How Fish and Chips Migrated to Great Britain | Hacker News Reader

How Fish and Chips Migrated to Great Britain

atlasobscura.com

Interesting article however it fails to highlight the real reason for fish in a Friday, which was to do with prevention of waste.

The Church encouraged it so that the last catch on a Friday wouldn't spoil over the Sabbath. It was more out of practically than dogma from the scriptures.

Just the same as why pork has been discouraged from consumption in the middle East; it was incredibly hard to preserve it and stop it from making people ill.

Why is pork different from e.g. lamb?

Pork and shellfish can make you sick if you don’t prepare them correctly. Beef otoh is perfectly safe to eat raw

In this context - why is beef different from sushi or ceviche ? As to beef perfectly safe to eat raw - good luck with that!

Ceviche is marinated in lime juice. The citric acid has similar effects as heat.

Sushi on the other hand usually contains raw fish indeed, which is why it should only be eaten fresh.

As for cooking beef, there’s certainly a reason why our ancestors invented cooking. It helps with making food more palatable and safer to eat. When heating tissue above roughly 42 degrees centigrade proteins start to denature, which renders many pathogens inactive and harmless.

The gastrointestinal system of modern humans can’t stomach many types of foods raw either because we lack the enzymes to digest them.

As for cooking beef...

So perhaps not perfectly safe?

No, it isn't. However, there's probably no food that's safe to ingest in each and every circumstance. Even water can kill you.

On the other hand, there are dishes like steak tartare, which, if not eaten too frequently, probably and usually won't cause any harm.

However, there's probably no food that's safe to ingest in each and every circumstance

Absolutely - and this is exactly my point, everyone knows this. There is no point in gods telling humans what not to eat because humans know this already, known this for millennia. Religious prohibitions on food have nothing to do with "health and safety" and everything to do with manipulation and control,

And the majority of sushi has been frozen, killing any parasites. If the fish has not been frozen, there is still a risk from parasites.

By law in America, its frozen in liquid nitrogen?

By law in most places it is frozen to at least -31F for between 15 and 72 hours and sometimes up to a week. Apparently for best quality retention the fish is 'superfrozen' as soon as it is caught by packing it in dry ice 'snow' and chilling it with liquid nitrogen to get it down to -80F or so, and it can be stored up to two years at this temp.

Beef otoh is perfectly safe to eat raw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taenia_saginata

Garbage-fed livestock is most of the source of worms etc. In the Western world, commercial livestock is not fed garbage. There hasn't been a trichinosis case in America from commercial pork for instance in 60 years.

Still, with home-raised pigs you have to be careful.

Wikipedia:

>Unlike many other forms of livestock, pigs are omnivorous scavengers, eating virtually anything they come across, including carrion and refuse.

Hence tapeworms and why people don't order their pork chops rare.

But cattle also have tapeworms: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taenia_saginata

Yet we do eat beef rare.

Feel free to order your pork chops rare. There's no trichinosis in restaurant pork, hasn't been for two generations. These old stories die hard.

I thought the problem with pork is that pigs eat food that humans could just eat directly. As opposed to animals that eat something like grass, that we can't digest.

Why would pork be hard to preserve? Is there something about the middle east that makes salting or smoking it prohibitive? Or something about the environment that makes it more prone to spoilage than in Europe or Southeast Asia? Genuinely curious.

I think the problem with pork is that pigs will happily eat and root in human waste. This means human parasite eggs and larvae end up going back into our food chain when we eat the pigs. That's what makes them 'unclean'.

Humanity made it to the 21st century consuming pork.

Labeling pork 'unclean' is just standard operating procedure where arbitrary restrictions are introduced to generate an "us vs. them" divide and give the religious authorities more control over the everyday lifes of the believers.

Same dynamics as when religions take great interest in the sexual lives of the belivers

sorokod: “Humanity made it to the 21st century consuming pork. Labeling pork 'unclean' is just standard operating procedure where arbitrary restrictions are introduced to generate an "us vs. them" divide and give the religious authorities more control over the everyday lifes of the believers. Same dynamics as when religions take great interest in the sexual lives of the belivers”

Going on how your comment has been rendered invisible, looks like you triggered someone :]

For the people asking about pork, the answer is, I believe, trichinosis aka roundworm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis It is infectious in under-cooked meat and can make you very ill (including killing you).

But not in America! Please don't convince Americans to overcook pork into a hockey puck like our grandparents did.

Trichinosis in pork went away with tuberculosis etc 60 years ago. Today you find it only in a family-raised pig that is fed garbage (table scraps etc). Its not in any commercially-raised hog.

How about mushrooms many of which are poisonous? Why isn't there a religious prohibition on mushrooms?

Do you really think that humans need religions to forbid something that was known to be harmful for hundreds of thousands of years?

Pork was consumed in the Middle East until the chicken was introduced. It might be a simple as a prolonged drought afterwards that forced the issue.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10814-015-9083-2

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/people-ate-pork-mi...

The religious dietary restrictions or pork prohibition of Kosher/Halal came later.

