3 ms·

You could, and should, do both of course. If the FDA sanctioned the practice and published lists of approved fish substitutions then only uninformed consumers

by jlgreco 13y ago

You could, and should, do both of course. If the FDA sanctioned the practice and published lists of approved fish substitutions then only uninformed consumers would be unaware of the possibility that they were being gouged for cheap fish (you can see that gouging as a reward to restaurants that refuse to serve real tuna, and an informal punishment for consumers who are trying to get tuna). These uninformed consumers are presumably un-reached by your media campaign to cut back on tuna consumption. It also eases the transition from tuna to other fish. I like tuna-salad sandwiches, I eat them a few times a month. I wouldn't know if the tuna in them wasn't real tuna, in fact I hope it isn't. I would have no idea what "escolar salad" is though. Mislabeling allows me to get what I want without unnecessary environmental impact. Also, mislabeling fish is not unprecedented, but done for worse reasons in the past. See Vietnamese catfish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basa_fish#.22Catfish_war.22_in_the_U.S http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basa_fish#.22Catfish_war.22_in_....

dragonwriter 13y ago
> You could, and should, do both of course. No, you should just use the truth, since the lies combat the truth. If you prevent mislabeling, the rare fish becomes expensive rather than cheap-and-adulterated, the price differences drive lots of the people that think they prefer the rare fish to settle and try the cheaper, less rare, fish, and to the extent that the cheaper fish actually is suitable, people learn and it becomes popular. If there is a risk of this transition happening too slowly to meet some social good (like, preserving the rare fish), you enact appropriate protections to the rare fish (either quotas, taxes, or outright bans) that restrict the supply or drive up the retail price, which accelerates the process of conversion. > It also eases the transition from tuna to other fish. No, it actually delays the conversion of demand by masking the cost and delaying people trying the other fish as itself and learning that it is acceptable.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Real tuna already is expensive, but that isn't helping the fish. By the time it becomes expensive enough to actually kill demand, the species will be in terrible shape. You can't rely on supply and demand games to keep a species off the brink of extinction, we've learned this too many times the hard way. > No, it actually delays the conversion of demand by masking the cost and delaying people trying the other fish as itself and learning that it is acceptable. Informed consumers would be opened up to the new cheaper fish. For example, now that I am aware of it (and specifically aware that it is like tuna), I will make an effort to buy escolar in the future.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Real tuna already is expensive, but that isn't helping the fish. It isn't helping the fish because consumer demand for tuna isn't dropping, in part because consumers are insulated from the actual cost of real tuna by mislabelling; if consumer "tuna" was only real tuna (and thus, the supply was restricted to the supply of real tuna, driving the price of consumer "tuna" way up), there would be more consumer experience with tuna substitutes under their own name (rather than mislabelled as tuna), and the demand would shift to the acceptable substitutes (which clearly exist, otherwise they wouldn't be acceptable mislabelled as tuna.) > For example, now that I am aware of it (and specifically aware that it is like tuna), I will make an effort to buy escolar in the future. But if suppliers make more money selling escolar as "tuna", it will make it that much harder to by escolar as escolar.