fish first reap the profits. Not to mention global warming and ocean acidification are stressing fish breeding grounds worldwide.
This model made sense up until WW2, and was in line with how international waters were historically governed, but it is an ecological disaster in the making because technological developments during the war (sonar, deep sea nets, etc.) allowed huge fishing fleets to completely destroy blue water fishing grounds.
The only way to change this is for someone to push at the international level to rewrite the agreements on fisheries (restrict them by quotas, manage them by an international body with an eye towards conservation, etc.), and the only superpower that has the political capital to really get the ball rolling is the US.
But most Americans don't eat much seafood so it's not on anyone's radar. Enjoy your seafood while you still can. Maybe rich nations will have farmed fish or domestic freshwater sources, but cheap seafood from the ocean will basically not exist within a few decades.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/07/global-f...
Also why should America have to be the fish police, on top of all the other polices we are. What if I would rather spend the fish police money on universal healthcare and free college tuition for fellow Americans?
The truth is that if the US does nothing, mass fishery collapse is the most probable outcome. It will hurt poor, seafood-consuming nations much more than it hurts the US.
Is this more important than any of our other priorities? That's up for you to decide.
I do agree that we need international level agreements, but I trust the US exactly the same as I trust most other governments on this issue. I think one of the biggest problems is that it's a bit like global warming. Most people simply deny that there's a problem. In fish-loving Japan, where I live, nobody will listen to me. They sell cod illegally fished from the grand banks in the super market. They even have a big sign "Grand Banks Cod!!!" I think if I brought an east cost Canadian fisherman to Japan, they'd go postal. But, if I try to educate someone, the response is always, "It has to be a lie. Look at all the cheap fish in the super market. If it was really getting scarce, then there would be no fish there. People in other parts of the world just want to complain about the Japanese. That's all it is".
If the US was a fish eating nation, I have very little doubt that the same thing would be happening, unfortunately.
My supervisor at university did fish population simulations as his research. He published a paper, maybe 30 years ago now, where he predicted the collapse of all wild fisheries. Nobody paid any attention to it. It seems to be on track now...
But it sounds very logical, so why is this not true?
Strangely, the best place to 'store' fish is right in the ocean, and for an overly harvested fishery, you even get paid interest for it.
But if there is too much fish taken away, then it is harder to catch them, right, so scarcity. But the remaining fish then have much more space and food to reproduce ... so they go ack to the old levels quickly, so where is the problem (unless some species go literally extinct)?
But most of our fisheries are far below that now. Fish can only breed as fast as there are breeding fish available, but we're eating them faster than they are being born.
You can view a fishery basically as a giant fish-making factory. If you eat away half your fishery's biomass, then to a very rough first approximation, your factory will only produce half as many fish.
But then why is fish still so cheap and plenty of it avaiable, which was the main point?
(but again, I don't know that, I am just refering to the argument)
Related to this: because technological change has made it really cheap and easy to catch fish [2], and up to now, that has more than offset the decreased productivity from damaging our fisheries.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheries_subsidy [2] http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00222/33368/35784.pdf
You don't need an especially socially responsible or forward-thinking entity to solve coordination problems. You just need one that's able to push hard enough to make everyone fall in line.
Something like the UN/WTO would ideally serve that purpose, but seems like no one wants to give them much clout. I assume the big people prefer to keep the clout in their complete control and the small guys know the big guys would still have stuff like permanent seats and veto power.
Evidence please.
Most of the costal area of India uses relatively far more primitive fishing methods compared to Japan or China. Have not seen any ocean fish becoming less available in last 30 years even though population might have doubled and demand for fish gone up by 5 fold. At least there is no evidence on ground !
There's no reason to eat fish when in almost all cases chicken, pork, and beef provide much cheaper and filling sources of protein. I mean, I love the taste of fish, but even I rarely eat it because it's just that much more efficient to feed myself with chicken and red meat.
If it were only about efficiency, you'd probably just eat beans and rice, day in and day out, with a bit of this and that thrown in.
