5 ms·

i think the answer is simply that most of america is very far inland, and seafood is best fresh -- especially if one is especially sensitive to the 'fishy' tast

by nyolfen 10y ago

i think the answer is simply that most of america is very far inland, and seafood is best fresh -- especially if one is especially sensitive to the 'fishy' taste it acquires after about a day or two, even frozen. every coastal community i've ever spent time in has a plethora of seafood restaurants, though i'm not sure if this extends to grocery stores.

tmalsburg2 10y ago
Most of the landmass is far from the coasts, true, but the population concentrates at the coasts. So the geography is probably not the reason why fish is less popular in the US. There are probably multiple reasons but one could be that the competition from meat is very strong. Coming from Europe, I was always surprised how cheap meat is in the US.
- opportune 10y ago
  Yeah all these people talking about Americans not having good taste in food are entirely missing the point. It has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with economics. There's no reason to eat fish when in almost all cases chicken, pork, and beef provide much cheaper and filling sources of protein. I mean, I love the taste of fish, but even I rarely eat it because it's just that much more efficient to feed myself with chicken and red meat.
  - davidw 10y ago
    The US is a pretty wealthy place. I lived in Italy for something like 15 years, and people there eat a lot of fish too, of varying kinds. By and large, they do not have as much money as people do in the US. If it were only about efficiency, you'd probably just eat beans and rice, day in and day out, with a bit of this and that thrown in. Edit: BTW, this book has some interesting ideas about the US and food: http://amzn.to/2oVeaYz http://amzn.to/2oVeaYz Among other things, he points out that the US does have slow food with a high degree of regional variety: barbecue.
    - leesalminen 10y ago
      > If it were only about efficiency, you'd probably just eat beans and rice, day in and day out, with a bit of this and that thrown in. Saving $1 > Saving $0
    - simonh 10y ago
      France is much the same, people there seem to spend a much bigger proportion if their disposable income on food than here in the UK.
      - justinator 10y ago
        French companies often offset the price of the largest meal of the day via restaurant vouchers. The meal is that important to them. I wouldn't cover that under, "disposable income", exactly.
    - Dirlewanger 10y ago
      Economies of scale, no doubt. While there's only a few nationwide grocers (Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Walmart), there's many more regional grocery supply chains all over the country, that largely offer the same products in every single one. Given any population center, odds are you're within an hour of at least one of these. Insanely impressive given the size of the US.
    - ams6110 10y ago
      The point is, in the US most seafood at the store is at least $15/lb. Beef (depending on cuts) is as little as $3/lb. Chicken and pork are typically cheaper than beef.
      - davidw 10y ago
        Good steaks are more expensive than chuck, too. And yet people consume both.
        Alupis 10y ago
        Few people eat steaks every night, let alone good cuts of steak.
- derefr 10y ago
  I don't know: it seems like a lot of America's logistics and infrastructure design choices are made with equal consideration to inland and coastal populations, despite unequal size. For example, coastal US cities are designed for car travel despite their density, presumably because that makes them more accessible to "the average US citizen" who lives inland and goes everywhere by car.
  - tbihl 10y ago
    You presume incorrectly. It's a tangled web of federal and state policies, along with the (not exclusively) American fetish for cars and low-density home ownership, which led to the car-centric design. And that's certainly reductive, but helping from landlocked states visit NYC and SF probably never played a role.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      Given the choice people prefer not to cram into crowded cities. Cars bring flexibility and freedom. The current trend is to go more urban/inner suburban. That more due to the cycle of aging property and best value than anything else.