(edit: just remembered this) Some of the workers on the pyramids ate pork as well. https://www.livescience.com/28961-ancient-giza-pyramid-build...

While drought and the water requirements for livestock could have had an impact it is strange that pork was singled out when it uses 1/2 to 1/3 of the water per kilo of dressed weight of lamb or beef respectively.

Yes, you raise a good point and it does seem it would be hard to discern root causes just from the bones left as trash by previous civilizations - should probably have said it could be speculated, though lamb and cattle can survive on a diet that cannot sustain a pig, the pigs would be competing with humans for the same calories.

So much of our culture that we love has been cross-pollinated from elsewhere over thousands of years, it makes me sad that some people want to end that.

It makes me happy to post stories like this on their dreary, nationalistic Twitter threads though.

On one hand, you have rabid nationalists who don't acknowledge culture is cross-pollinated and on the other rabid postmodern leftists who invent terms like "cultural appropriation" without realizing that it is part of how culture gets created in the first place.

It's worth noting that the term "cultural appropriation" doesn't usually refer to the process of sharing and enjoying the culture of others, but rather, where a dominant culture 'appropriates' by merely copying the symbolism and appearance rather than the essence.

>According to critics of the practice, cultural appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or cultural exchange in that this appropriation is a form of colonialism: cultural elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of members of the originating culture.[0]

I'm skeptical of the idea that culture is formed through cultural appropriation, except in the most superficial sense. What culture has been formed by the use of the images of traditionally Native American icons and practices in football, for instance?

Also, this isn't a post-modernist idea; post-modern thinking might reject the distinction cultural appropriation makes between essence and appearance.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation

Integrating good things from other cultures will continue, as it always has even during the most nationalistic times in history.

The current nationalism (rather mild by historical comparison) is a counter reaction to opening up and "equalizing" everything.

I don't want a world culture where everything is the same everywhere. It's boring and the good/quirky/interesting traits of individual nations get lost.

Melancholy thoughts about how the world used to be are not helpful for the individual, anywhere. Sure, lets put half the world back into poverty because it's not boring!

I know that wasn't meant literally. We want to keep song and food and fashion distinctive, kind of like how Renaissance Fairs simulate the 1400's but without the plague and smells. But isn't that what's happening in the world anyway? Meet people from Africa or India, they are very very different from where I grew up and still very interesting. I don't think that will be lost, no matter how many internet cartoons we share.

Can someone fill me in on why nationalism is being equated with a loss of cross-pollination, when the opposite end of the political spectrum is so strongly associated with the anti-cultural-appropriation movement?

It occurs to me that many of the most interesting cultures today exist almost exclusively because of they were nationalist and were not afraid to appropriate parts of other cultures into their own national identity.

You know what, I hate fish and chips. Far too stodgy. The hit of deep fried carbs makes my mind feel fuzzy. It's not worth it for what's ultimately a bland meal. Maybe people who like acidic food can get past that with copious amounts of vinegar or lemon juice but I can't stand either so no hope there.

Maybe I just haven't had decent fish and chips. Most chip shops near me now double as cheap Chinese takeaways. Most have shocking food hygiene ratings.

Which country are you in? Had fish and chips last night, very good - in Australia.

I always find it amusing how much the fish and chips is lauded in the UK when most of it is terrible compared to NZ/Aus. The fish is tasteless, the chips are (generally) cooked in too low a temperature oil leaving them stodgy. Add to this that the fish requires the skin leaving on the fillet for most kinds so the whole thing can hold together, etc.

Haddock's about the most flavoursome of the UK fish available from a chippy, but when you compare it to Hoki (pretty much the cheapest NZ fish), Gurnard, or Snapper, there's no contest.

100% agreed. Having lived in Ireland for years, and continuously visiting England for work, the best fish and chips I had was in OZ. NZ was meh but maybe I was just unlucky.

Different tastes... as a Brit if I went to a chippy and the chips weren't a bit stodgy I would send them back. I ordered chips, not fries :-)

I do agree with you a bit on the fish though, as I understand a lot of this is to do with fishing quotas which push the prices up so most places use cheaper fish. Ifou go to a good chippy in a seaside town, and specifically order cod or hadock, then you can get something good. As others have said the quality of restaurants really vary, even in the same town.

I don't think the taste of the fish is necessarily quota-based, more to do with water temperature. Cold water fish are either "tasteless" (like cod, haddock, etc.) or oily (like herring and similar).

As for chips, I think we'll have to agree to disagree there. :)

I'm in the UK. I don't think they use cod or anything like that. They just call it battered fish because it's not cod or haddock.

With some of the better examples you have the choice of one or either. In less good establishments it tends to be just 'fish' though.

Are you sure? Here in the US they've given up naming fish, because the supply chain has diluted everything with trash whitefish, which they re-branded 'tilapia' to make it sound like its a thing. No flavor at all.