Edit: BTW, this book has some interesting ideas about the US and food: http://amzn.to/2oVeaYz
Among other things, he points out that the US does have slow food with a high degree of regional variety: barbecue.
Saving $1 > Saving $0
On the other hand, expensive fish aren't usually a byproduct of producing cheap fish, nor vice versa.
The US is a wealthy place, but a lot of individual families aren't wealthy at all. Cheap, mass-produced, pre-prepared food (either frozen or in cans/boxes) are the cheapest things to eat. Where I lived - a few hours flight to a coast or many hours of driving - fish was one of the more expensive protein options if one doesn't want to eat fish sticks or the like. Chicken and pork were usually cheaper, followed by beef.
If it were only about efficiency, you'd probably just eat beans and rice, day in and day out, with a bit of this and that thrown in
This misses part of the equation - the stuff folks are eating are time efficient as well. Plus a good amount of folks wouldn't know what to do with lentils and rice: Cooking isn't a focus of schools. I had 6-9 weeks of cooking instruction, and we only cooked (in groups of 4-5) once every week or two and that included things like baking sweets. It is amazing how many folks don't just look this stuff up.
How are you supposed to learn something from your parents if the parents do not cook or are not responsible with their money or refuse to share financials with the child? We know some kids are in that situation and teaching such things is a preventative measure.
That class was one semester, and it was paired with another one-semester class that taught silkscreening, drafting, welding, wood joinery, and aluminum casting. This was, I think, in 7th or 8th grade.
WTF are they teaching in schools these days if not how to make pancakes correctly and clean as you go?
The current trend is to go more urban/inner suburban. That more due to the cycle of aging property and best value than anything else.
Geography is certainly a plausible component of the answer. But I personally think cultural norms are pretty arbitrary and self-sustaining; there doesn't need to be a deeper reason why "americans like beef" other than our parents did and that's what we grew up with (recurse N generations).
Lower quality meat is cheaper. Similar quality meat (for example, in Scotland, all the beef is grass-fed, I don't know about the rest of the EU) seems to cost a similar amount in either area.
I have done the "drive to the gourmet food store to get fresh fish supposedly flown in by air that's only a couple hours old" and its expensive, like $15 to $20 per pound and interesting and tasted very fresh and delicious but tonight my kids have baseball practice and my son has scouts and weekly food shopping night is Thursday to avoid the weekend rush so looks like frozen fish tonight.
Farm to table is good signalling but not really practical for perhaps 95% of the population if not more. Something from the freezer aisle that can be cooked in the oven and tastes OK is better than something better that I can't eat because I don't have two hours tonight for special store supply runs and homemade preparations.
Also especially inland we have plenty of lakes and recreational fishermen and they all know about mercury poisoning such that they can only occasionally eat what they catch. Someone who can only safely eat one walleye per month looks at me pretty weird for feeding my kids fish every week "You having the pediatrician test them for mercury?"
Its also extremely bad social signalling, I know its wrong to even say this, but fish is generally pretty boring and bland. Its like trying to obtain artisinal flavored chicken or artisinal flavored sea or mountain salts. There's a reason people put a lot of work into what goes in or nearby the dish in a fish, spices and stuff. I'll blow money and time on something that will taste good. Fish isn't in that list.
That depends entirely on the type and quality of the fish. The most obvious example is salmon, which has a great, unique flavor and texture if cooked properly. White fish tend to be more bland on average, but there are some that are very flavorful; for instance, ling cod is absolutely delicious grilled (or seared) with nothing more than olive oil and salt/pepper. And then you have oily fish like herring and mackerel that are generally not cooked, but rather cured, pickled, or smoked, that are flavorful enough to be eaten on their own (but also make fantastic accompaniments in dishes like dressed herring).
In fact, you could say that a lot of lean cuts of beef are "boring and bland" as well: they don't have a ton of flavor unless you add herbs, spices, and/or fat.
(All that being said, I don't disagree with your other points about convenience and safety.)