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > It isn't helping the fish because consumer demand for tuna isn't dropping, in part because consumers are insulated from the actual cost of real tuna by mislabelling; if consumer "tuna" was only real tuna (and thus, the supply was restricted to the supply of real tuna, driving the price of consumer "tuna" way up), there would be more consumer experience with tuna substitutes under their own name (rather than mislabelled as tuna), and the demand would shift to the acceptable substitutes (which clearly exist, otherwise they wouldn't be acceptable mislabelled as tuna.) If I buy a can of shredded escolar that calls itself tuna, then I am increasing the profit margin of the fish company which may allow them to sell real tuna to people who demand real tuna at a cheaper price and remain profitable, but in reality real tuna already commands crazy prices and nobody is dropping those prices because of escolar profits. If you restrict the supply of fish labelled tuna to 'real' tuna, then by the time the cost skyrockets to kill the demand it is already too late. Low supply is exactly what we are trying to avoid. Counting on low supply to safe the species is foolish. > But if suppliers make more money selling escolar as "tuna", it will make it that much harder to by escolar as escolar If they couldn't initially sell it as tuna, would they ever sell it at all? Would consumers even be aware of it?
- gnaritas 13y ago
  People prefer their comforting lies over the harsh reality of the truth. Your answer while perfectly rational, ignores that people aren't; his answer is more likely to affect change because it requires less people to admit they changed. Everyone just pretends it's still Tuna they're selling and eating. Trying to force people to accept that we're driving an animal to the brink of extinction is a far harder sell than you seem to realize; they don't accept it and can block attempts to do anything about it. It's a losing strategy that will result in extinct tuna. Finally, it's not a lie, it's a brand change and Tuna is just a word that is the brand really. Tuna should just mean any fish that can pass for tuna in the context of food. We'll call it Tuna®
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    "Finally, it's not a lie, it's a brand change and Tuna is just a word that is the brand really. Tuna should just mean any fish that can pass for tuna in the context of food. We'll call it Tuna®" Agreed. I like the way @noonespecial puts it downthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6266772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6266772) "To me tuna is a taste, not a species."
Nrsolis 13y ago
If you ate escolar, you'd really want to know it before you put that fish in your mouth. Escolar contains a minute amount of a toxin that will irritate your gastro system. You'll be in the bathroom for hours if you eat enough of it, usually just a few pieces. Some people have a more significant reaction than just mild irritation. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/facts-faits/escolar-escolier-eng.php http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/facts-faits/escolar-esc... http://blog.medellitin.com/2008/12/escolar-world-most-dangerous-fish.html http://blog.medellitin.com/2008/12/escolar-world-most-danger...
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I've surely eaten it many times before without knowing and have been fine. Regardless, an FDA approved list of fish substitutes would be a good idea and would resolve this concern.
  - Nrsolis 13y ago
    I have eaten it, had trouble, and didn't put two and two together until I read an article explaining the phenomenon of fish mislabeling. SO...maybe go do an experiment: Go eat a nice big portion of escolar (nee "white tuna") and report back. For science.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Yeah, I'm certainly going to experiment with a small portion first. (I don't really eat large portions of fish anyway.)
  - Klinky 13y ago
    Just because you didn't have a serious reaction, doesn't mean others won't. Mislabeling of food products is not an acceptable solution. Those with food allergies need to know what is going into their food.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Well, I can't really speak to that but I assume the FDA can. If escolar is too dangerous to label as Tuna I am sure they can find other fish that are not. If they okay a fish substitution, I am happy.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
1. Put the damn escolar in a round can next to the tuna, priced less than the tuna (raise the price of tuna). 2. Watch as escolar salad sandwiches become popular. (some will even claim it tastes better) EDIT: PS Print "It helps keep you regular!" on the label.

