Comments on: Fake Fish

By: Floccina

Floccina — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:43:42 +0000

I saw an investigative report that said here in Florida fish labeled Grouper on restaurant menus is grouper less than half the time. I once had a fish that was supposed to be grouper but did not taste like grouper but I was afraid to make a fuss. I will not go there again because even if it was grouper it was not good grouper. On the other hand if you buy it because you like the flavor and you cannot tell the difference you do not have much to complain about.

By: talisman

talisman — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:56:57 +0000

1) Although this particular study may be questionable, there are good reasons to believe fish is sytematically mislabeled. My mother-in-law worked at a fish counter for 15+ years and routinely catches restaurants making cheaper substitutions (and shocked when she calls them on it); in NYC a few years ago it was shown that the vast majority of “wild” salmon sold in specialty stores was in fact farmed; etc.

2) There’s a difference between not being able to tell the difference because you can’t tell the difference and not being able to tell the difference because you’ve never or rarely had the good stuff.

3) Environmental and health issues are one key to why fish labeling matters. Many disapprove of farmed seafood (usually the cheaper choice) on these grounds. (Imagine I was labeling factory-farmed, hormone-and-antibioticked-up meat as “free-range organic.”)

By: harry

harry — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:11:03 +0000

If the “fake” substitutes are not endangered or their stocks overfished, then I think the substitution is a very good thing. We are better off when people who don’t know any better consume a fish that is in relative plentiful supply.

By: MZ

MZ — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:06:06 +0000

Robin, which mistake? The technique of DNA barcoding itself, which employs a single genetic marker, usually the cytochrome C gene in mitochondrial DNA, is not robust and is subject to a lot of error whether a couple of NYC teens do it or Craig Venter does it. The “study” is further complicated by the small and nonrandom sampling methodology of the teens. In short, it would never get published as it stands. Don’t treat it with respect just because it appears in the New York Times.

By: Julian Morrison

Julian Morrison — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:47:21 +0000

When I try unusual sushi, the thing I’m trying to satisfy is my curiosity. Being lied to about the species would undercut exactly the thing I’m trying to buy – and obviously I’m ignorant of the cues that would let me notice. From my perspective a very dastardly crime! Just having been primed to expect it has definitely altered my future behavior. (I now weight chain stores as preferable to boutique stores, since they have more to lose.)

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:58:43 +0000

Eliezer, great question.

MZ, I could imagine NYC teens making that mistake, but it is harder to believe the Guelph folks are making it.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:04:35 +0000

And how do you know when fish goes bad? Doesn’t it just smell like fish?

By: MZ

MZ — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:55:08 +0000

Cyan: It’s a University of Guelph study. That’s where the major proponent of DNA barcoding resides. It should be pointed out that DNA barcoding is a specific type of DNA testing, a much simpler and less robust form than common DNA fingerprinting techniques. While forensic DNA fingerprinting typically employs dozens of well-characterized genetic markers, DNA barcoding employs a single one.

By: Anonymous of /jp/

Anonymous of /jp/ — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:10:20 +0000

Seconding Grant’s reply. I’m sure the vast majority of diners take fancy sushi only to try around and not as a status symbol. It’s not the kind of meal you eat everyday, so most people aren’t knowledgeable about it anyway.

By: Cyan

Cyan — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:09:39 +0000

This isn't the first or only effort to use DNA testing to identify mislabeled fish. Here's a news story about another.