Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlgreco | Hacker News Reader

Perhaps, given the dire state of tuna supplies and consumers who apparently cannot tell the difference without resorting to testing, we should be encouraging mislabeling.

Insisting on a particular rare fish while another more common fish satisfies you just as well is exceptionally silly. Of course it is near impossible to convince consumers of this, but business owners have apparently figured out a solution themselves.

(To keep it safe, the FDA could create lists of fish that may be substituted and labelled as each other.)

View on HN

This happens with "bacalhau" (norwegian codfish). It's appreciated by the europeans for ages, but overfishing made it prohibitively priced.

Now you have 5 or 6 different fish sold under this name at markets, fished on Alaska and China, but they taste all the same so it makes no difference (only on the price).

The word "bacalhau" now refers more to the kind of preparation (dried fish) than the species itself. It could be the same with tuna ("tuna" being, any red meat fish with the same consistency and similar taste).

Except escolar is a lot more toxic than tuna.

> Perhaps, given the dire state of tuna supplies and consumers who apparently cannot tell the difference without resorting to testing, we should be encouraging mislabeling.

Yes, because fighting ignorance with lies that cater to it is much better than fighting it with information.

You could, and should, do both of course.

If the FDA sanctioned the practice and published lists of approved fish substitutions then only uninformed consumers would be unaware of the possibility that they were being gouged for cheap fish (you can see that gouging as a reward to restaurants that refuse to serve real tuna, and an informal punishment for consumers who are trying to get tuna). These uninformed consumers are presumably un-reached by your media campaign to cut back on tuna consumption.

It also eases the transition from tuna to other fish. I like tuna-salad sandwiches, I eat them a few times a month. I wouldn't know if the tuna in them wasn't real tuna, in fact I hope it isn't. I would have no idea what "escolar salad" is though. Mislabeling allows me to get what I want without unnecessary environmental impact.

Also, mislabeling fish is not unprecedented, but done for worse reasons in the past. See Vietnamese catfish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basa_fish#.22Catfish_war.22_in_....

> You could, and should, do both of course.

No, you should just use the truth, since the lies combat the truth.

If you prevent mislabeling, the rare fish becomes expensive rather than cheap-and-adulterated, the price differences drive lots of the people that think they prefer the rare fish to settle and try the cheaper, less rare, fish, and to the extent that the cheaper fish actually is suitable, people learn and it becomes popular.

If there is a risk of this transition happening too slowly to meet some social good (like, preserving the rare fish), you enact appropriate protections to the rare fish (either quotas, taxes, or outright bans) that restrict the supply or drive up the retail price, which accelerates the process of conversion.

> It also eases the transition from tuna to other fish.

No, it actually delays the conversion of demand by masking the cost and delaying people trying the other fish as itself and learning that it is acceptable.

Real tuna already is expensive, but that isn't helping the fish. By the time it becomes expensive enough to actually kill demand, the species will be in terrible shape.

You can't rely on supply and demand games to keep a species off the brink of extinction, we've learned this too many times the hard way.

> No, it actually delays the conversion of demand by masking the cost and delaying people trying the other fish as itself and learning that it is acceptable.

Informed consumers would be opened up to the new cheaper fish. For example, now that I am aware of it (and specifically aware that it is like tuna), I will make an effort to buy escolar in the future.

> Real tuna already is expensive, but that isn't helping the fish.

It isn't helping the fish because consumer demand for tuna isn't dropping, in part because consumers are insulated from the actual cost of real tuna by mislabelling; if consumer "tuna" was only real tuna (and thus, the supply was restricted to the supply of real tuna, driving the price of consumer "tuna" way up), there would be more consumer experience with tuna substitutes under their own name (rather than mislabelled as tuna), and the demand would shift to the acceptable substitutes (which clearly exist, otherwise they wouldn't be acceptable mislabelled as tuna.)

> For example, now that I am aware of it (and specifically aware that it is like tuna), I will make an effort to buy escolar in the future.

But if suppliers make more money selling escolar as "tuna", it will make it that much harder to by escolar as escolar.

> It isn't helping the fish because consumer demand for tuna isn't dropping, in part because consumers are insulated from the actual cost of real tuna by mislabelling; if consumer "tuna" was only real tuna (and thus, the supply was restricted to the supply of real tuna, driving the price of consumer "tuna" way up), there would be more consumer experience with tuna substitutes under their own name (rather than mislabelled as tuna), and the demand would shift to the acceptable substitutes (which clearly exist, otherwise they wouldn't be acceptable mislabelled as tuna.)

If I buy a can of shredded escolar that calls itself tuna, then I am increasing the profit margin of the fish company which may allow them to sell real tuna to people who demand real tuna at a cheaper price and remain profitable, but in reality real tuna already commands crazy prices and nobody is dropping those prices because of escolar profits.

If you restrict the supply of fish labelled tuna to 'real' tuna, then by the time the cost skyrockets to kill the demand it is already too late. Low supply is exactly what we are trying to avoid. Counting on low supply to safe the species is foolish.

> But if suppliers make more money selling escolar as "tuna", it will make it that much harder to by escolar as escolar

If they couldn't initially sell it as tuna, would they ever sell it at all? Would consumers even be aware of it?

People prefer their comforting lies over the harsh reality of the truth. Your answer while perfectly rational, ignores that people aren't; his answer is more likely to affect change because it requires less people to admit they changed. Everyone just pretends it's still Tuna they're selling and eating.

Trying to force people to accept that we're driving an animal to the brink of extinction is a far harder sell than you seem to realize; they don't accept it and can block attempts to do anything about it. It's a losing strategy that will result in extinct tuna.