  - usefulcat 10y ago
    There's nothing inherently dense about American "coastal cities". In the U.S., density is primarily related to age--how large a city was prior to the invention of the automobile. With the exception of the oldest cities in the north east, most U.S. coastal cities are not particularly dense unless they are also quite old. LA is a prime example.
- stickfigure 10y ago
  While our population concentrates on the coast, IIRC on balance it still ends up being about a 50-50 split depending on how generously you want to define "coast". Also, the demographic trend is people moving towards coastal cities, so a large portion of current coastal city dwellers established their taste preferences growing up inland. Geography is certainly a plausible component of the answer. But I personally think cultural norms are pretty arbitrary and self-sustaining; there doesn't need to be a deeper reason why "americans like beef" other than our parents did and that's what we grew up with (recurse N generations).
- alasdair_ 10y ago
  >Coming from Europe, I was always surprised how cheap meat is in the US. Lower quality meat is cheaper. Similar quality meat (for example, in Scotland, all the beef is grass-fed, I don't know about the rest of the EU) seems to cost a similar amount in either area.
  - raarts 10y ago
    Also from Europe, I was always surprised by the quality of the meat in the US.
    - test1235 10y ago
      surprised because it was better or worse than expected?
VLM 10y ago
Speaking of fresh, its hard enough to eat fresh produce when you only shop once a week. I have done the "drive to the gourmet food store to get fresh fish supposedly flown in by air that's only a couple hours old" and its expensive, like $15 to $20 per pound and interesting and tasted very fresh and delicious but tonight my kids have baseball practice and my son has scouts and weekly food shopping night is Thursday to avoid the weekend rush so looks like frozen fish tonight. Farm to table is good signalling but not really practical for perhaps 95% of the population if not more. Something from the freezer aisle that can be cooked in the oven and tastes OK is better than something better that I can't eat because I don't have two hours tonight for special store supply runs and homemade preparations. Also especially inland we have plenty of lakes and recreational fishermen and they all know about mercury poisoning such that they can only occasionally eat what they catch. Someone who can only safely eat one walleye per month looks at me pretty weird for feeding my kids fish every week "You having the pediatrician test them for mercury?" Its also extremely bad social signalling, I know its wrong to even say this, but fish is generally pretty boring and bland. Its like trying to obtain artisinal flavored chicken or artisinal flavored sea or mountain salts. There's a reason people put a lot of work into what goes in or nearby the dish in a fish, spices and stuff. I'll blow money and time on something that will taste good. Fish isn't in that list.
- RussianCow 10y ago
  > fish is generally pretty boring and bland That depends entirely on the type and quality of the fish. The most obvious example is salmon, which has a great, unique flavor and texture if cooked properly. White fish tend to be more bland on average, but there are some that are very flavorful; for instance, ling cod is absolutely delicious grilled (or seared) with nothing more than olive oil and salt/pepper. And then you have oily fish like herring and mackerel that are generally not cooked, but rather cured, pickled, or smoked, that are flavorful enough to be eaten on their own (but also make fantastic accompaniments in dishes like dressed herring). In fact, you could say that a lot of lean cuts of beef are "boring and bland" as well: they don't have a ton of flavor unless you add herbs, spices, and/or fat. (All that being said, I don't disagree with your other points about convenience and safety.)
weaksauce 10y ago
A lot of fish need to be frozen for a period of time to kill the parasites to the FDA standards. Some types of fish and some farmed and contained fish doesn't need this treatment though. I don't think proximity to the ocean is a good metric as you can freeze fish for a few months with no noticeable degradation in quality. It can be held indefinitely at 0 degrees F I believe as well.