The local restaurant chain relabeled their 'fried catfish' as 'fried whitefish' or something. Asked why they changed their fish. They said "We didn't change the fish; we just changed the menu". Presumably because it wasn't catfish all along.

I'll have to visit my hometown. Apparently there's now a chippy that does just that. Choice of cod, haddock and plaice if I recall. Some old friends rave about it.

Make it yourself at home. Triple cook the chips and they'll be far from bland. Make your own tartar sauce. Beer batter some fish you've bought yourself.

Crap chippy food is awful and just puts you in a coma, it's not the fault of the dish.

Exactly. Triple cooked chips are heaven. In between stages I just leave them on a rack in the garden as they need to dry out properly.

Single cooked chips with blisteringly hot dripping in the deep fryer is my approach. Crispness that melts on the outside, and fluffy like the finest roasties on the inside. Agree with you on the rest. :)

That sounds amazing. Love me t roasties. Amazing in duck fat too.

You have clearly never had Yorkshire fish and chips.

I also note the author's ommission of mushy peas and a cup of tea, but then she isn't British, so overall a reasonable effort for a foreigner.

I had beautiful fish and chips in Whitby this year, less good ones in Settle, so Yorkshire can be variable too!

You can get a good chippy, or a bad one, anywhere in Britain. Our best local is run by a cheery Cypriot chap, in fact there are quite a lot of Cypriot chippys... but that is another story for the Atlas.

I do remember a time when I enjoyed fish and chips. The place was called Stav's, ran by a Greek guy called Stavros. Decent kebabs too. Unfortunately folded and converted into a Chinese takeaway.

> "I had beautiful fish and chips in Whitby"

Funny you should mention Whitby, that little town was on my mind the whole time whilst reading these comments. I happened to pass through there maybe 25 years ago and the fish & chips were absolutely divine. Even today, when I think about good fish & chips, I think about Whitby.

Is there something special about that town? Is fish & chips their thing?

Same as for the other fishing ports.

Fish in Whitby should be fresh off the boat. There may not be as many trawlers as in the past, but enough to get good fish.

They are pretty well known for their fish and chips, yes.

In no particular order, Whitby is famous for

1) Jet. A black stone. Fossilized Monkey Puzzle sap. Popular for jewellery in Victorian times with the fashion for having a dead husband. 2) Fish and Chips. Although not really any better than any other seaside town. 3) Dracula landed there. 4) The Abbey, perhaps because of Dracula 5) Whale bone arch 6) Captain Cook

Pretty at some angles. Typical UK seaside of shitty amusement arcades and shops selling junk made out of shells from China from other angles.

Worth a day trip. I think most visitors go away remembering the steps...

The Magpie in Whitby has to be our favourite fish and chip shop, I knew it would be good the first time we went there as the queue to get in was huge.

> You have clearly never had Yorkshire fish and chips.

From Yorkshire, lived in Yorkshire all my life and I'm entirely with him, at it's very best fish and chips is maybe just ok but it is rarely that.

I'll take a tuna steak and salad every time over that.

I've not! In Salford, you have to go out of your way to double check food hygiene ratings when you want to try a new chippy. Many are just a 1 or 2.

I love chippy tea Fridays (called Fish and Chip Fridays in the article), fish and chips is probably my favourite meal, sometimes I have it with mushy peas and red sauce and sometimes I have it with curry sauce, I haven't been able to decide in the last 30 years or so of having it weekly which of these combinations is my favourite. Generally, I find coastal towns are better for fish and chips.

I like it when you have a cone of chips and the vinegar collects at the bottom of the cone, and you drink it after finishing your chips.

In high-school we would sneak out to the chippy at lunch and ask for a cone of chips in a tray, which meant we wanted a tray of chips but we only wanted to pay what we would normally pay for a cone of chips, the owner thought we were nobheads.

When I moved out for the first time, on Friday nights my flatmate and I would buy fish and chips, and beers, and watch Have I Got News For You together.

My life revolves around fish and chips.

Haha can tell you're northern. Shared appreciation for chippy tea. Chips rice and curry. Ah I'm hungry.

'Most chip shops near me now double as cheap Chinese takeaways'

There's your answer.

There's loads of awful fish and chip shops.

For the best fish and chips they should not be fried in vegetable oil. Any hard white fat is an improvement, with beef dripping the best. You'll get melt in the mouth crispness and wonderfully light feeling chips. If they fry hot enough.

It's rare to find a chipoll that still fries in dripping, but there are still some and will likely have a lengthy queue. Any chip shop that doubles as anything else is usually asking for trouble, unless it's an attached caf. :)

I'll keep that in mind! That's obviously where I've been going wrong.

Ah I fancy a chippy now.

It does seem the quality of a restaurant is inversely proportional to the length of the menu. If I see a short menu I'll usually go straight in.

Not surprising, the concept in itself is gross. As far as I understand, french fries are horribly unhealthy to begin with, and they're topping it up with fried fish. Why not sprinkle it with sugar that's been soaking in oil overnight, don't just stop there, come on!

I understand this article conveys the historical aspect of the dish, which I respect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com