I would have thought people from the British Isles were the largest group, based on what I've read about America, the Pilgrims, etc. Is that wrong?
The culinary influence is right there in plain sight though if you look for it, from the names of our big mainstream brewing companies to our national favorites, the Frankfurter and the Hamburger.
hamburger => Hamburg
frankfurter => Frankfurt
wiener => Vienna
pilsner => Plzeň
seltzer => SeltersEdited for typo.
Consumption per person is amongst the highest in Europe.
Don't bother with it in London, elsewhere go where the locals are. A busy fish and chip shop in a small town is probably best, rather than a pub or a takeaway that also sells pizza/chicken/kebab.
I don't live in the UK any more, but last time I visited the fish and chip shop in Llanfairpwllgwyngyll. Highly recommended :)
America is also a big place. Fresh fish spoils quickly. So no, you won't see a lot of selection at a midwestern supermarket. If you're near a coast, the selection and number of specialty seafood shops is a lot better.
In my experience, a minority of people pay attention to where their food comes from. I'd bet the average consumer purchasing fish wouldn't be able to tell you whether it was farmed or wild caught.
Different taste and color.
I'll pay the extra $4-5 dollar a pound when in "season" for the real thing.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/nyregion/sushi-fresh-f...
Same thing happens with meat. There is a huge reduction of variety, even at the local fishmonger/butcher, compared to continental Europe (I'm sure it is coming though)
A limited choice is available all the time everywhere, but the variety is not anymore.
For example, if you visit a supermarket in the UK or the USA at any time of the year, you can always find, say, fresh strawberries, despite the fruit only being locally in season for a month or two.
There is very little genuinely "seasonal" produce, meat or fish in supermarkets and I think that this is a major factor in the lack of variety.
Out of interest, if you went to an Indian market every three months, would you find all 100 different varieties of fish on offer every time, or does it change?
- first, fish, as has been said about the US in this thread, is not eaten much inland (though some fresh-water fish is), due to distances and heat and spoiling, and while India has a large coast, it has an even larger interior.
- second, I doubt there are even close to 100 varieties of fish available (in markets) at the coasts, maybe 20 to 40; those who know more, feel free to correct me, I don't live near the coast (though did long ago), and don't eat fish.
- third, I don't think that in any of the types of markets, I mentioned, all the same varieties would be available all year round (and kiranas don't sell fish or meat at all, except some may, but only tinned). It is a mix of some staples and some seasonal items.
E.g. I've visited Goa (a coastal state) a few times, and at least at the beach restaurants / shacks, where they lay out the fish and other seafood varieties for inspection by customers, I don't remember seeing more than 20 or so items - kingfish, mackerel, red snapper, pomfret, crabs, a couple of types / sizes of prawns, squid, shark, that's almost it. One place that I went to a few times, had seafood special nights (the owner fished as a hobby), where there were a few more kinds, like barracuda, tuna, mussels, etc. These were in general touristy areas though. Local markets and restaurants may have more varieties.
In 2014 UK fishing boats landed 424ktonnes of fish into UK ports, while we imported 720ktonnes of fish, mostly from outside the EU.
I would prefer to go hungry or eat the same boring but nutritious meal day after day than consume bad food, and frankly I think I've avoiding a hell of future medical misery by not stuffing my body with crap.
This tired trope about Americans eating so much processed food is often passed around by people that seem to not be very familiar with what grocery stores in the rest of the world sell. The French have entire stores dedicated to pre-packaged, frozen meals. Stereotypes are often based in truth, but that doesn't mean they are true.
Your average American grocery store has the ingredients to make almost any cuisine on earth, yet I have to import tortilla flour from the US because the only thing resembling Mexican food in France is "Old El Paso." Korean ingredients? Good luck with that. There's a tired section of soy sauces that consist of Kikkoman generic crap and that's about it. In a US store, I can find at at least 5 different kinds of soy sauces. Actual Asian noodles as well.