Finally, it's not a lie, it's a brand change and Tuna is just a word that is the brand really. Tuna should just mean any fish that can pass for tuna in the context of food. We'll call it Tuna®

"Finally, it's not a lie, it's a brand change and Tuna is just a word that is the brand really. Tuna should just mean any fish that can pass for tuna in the context of food. We'll call it Tuna®"

Agreed. I like the way @noonespecial puts it downthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6266772)

"To me tuna is a taste, not a species."

If you ate escolar, you'd really want to know it before you put that fish in your mouth.

Escolar contains a minute amount of a toxin that will irritate your gastro system. You'll be in the bathroom for hours if you eat enough of it, usually just a few pieces.

Some people have a more significant reaction than just mild irritation.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/facts-faits/escolar-esc...

http://blog.medellitin.com/2008/12/escolar-world-most-danger...

I've surely eaten it many times before without knowing and have been fine. Regardless, an FDA approved list of fish substitutes would be a good idea and would resolve this concern.

I have eaten it, had trouble, and didn't put two and two together until I read an article explaining the phenomenon of fish mislabeling.

SO...maybe go do an experiment: Go eat a nice big portion of escolar (nee "white tuna") and report back. For science.

Yeah, I'm certainly going to experiment with a small portion first. (I don't really eat large portions of fish anyway.)

Just because you didn't have a serious reaction, doesn't mean others won't. Mislabeling of food products is not an acceptable solution. Those with food allergies need to know what is going into their food.

Well, I can't really speak to that but I assume the FDA can. If escolar is too dangerous to label as Tuna I am sure they can find other fish that are not. If they okay a fish substitution, I am happy.

You're making a gross assumption if you think the FDA is worried about things like this. Fish mislabeling has been reported as far back as 2005 and nothing has changed.

The FDA is overworked and underfunded. They have their hands full regulating an industry that is constantly out-maneuvering them. Between the drug lobbyists and the supplement industry, we're lucky we have any resources left to dedicate to food safety.

Go do some research into how many actual FDA inspectors are covering the multitude of just meat producers and you'll grasp the scale of the problem.

The FDA has already investigated escolar, so that isn't a problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar#Regulation_and_banning

Food labeling is already a part of what the FDA overviews, so they won't have to make a new department or some shit to issue a new rule about labeling a few fish.

I am not proposing that the FDA go test fish and make sure nobody is mislabeling things. Inspector incompetence isn't an issue for this proposal since additional inspections would be unnecessary. I am proposing that the FDA adopt an official policy of turning a blind eye to the mislabeling of fish (while issuing some minimal safety guidance). If they do this right, it would actually reduce the amount of work they are suppose to be doing.

The fact that the FDA is overworked, fatigued, and disinterested is one of the reasons this is a good idea.

FDA overwork and disinterest would be a concern if I wanted to force people to correctly label fish. I want the opposite, I want the status quo to be officially endorsed.

1. Put the damn escolar in a round can next to the tuna, priced less than the tuna (raise the price of tuna).

2. Watch as escolar salad sandwiches become popular. (some will even claim it tastes better)

EDIT: PS Print "It helps keep you regular!" on the label.

This idea is particularly interesting to myself considering my vegetarian girlfriend just made me a "Tuna Sandwhich" where the meat was substituted with soaked almonds, which actually tasted quite good and similar to the Tuna I know and love.

Chickpea salad (onions, celery, mayo) is remarkably similar to tuna salad or chicken salad made with the same additions.

I absolutely love chickpea salad (just ate it for dinner, in fact), but it bears essentially no resemblance to either chicken or tuna salad. Both the taste and texture are radically different.

Almonds, chickpeas? I love them both but they're no substitute if your diet requires a decent amount of protein.

Pretty sure almonds are nearly the same amount of protein per ounce as tuna..

More than everything except bluefin, according to the internet.

And I am pretty sure that bluefin is never used for tuna salad anyway. It is too expensive.

I ate bluefin salad sandwiches every day for over a year. You are allowed to catch one per year for recreational purposes. You can't sell the meat though. What the hell else are you going to do with 300lbs of frozen tuna in a chest freezer? Bluefin doesn't even taste very good.

If you want a shit ton of bluefin tuna, go to north carolina in the winter. For about $1000, you can hire a boat and catch one. You'll have 200-400lbs of tuna, and and entire belly of o-toro. A year later, you will never want to eat tuna again.

Ah, definitely more than I thought. Owing to personal dietary/health requirements, I'm always on the lookout for good sources of low-carb protein, and it's even better if the environmental impact is low.

The macro-nutrient ratios of these three foods (tuna, almonds, and garbanzo beans) are radically different, however. Without breaking down the macro categories into finer detail, here's a rough comparison:

-The tuna is high in protein and contains almost no carbs, and a moderate amount of fat.

-Almonds are nearly as high in protein but have many times the amount of fat (note: that's not necessarily a bad thing)

-Chickpeas have a moderate amount of protein, but are much higher in carbohydrates than the other two.

Around Chicago we have problems with Asian carp making their way closer and closer to the great lakes. I've often suggested they be renamed 'river tuna' and our problems will be solved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_carp#As_food

Kentucky Tuna.

A good re-branding could probably go a long way towards helping with that sea lamprey issue the Great Lakes have too...

>we should be encouraging mislabeling.

Not the explosive diarrhea fish. That's cruel, and wrong. Maybe we should just encourage people to eat the fish we have, but be honest about the label.

this is NOT a stupid idea

Reply on news.ycombinator.com