4 ms·
Both of your examples are from the US, and the actual body of the NYT article doesn't mention salmon sushi at all despite mentioning a half dozen or so other fi
by djur 4y ago
Both of your examples are from the US, and the actual body of the NYT article doesn't mention salmon sushi at all despite mentioning a half dozen or so other fish (as well as salmon roe), which would be unthinkable today. And the latter example is quite late. The headline claim would be stronger if it had "typically" or "often" in it, but the underlying market data seems sound:
> Norway went from selling 2 metric tons of salmon to Japan in 1980 to 28,000 metric tons by 1995.
- weatherlight 4y agoThe picture is literally, "Salmon Sushi" (bottom left quadrant.) the article above makes it sound like the Norwegians pushed Atlantic salmon on to the the Japanese, and that the first salmon sushi was "invented" by the Norwegians, Which is patently false.
- djur 4y ago> Up to the 1990s, raw salmon sushi was not eaten in Japan... What changed? Norway went on a 10-year marketing campaign to sell Atlantic salmon in the East Asian country. And the plan worked. The reason this is relevant? > At the time, the average Japanese person ate 60kg of fish a year (vs. 15kg globally) Americans ate sushi in the '70s and '80s, but far less than the Japanese did. The Norwegians wanted to open up the lucrative Japanese market. That is what this story is about. At no point do they claim that the Norwegians invented salmon sushi.
- weatherlight 4y agoDid you read the same story i did. it says Norway invented it.