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.
(Score: 3, Informative) by goodie on Friday January 13 2017, @02:17AM
There have been several reports about this in many places:
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/National_Seafood_Fraud_Testing_Results_Highlights_FINAL.pdf [oceana.org]
Bottom line is: unless you've tried the real thing and know what it's supposed to look like and taste like, you probably can't tell the difference...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Friday January 13 2017, @02:27AM
Even if you do it's easy to be deceived. Halibut and flounder, for instance, are actually quite similar and depending on how it's prepared it can be very difficult to be sure which you're eating.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @08:03AM
Well over here due to currency exchange issues many restaurants have started using Norwegian Fjord Trout instead of salmon ( http://seafoodfromnorway.us/Learn-more/Fjord-Trout/Fjord-Trout [seafoodfromnorway.us] )
The texture is different - it's firmer. It's much redder not pinkish like salmon. I can't probably tell the taste apart. Well maybe I could but the thing is, I don't care that much. I figure if they used real salmon the price would be higher.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Gaaark on Friday January 13 2017, @02:51AM
It really IS chicken... of the sea.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday January 13 2017, @04:53AM
Tuna is great, even when canned and ultra-fishy. The only people I know who don't like canned tuna are women.
Perhaps it hits them a little too close to home, if you catch my drift.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @02:35PM
Tuna is gross, I'll take smoked salmon anytime. If it smells like fish it's usually either bad or it's not fish.. nudge nudge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @04:54PM
Aaaaaaaah bet she does, I bet she does, say no more, say no more, know whatahmean, nudge nudge?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday January 13 2017, @06:48PM
What's it like?
I mean, for the nerds here who don't know.
Amiright?! :)))
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 13 2017, @02:49PM
Next up: tuna of the dirt! [nbc.com]
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @03:03AM
I've never cared enough about fish to even try to distinguish between similar species. Aside from decorative uses of aquariums, fish are for eating, not for looking at. I recognize the fresh water species we fished for in western Pennsylvania fresh waters when I was a kid. They don't even resemble each other a little bit. But tuna? You have to distinguish between the colors of their fins? Forget it. I don't know, and can't be asked to care very much. I have to trust the people around me.
The flavor of fish is very dependent on what the cook does with the fish. If a Cajun prepares some blackened fish, few people are going to be able to identify the species of fish with certainty. You'll have better luck with a French chef, who uses more subtle flavorings than loads of pepper and scorching.
Maybe if I grew up on the water, and took an earlier interest in fish, I'd be better at identifying fish.
How many people who live more than a hundred miles from the ocean can identify more than a few species of marine life, anyway?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Snotnose on Friday January 13 2017, @04:17AM
The flavor of fish is very dependent on what the cook does with the fish.
Tru dat, but if you're saying you can't tell the difference between blackened halibut and blackened tilapia, you need to learn to cook.
I cook. I can do blackened. I know how fish taste. I know how much fish costs. Scam me in a restaurant, I can tell.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday January 13 2017, @04:49AM
Tilapia is a no-brainer. Ever lick the inside of an empty ballast tank? Not even blackening can save tilapia.
The same folk pushing tilapia on us are the same folks who think we all should eat bugs instead of beef because greedy rich people want to become more rich and minorities don't want to practice family planning.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 13 2017, @05:51AM
It's time we (re?)discovered more vegetarian stuff. I'm not vegetarian (yet?) but the thought occurs, that I'd rather eat a good dhal or so than bugs or polluted fish.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday January 13 2017, @06:28AM
Not knocking veggies, but not saying we should give up good meat, either. Humans have been engineered by Jesus Christ to be omnivores, to eat and enjoy both.
Some folks think we should live like bushniggers, though, living off of a diet of tumbleweeds and termites. From my cold, dead hands, motherfuckers.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday January 13 2017, @07:42AM
Now you're getting it. Population control, anyone?
Seriously though, we would benefit from using meat with a lower environmental impact (chicken, pork, aquaculture fish, whatever), and then lab-grown meat. Lab-grown meat has the (long term) potential to produce better quality meats than the real thing, as well as ez novelty meats. You want a specific cut with nice marbling? That can be done as long as you can arrange the muscle and fat cells correctly. You want penguin, lion, or human meat? Completely plausible. Environmental benefits include less land and water use, and facilities built closer or inside cities.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 13 2017, @03:39PM
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.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday January 13 2017, @06:12PM
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
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
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
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @02:29PM
Yeah but Jesus Christ doesn't want me eating bacon because he's a Jew. :(
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday January 13 2017, @02:53PM
I'm with you on not eating bugs. I like a lot of vegetarian stuff. But not the stuff that tries to imitate meat.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 13 2017, @03:22PM
Tilapia does frequently have a muddy taste. It works ok fried or in fish tacos, though, if you should find yourself with some and are loathe to waste it.