by nyolfen 10y ago

tmalsburg2 10y ago

Most of the landmass is far from the coasts, true, but the population concentrates at the coasts. So the geography is probably not the reason why fish is less popular in the US. There are probably multiple reasons but one could be that the competition from meat is very strong. Coming from Europe, I was always surprised how cheap meat is in the US.

opportune 10y ago
Yeah all these people talking about Americans not having good taste in food are entirely missing the point. It has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with economics. There's no reason to eat fish when in almost all cases chicken, pork, and beef provide much cheaper and filling sources of protein. I mean, I love the taste of fish, but even I rarely eat it because it's just that much more efficient to feed myself with chicken and red meat.
- davidw 10y ago
  The US is a pretty wealthy place. I lived in Italy for something like 15 years, and people there eat a lot of fish too, of varying kinds. By and large, they do not have as much money as people do in the US. If it were only about efficiency, you'd probably just eat beans and rice, day in and day out, with a bit of this and that thrown in. Edit: BTW, this book has some interesting ideas about the US and food: http://amzn.to/2oVeaYz http://amzn.to/2oVeaYz Among other things, he points out that the US does have slow food with a high degree of regional variety: barbecue.
  - leesalminen 10y ago
    > If it were only about efficiency, you'd probably just eat beans and rice, day in and day out, with a bit of this and that thrown in. Saving $1 > Saving $0
  - simonh 10y ago
    France is much the same, people there seem to spend a much bigger proportion if their disposable income on food than here in the UK.
    - justinator 10y ago
      French companies often offset the price of the largest meal of the day via restaurant vouchers. The meal is that important to them. I wouldn't cover that under, "disposable income", exactly.
  - Dirlewanger 10y ago
    Economies of scale, no doubt. While there's only a few nationwide grocers (Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Walmart), there's many more regional grocery supply chains all over the country, that largely offer the same products in every single one. Given any population center, odds are you're within an hour of at least one of these. Insanely impressive given the size of the US.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    The point is, in the US most seafood at the store is at least $15/lb. Beef (depending on cuts) is as little as $3/lb. Chicken and pork are typically cheaper than beef.
    - davidw 10y ago
      Good steaks are more expensive than chuck, too. And yet people consume both.
      - Alupis 10y ago
        Few people eat steaks every night, let alone good cuts of steak.
derefr 10y ago
I don't know: it seems like a lot of America's logistics and infrastructure design choices are made with equal consideration to inland and coastal populations, despite unequal size. For example, coastal US cities are designed for car travel despite their density, presumably because that makes them more accessible to "the average US citizen" who lives inland and goes everywhere by car.
- tbihl 10y ago
  You presume incorrectly. It's a tangled web of federal and state policies, along with the (not exclusively) American fetish for cars and low-density home ownership, which led to the car-centric design. And that's certainly reductive, but helping from landlocked states visit NYC and SF probably never played a role.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Given the choice people prefer not to cram into crowded cities. Cars bring flexibility and freedom. The current trend is to go more urban/inner suburban. That more due to the cycle of aging property and best value than anything else.
- usefulcat 10y ago
  There's nothing inherently dense about American "coastal cities". In the U.S., density is primarily related to age--how large a city was prior to the invention of the automobile. With the exception of the oldest cities in the north east, most U.S. coastal cities are not particularly dense unless they are also quite old. LA is a prime example.
stickfigure 10y ago
While our population concentrates on the coast, IIRC on balance it still ends up being about a 50-50 split depending on how generously you want to define "coast". Also, the demographic trend is people moving towards coastal cities, so a large portion of current coastal city dwellers established their taste preferences growing up inland. Geography is certainly a plausible component of the answer. But I personally think cultural norms are pretty arbitrary and self-sustaining; there doesn't need to be a deeper reason why "americans like beef" other than our parents did and that's what we grew up with (recurse N generations).
alasdair_ 10y ago
>Coming from Europe, I was always surprised how cheap meat is in the US. Lower quality meat is cheaper. Similar quality meat (for example, in Scotland, all the beef is grass-fed, I don't know about the rest of the EU) seems to cost a similar amount in either area.
- raarts 10y ago
  Also from Europe, I was always surprised by the quality of the meat in the US.
  - test1235 10y ago
    surprised because it was better or worse than expected?

VLM 10y ago

Speaking of fresh, its hard enough to eat fresh produce when you only shop once a week. I have done the "drive to the gourmet food store to get fresh fish supposedly flown in by air that's only a couple hours old" and its expensive, like $15 to $20 per pound and interesting and tasted very fresh and delicious but tonight my kids have baseball practice and my son has scouts and weekly food shopping night is Thursday to avoid the weekend rush so looks like frozen fish tonight. Farm to table is good signalling but not really practical for perhaps 95% of the population if not more. Something from the freezer aisle that can be cooked in the oven and tastes OK is better than something better that I can't eat because I don't have two hours tonight for special store supply runs and homemade preparations. Also especially inland we have plenty of lakes and recreational fishermen and they all know about mercury poisoning such that they can only occasionally eat what they catch. Someone who can only safely eat one walleye per month looks at me pretty weird for feeding my kids fish every week "You having the pediatrician test them for mercury?" Its also extremely bad social signalling, I know its wrong to even say this, but fish is generally pretty boring and bland. Its like trying to obtain artisinal flavored chicken or artisinal flavored sea or mountain salts. There's a reason people put a lot of work into what goes in or nearby the dish in a fish, spices and stuff. I'll blow money and time on something that will taste good. Fish isn't in that list.

RussianCow 10y ago
> fish is generally pretty boring and bland That depends entirely on the type and quality of the fish. The most obvious example is salmon, which has a great, unique flavor and texture if cooked properly. White fish tend to be more bland on average, but there are some that are very flavorful; for instance, ling cod is absolutely delicious grilled (or seared) with nothing more than olive oil and salt/pepper. And then you have oily fish like herring and mackerel that are generally not cooked, but rather cured, pickled, or smoked, that are flavorful enough to be eaten on their own (but also make fantastic accompaniments in dishes like dressed herring). In fact, you could say that a lot of lean cuts of beef are "boring and bland" as well: they don't have a ton of flavor unless you add herbs, spices, and/or fat. (All that being said, I don't disagree with your other points about convenience and safety.)

weaksauce 10y ago

A lot of fish need to be frozen for a period of time to kill the parasites to the FDA standards. Some types of fish and some farmed and contained fish doesn't need this treatment though. I don't think proximity to the ocean is a good metric as you can freeze fish for a few months with no noticeable degradation in quality. It can be held indefinitely at 0 degrees F I believe as well.