People seem to have a hobby bashing Americans, yet the American grocery store is a temple to the success of capitalism, world trade and diversity.
Ever been to a "non-capitalist" grocery store in China? Once you do that, then perhaps you could opine on how bad capitalism is for food.
Capitalism is the very reason you can find enoki mushrooms in Omaha, habaneros in Minnesota or Serbian rakija in Los Angeles.
I am not saying that Americans always make the best nutritional choices -- but it isn't due to the lack of opportunity to do so.
Americans stock their shelves with "swiss" "american" "jack" and "cheddar" with almost all of them being made in about a week in cheese factory somewhere.
Contrast that with having TWO versions of Cantal, one of the blander AOC cheeses, in every cheese case we encountered in France. To say nothing of blues I'd never heard of, and small batch regional cheeses in many supermarchés.
It's all hearsay and conjecture, really, but I think the outsized influence of American chefs is just due to TV culture which is pervasive and consistently unfortunate.
Plus, if you look at the labels, half of the cheeses that are presented as artisanal are actually made by a cheese factory in southern Wisconsin.
All that said, there are a number of folks making brilliant local cheeses in Vermont and Upstate NY, but I find those at the boutique cheese store on the coast, and even their employees often don't know anything about what they're selling. Not sure who's fault that is though.
Either way, I miss France and not just for the cheese. Gastronomically it was simply easier to find high quality produce and AOC protected regional delicacies. And that's not saying they don't have crap too (oh, I remember Lidl), but there was a sense of cultural pride around certain foods that is simply absent in the US outside of hipsters in Vermont and California (which I am mostly likely a part of).
Rural America has a great food culture here in many areas; it's not just chefs on the TV.
Granted, Americans have gotten a lot better at food and culture in general in the past decade ever since the hipster/foodie-ism thing, but it still has a long way to go if it wants to ditch the image of the average American as the child who won't eat their vegetables.
American culture, in general, has improved thanks to 10 years of hipsters? Where are you from?
And you quantify this how?
An abomination of a word :)
It should be crisp, AFAIK.
Start with The Ipcress File. There are only a very few books that I read again and again for the sheer literary pleasure of their construction and expression, and I've read that book at least 10 times now, and hope to read it many more.
Deighton's novels have been popular but he has never been accorded the recognition given to other great writers in the espionage and war genres. Perhaps this is a result of too many irons in the fire - he's also a historian and graphic arts - but it has a good deal to do with his being a recluse and his relatively humble social origins, in my view, which perspective is fundamental to his writing. I cannot lavish enough praise upon him, but ask that if you enjoy his work you make an effort to share it with others.
P.S. For a moment, after seeing you mention Len Deighton, I confused him with Ken Follett, some of whose books I've also read. They were good too.
Simple example, most milk in the US comes from Holstein cows because they produce more than other breeds. But if you get milk from Jersey cows (smaller and browner) it's much fattier and generally more flavorful. Of course it's also a bit more expensive but not that much more...but you'll be hard put to find it outside of a farmer's market or specialty grocer.
I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on consumers for poor nutritional choices. Marketing and other factors shape those choices significantly.
Collecting pennies in front of a steam roller.
The point isn't to process it as heavily as possible, it is to process it and flavor it so that it hits a "sweet spot" between the fat/salt/sugar flavors - according to the food science. This makes folks come back and buy more, especially with it seeming to taste better than their home-cooked food. They seriously design it to make your brain happy to have it. Some of it is bland, for sure, but plenty of it isn't.
I'm not so astonished: This sort of thing has been happening throughout history. Lead in makeup, arsenic in dyes, and so on.
Pretty much every place I've lived on both coasts, you couldn't go the day without hearing about someone wanting a tuna burrito, or fish tacos, or shrimp stew (Frogmore stew specifically) or lobster or crab or flounderor more.
So maybe the inland Americans don't eat as much seafood, but rarely does a day go by here on the West Coast that I don't hear about or personally think about eating some seafood.
The market at work, surely.