I could say the same about catfish. The flesh is firm, so that's good, but it also does often taste like mud. The quality of water they're raised in probably makes the difference.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @05:40PM
Tilapia are used in foreign fish farming tanks to clean the tanks. They eat other species poop, basically, and are also fed waste from fish and chicken processing. That's the reason it tastes like swamp ass. Wild tilapia, which used to be common before the advent of fish farming, was quite tasty. When our food lives on garbage, we're only killing ourselves...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:40AM
Aquatic animals (turtles, gators, fish, etc.) do taste like the water they live in.
A quality fish producer will flush the tanks with very clean water for the last few days of the fish's lives. Of course, we import our Tilapia from fucking China or southeast Asia, so good luck with that. They feed them literal shit.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday January 13 2017, @11:53AM
tilapia is okay when first fried, but as a leftover the next day, it turns to shoe leather...
goes to the dogs...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @03:38PM
Well - I couldn't tell you what tilapia tastes like. For starters, tilapia isn't one specific fish, but more like a family of fishes. And, my whole take on them is, they are basically bottom feeders. Snopes has an article on them - http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/tilapia.asp [snopes.com]
And, funny, Snopes verifies the idea that Chinese farmers feed these fish manure, and maybe even other animal waste.
I've never read anything to convince me to try tilapia. I'll stick with the halibut, cod, and mackeral, if you don't mind . . . .
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/11/18/tilapia-likely-source-washington-womans-flesh-eating-bacteria-infection-officials-say.html [foxnews.com]
Flesh eacting bacterial infection blamed on tilapia, although never proven.
(Score: 3, Touché) by mhajicek on Friday January 13 2017, @05:02AM
It's a lot easier to tell the difference when it's raw, as in sushi, as in the article.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @11:22AM
By the way, if you're going to eat raw fish it's best to stick to farmed fish from reputable sources.
https://munchies.vice.com/en/articles/almost-every-kind-of-wild-fish-is-infected-with-worms [vice.com]
http://www.mattilsynet.no/language/english/fish_and_aquaculture/farmed_norwegian_salmon_safe_for_sushi_and_sashimi.20059 [mattilsynet.no]
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday January 13 2017, @08:12PM
As someone that lives in an area where seafood must be shipped quite a long distance, there are 4 categories of fish. Hard Whitefish (Cod, Haddock), Soft Whitefish (Tilapia, Flounder), Tuna, and Salmon.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @03:10AM
Processed Pussy Meat
Grab Some Today
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @03:13AM
Extra Clits In The Hood
For A Limited Time Only
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @03:54AM
Hey guys, the genetic test is coming up XY....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @03:57AM
Full price for Cockmeat Sushi? No ma'am!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @08:01AM
And he has the deplorable gene too!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @12:29PM
Oh I forgot, fraud is only criminal when you or I do it...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @01:06PM
No, when I do it, it's...Apps!
(Score: 2) by ledow on Friday January 13 2017, @02:13PM
If people can't tell the difference, what does it matter?
Mislabelling is fraud, yes, but nobody's complained that they've been defrauded, have they? "I'm sure that wasn't flounder, you know!" It just doesn't happen.
Nobody knew that Findus were using horse-meat in their beef products for however-many-years until someone DNA'd it.
Sure, supply chain issues, and accountability, but in terms of actual FOOD, nobody is complaining until they're told it's not flounder or they've just eaten cat or whatever.
However, if we actually CAN'T tell the difference, why are people putting endangered fish in there (which are presumably more heavily regulated, more rare, more expensive, more risky to catch, and harder to hide) than just any other fish that tastes the same? Surely the fraud should be the OTHER way around, putting more common, cheaper, easier to obtain fish into dishes and calling it by an expensive name?
It suggests that actually monitoring and regulation of fishing itself needs to be fixed, not what the restaurants actually put on the plate, or people ask for.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday January 13 2017, @03:49PM
It matters because frequently they're selling endangered species. The question in my mind it "How did they catch them?", and I think that's where the regulation needs to be stiffer. This, unfortunately, is a bit difficult, as it's often in international waters.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by ragequit on Friday January 13 2017, @08:08PM
It's not like the fish are aware that they are endangered when they swim into the net. Furthermore if, say 1 in 200 fish of damn near the same type are in the same batch, who is supposed to identify this?
The above views are fabricated for your reading pleasure.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday January 13 2017, @03:48PM
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 13 2017, @11:42PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Sunday January 15 2017, @04:08PM