by jlgreco 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> You could, and should, do both of course. No, you should just use the truth, since the lies combat the truth. If you prevent mislabeling, the rare fish becomes expensive rather than cheap-and-adulterated, the price differences drive lots of the people that think they prefer the rare fish to settle and try the cheaper, less rare, fish, and to the extent that the cheaper fish actually is suitable, people learn and it becomes popular. If there is a risk of this transition happening too slowly to meet some social good (like, preserving the rare fish), you enact appropriate protections to the rare fish (either quotas, taxes, or outright bans) that restrict the supply or drive up the retail price, which accelerates the process of conversion. > It also eases the transition from tuna to other fish. No, it actually delays the conversion of demand by masking the cost and delaying people trying the other fish as itself and learning that it is acceptable.

jlgreco 13y ago
Real tuna already is expensive, but that isn't helping the fish. By the time it becomes expensive enough to actually kill demand, the species will be in terrible shape. You can't rely on supply and demand games to keep a species off the brink of extinction, we've learned this too many times the hard way. > No, it actually delays the conversion of demand by masking the cost and delaying people trying the other fish as itself and learning that it is acceptable. Informed consumers would be opened up to the new cheaper fish. For example, now that I am aware of it (and specifically aware that it is like tuna), I will make an effort to buy escolar in the future.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Real tuna already is expensive, but that isn't helping the fish. It isn't helping the fish because consumer demand for tuna isn't dropping, in part because consumers are insulated from the actual cost of real tuna by mislabelling; if consumer "tuna" was only real tuna (and thus, the supply was restricted to the supply of real tuna, driving the price of consumer "tuna" way up), there would be more consumer experience with tuna substitutes under their own name (rather than mislabelled as tuna), and the demand would shift to the acceptable substitutes (which clearly exist, otherwise they wouldn't be acceptable mislabelled as tuna.) > For example, now that I am aware of it (and specifically aware that it is like tuna), I will make an effort to buy escolar in the future. But if suppliers make more money selling escolar as "tuna", it will make it that much harder to by escolar as escolar.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > It isn't helping the fish because consumer demand for tuna isn't dropping, in part because consumers are insulated from the actual cost of real tuna by mislabelling; if consumer "tuna" was only real tuna (and thus, the supply was restricted to the supply of real tuna, driving the price of consumer "tuna" way up), there would be more consumer experience with tuna substitutes under their own name (rather than mislabelled as tuna), and the demand would shift to the acceptable substitutes (which clearly exist, otherwise they wouldn't be acceptable mislabelled as tuna.) If I buy a can of shredded escolar that calls itself tuna, then I am increasing the profit margin of the fish company which may allow them to sell real tuna to people who demand real tuna at a cheaper price and remain profitable, but in reality real tuna already commands crazy prices and nobody is dropping those prices because of escolar profits. If you restrict the supply of fish labelled tuna to 'real' tuna, then by the time the cost skyrockets to kill the demand it is already too late. Low supply is exactly what we are trying to avoid. Counting on low supply to safe the species is foolish. > But if suppliers make more money selling escolar as "tuna", it will make it that much harder to by escolar as escolar If they couldn't initially sell it as tuna, would they ever sell it at all? Would consumers even be aware of it?
gnaritas 13y ago
People prefer their comforting lies over the harsh reality of the truth. Your answer while perfectly rational, ignores that people aren't; his answer is more likely to affect change because it requires less people to admit they changed. Everyone just pretends it's still Tuna they're selling and eating. Trying to force people to accept that we're driving an animal to the brink of extinction is a far harder sell than you seem to realize; they don't accept it and can block attempts to do anything about it. It's a losing strategy that will result in extinct tuna. Finally, it's not a lie, it's a brand change and Tuna is just a word that is the brand really. Tuna should just mean any fish that can pass for tuna in the context of food. We'll call it Tuna®
- jlgreco 13y ago
  "Finally, it's not a lie, it's a brand change and Tuna is just a word that is the brand really. Tuna should just mean any fish that can pass for tuna in the context of food. We'll call it Tuna®" Agreed. I like the way @noonespecial puts it downthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6266772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6266772) "To me tuna is a taste, not a species."

Nrsolis 13y ago

If you ate escolar, you'd really want to know it before you put that fish in your mouth. Escolar contains a minute amount of a toxin that will irritate your gastro system. You'll be in the bathroom for hours if you eat enough of it, usually just a few pieces. Some people have a more significant reaction than just mild irritation. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/facts-faits/escolar-escolier-eng.php http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/facts-faits/escolar-esc... http://blog.medellitin.com/2008/12/escolar-world-most-dangerous-fish.html http://blog.medellitin.com/2008/12/escolar-world-most-danger...

jlgreco 13y ago
I've surely eaten it many times before without knowing and have been fine. Regardless, an FDA approved list of fish substitutes would be a good idea and would resolve this concern.
- Nrsolis 13y ago
  I have eaten it, had trouble, and didn't put two and two together until I read an article explaining the phenomenon of fish mislabeling. SO...maybe go do an experiment: Go eat a nice big portion of escolar (nee "white tuna") and report back. For science.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Yeah, I'm certainly going to experiment with a small portion first. (I don't really eat large portions of fish anyway.)
- Klinky 13y ago
  Just because you didn't have a serious reaction, doesn't mean others won't. Mislabeling of food products is not an acceptable solution. Those with food allergies need to know what is going into their food.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Well, I can't really speak to that but I assume the FDA can. If escolar is too dangerous to label as Tuna I am sure they can find other fish that are not. If they okay a fish substitution, I am happy.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

1. Put the damn escolar in a round can next to the tuna, priced less than the tuna (raise the price of tuna). 2. Watch as escolar salad sandwiches become popular. (some will even claim it tastes better) EDIT: PS Print "It helps keep you regular!" on the label.