Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday January 13 2017, @02:13AM   Printer-friendly
from the something-is-fishy-here dept.

University of California, Los Angeles and Loyola Marymount University researchers tested the DNA of fish ordered at 26 Los Angeles sushi restaurants from 2012 to 2015, and found that 47% of the sushi was mislabeled. Tuna and salmon were generally genuine, but halibut and red snapper were mislabeled in every single instance of 43 and 32 orders, respectively:

A one-year sampling of high-end grocery stores found similar mislabeling rates, suggesting the bait-and-switch may occur earlier in the supply chain than the point of sale to consumers. [...] Over the four-year study, only bluefin tuna was always exactly as advertised. While only one of 48 tuna samples was not tuna, different kinds of tuna occasionally swapped places, including two samples that turned out to be Atlantic bluefin tuna and southern bluefin tuna, species classified as endangered and critically endangered. Out of nine orders of yellowfin tuna, seven were a different kind of tuna, usually bigeye — a vulnerable and overexploited species, the researchers said. Salmon remained a largely safe bet, with only 6 of 47 orders going awry. However, all halibut and red snapper orders failed the DNA test, and in 9 out of 10 cases, diners ordering halibut were served flounder. About 4 in 10 halibut orders were species of flounder considered overfished or near threatened.

Although some short-term studies have suggested that fish fraud is declining due in part to stricter regulations, this study uncovered consistent mislabeling year over year, indicating seafood misidentification is not improving. While the current study took place in Los Angeles, previous studies detected similar problems nationwide, suggesting that the UCLA findings are widely applicable [...] The researchers used DNA barcoding, which uses a partial DNA sequence from a mitochondrial gene, to accurately identify the fish.

Also at CBS Los Angeles.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 13 2017, @03:39PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday January 13 2017, @03:39PM (#453339) Journal

    I've been coming around to the view that it's all really acculturation. I love beef. A big, juicy steak is my favorite meal in the world. I could eat beef jerky by the ton. But it's been a good long time now that I can't eat cow any more, and have been forced to try alternatives. Buffalo, venison, elk, and antelope are quite fine if they're eating the same prairie grasses the cattle are, and not subsisting off pine park in the high mountain meadows. They seem better adapted to the conditions in North America as well and better for the ecosystem which was adapted to them, too. So why not turn the range back over to those animals, get healthier meat with fewer if non-existent vet bills and no need to supplement the feed or deal with receding aquifers?

    For urban- and suburban settings, why not bring back meat animals that don't require acreage? Rabbits, guinea pigs, chickens, and pigeons don't require a back 40. And we know it's feasible to do it because people already did do it; there are brownstones in my neighborhood in Brooklyn that used to keep pigeon coops on the roof or in the attics for meat as recently as 100 years ago. As long as you maintain the cleanliness of their cages, you're fine. I can think of all kinds of positive effects from doing that kind of thing, like cost savings, needing fewer trucks on the road to cart in groceries, fewer fossil fuels/energy required for that logistical chain, no mystery meat from China or harmful chemicals injected in the meat, and meat that tastes better because it's fresher. I also don't think it would be a bad thing for city slickers to know exactly where their food comes from, instead of supinely believing everything comes out of the magical portal of the supermarket.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday January 13 2017, @06:12PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday January 13 2017, @06:12PM (#453384) Journal

    I'm all for serving venison at Arby's [soylentnews.org], but I'm not sure a free range approach will scale to meet anywhere near the efficiency of our current cattle system or the hypothetical lab-grown meat replacement.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 13 2017, @11:08PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday January 13 2017, @11:08PM (#453558) Journal

      The free range approach does scale, because it's what provides the beef that goes into our hamburgers already. But instead of raising cattle on that land, why not substitute the native animals that actually thrive there, have less disease, and have healthier meat to eat to boot? Buffalo burgers, for example, don't taste that much different from beef hamburgers. So it works pretty well as a perfect substitute. Venison, elk, and antelope would probably also work because consumer tastes have changed a lot since the 1950's.

      Ranchers who raise cattle live hard-scrabble lives on razor thin margins, so if they can switch to stock that require far less veterinary and water bills why not do it? Heck, they could probably turn an even prettier coin by raising more exotic stock like ostriches, kangaroos, oryxes, or wildebeest, which also do well in the same conditions that obtain in the Midwest.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday January 13 2017, @08:17PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday January 13 2017, @08:17PM (#453440)

    So why not turn the range back over to those animals...

    The range doesn't exist anymore. As much as people joke about "flyover country", there are cities and people out there.

    Also I doubt fully free range animal raising would work unless we decide to cut our population by half or more.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 13 2017, @11:00PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday January 13 2017, @11:00PM (#453551) Journal

      Sure it exists. They run cattle on it now. The deer and antelope run on it, too, because they can. Some ranches like Ted Turner's in Montana have switched to bison, but my thought was since deer, antelope, and bison are already adapted to the ecosystem why not follow Ted Turner's lead more generally and raise those animals instead of the cattle? There have been a lot of studies about how those animals are better for the ecosystem, too, and about how much healthier their meat is for us.

      Those species thrive in the same environment ranchers have to do a lot of work to maintain cattle on. Why not save themselves the headache and expense and switch over? Consumer tastes have gotten quite a bit more sophisticated since the 1950's.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.