ethics

Hold the tuna and the food guilt, please

maki — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 09:38:29 +0100

This past week the New York Times published another in a series of dire warnings about how dangerous a certain food is, in this case tuna which is supposedly laden with mercury. One of the sources of this recent round is a conservation group called Oceana. There were, of course, rebuttals and counter-claims to this. The Japanese government isn’t all worried because of yet another food scare rash in the U.S.

It isn’t as though we haven’t heard this kind of thing before, whether it’s how dangerous soy is, or whatever.

A couple of thoughts came to mind as I read about this latest scare.

First of all, it’s odd that people are focusing on tuna in sushi. Despite the explosion of sushi popularity worldwide, I would bet anything that the consumption of canned tuna is far higher than as sushi or sashimi. And as that NY Times article itself notes, cooking does not affect the levels of mercury at all. (Most canned tuna is ‘light’ so has less mercury, but it does have a not-insignificant amount.)

But then, sushi is trendier, and a nice piece of raw tuna is much prettier than a boring beige can of the thing.

It also reminded me of a certain regular customer at Sushisay. He would come in at least once a week, sometimes more, sit down at the counter, and order a big plateful of toro sashimi, about 20 pieces, at (depending on market prices) $10 a piece or so. He’d follow that up with several tuna and yellowtail sushi pieces, around $7-$10 pp. (I don’t see yellowtail garnering as much attention; it’s not the star tuna is, and it’s also, you know, beige, but since it is also an oily fish that is higher up on the ocean food chain, I’ve no doubt it also comes with a generous serving of mercury.) Attempts to coax him to try other kinds of sashimi and sushi never amounted to much. He was a good customer of course, but his backside was taking up a precious chair at the counter unnecessarily - if you’re going to sit there you should be prepared to tackle some variety. (I am sure a lot of sushi dilettantes sit at the counter because they’ve heard somewhere that’s the ‘best spot’. It is, but if you’re just ordering a Cooked Sushi Set, go away to that corner table.)

I never talked to him directly, but I was really curious about this. Did he eat all that tuna because he loved it so? Did he do it because of its alleged health benefits? Was he just showing off? (His bill was always astronomical, as you can guess.)

It always annoys me when I see these food scares going around. It seems to reinforce this preoccupation that a lot of people have with the idea of food as medication, good or bad. There was an old science fiction short story by Japanese author Shinichi Hoshi, called “Flavor Radio” (Aji rajio 味ラジオ) about a society where people only ate bland, carefully nutritionally balanced and manufactured bread. Their urge for different flavors in the mouth, since humans are such oral animals, was met by a ‘flavor radio’ that was embedded in a tooth, with constantly changing programming. I think a lot of people would love to jump to a future where such a thing was possible. Many would probably just skip the flavor radio part right now and just eat nutritionally balanced manufactured food, period, right now. You know, those people who down a huge handful of vitamin pills and things every day, or subsist on protein powder drinks.

Of course I am not saying we should not be concerned about food safety. On the other hand people shouldn’t be rushing to wards the latest miracle nutrient either. And above all, moderation is a great idea, especially in eating. Why not try all the different kinds of sushi neta instead of safe old tuna?

But this may actually be good news for those of us who truly love sushi. The biggest danger connected to tuna, especially bluefin (the type that’s most popular for sushi and sashimi) may be that it’s being overfished. If enough half-believers start to stay away from tuna, there’ll be more left for us for a longer time.

So, if you’re eating sushi just because you think it’s ‘healthy’, stop! Go away. Go back to uhm, well what do you go back to these days? Spinach with e.coli? Sprayed apples? Organically produced green beans that aren’t politically correct because they’ve been shipped from a third world nation where people could use the work desperately but think of that long journey to get them to you and the C02 emissions OMG?

Bring on the flavor radio. In the meantime, I think I will stick to moderation and variety, and enjoying how my food actually tastes first and foremost.

Related, tuna porn! All about tuna, an article I wrote for the Sushisay web site back in the day.

Cloned meat and animal products poll results

maki — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:09:38 +0100

Thank you to everyone to participated in the cloned meat poll! Here are the somewhat surprising results (which are, of course, very unscientific but interesting anyway).

Total votes cast: 259
The votes for “Will eat cloned meat and other animal products, no problem” and “Will never eat cloned foods, ever” ran neck and neck, with the “Will eat” votes coming out just ahead, 36% to 34%. Another 26% would try cloned meat, with reservations. (The rest of the votes were “other”).

You can see the results represented in a bar graph on the cloned meat poll.

In retrospect maybe it’s not surprising that most people are at least willing to give cloned animal products a try, with most scientific studies telling us that it’s all safe. And keep in mind we are eating quite a lot of cloned or hybrid plant products already - cloning plants by taking cuttings has been a practice for ages, as any gardener would know. I guess there is more squeamishness about cloning sentient mammals, understandably.

As for myself, I think I’m in the “I may try it but I’m skeptical” camp. But I would want there to be clear labelling of meat and other animal products that they came from GM or cloned sources. At the moment that may be the biggest point of contention between producers and consumers, with regulatory agencies caught in the middle.

A new poll: Would you eat food from cloned animals?

maki — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:10:04 +0100

The first poll about chickens (the original question, the actual poll, and the results summarized) was so interesting to me, that I’d like to make polls a semi-regular feature on Just Hungry. I think that polls and the answers to them on difficult issues can help qualify one’s thinking on the subject. So, here is another one for you about on the subject of the ethics of eating. The subject is cloned animals.

Yesterday the The U.S. government approved the sale of food from cloned animals. Here is the Food and Drug Administration’s report. The European Union issued a public call for consultation on the scientific issues regarding food derived from cloned animals. The draft opinion of the agency (link, PDF) is that such food is safe for human consumption.

How do you feel about this? Remember that food from cloned animals would include eggs, milk and milk products as well as meat. Please include your opinions in the comments to the poll too.

Link to poll page

The U.S. government has approved the sale of food from cloned animals and the EU seems to be headed that way - what will you do?

maki — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:44:53 +0100

Saturday morning thoughts no. 1: Chicken poll results

maki — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:52:12 +0100

Here are the results of the Chicken Poll posted earlier this week (go to that post for a nice graphic):

Total votes cast: 326
Almost half (48%) voted for “Free range, organically raised, happy chickens only”. That’s really heartening, though I think that Just Hungry readers may be more conscious of their food choices than the average consumer.
Approximately an equal number of people voted for “buying a reputable brand” and opting out of eating chicken altogether. (19% and 18% respectively).
11% buy whatever is cheapest or on sale. I thought that this number might be higher, since chicken does have a reputation for being an inexpensive meat.

This is a very small sampling and is by no means scientific, but it was very interesting. Thank you to everyone who participated! The voting is now closed, but I’ve left the comments open if you would like to add your voice to the fray.

The question of food ethics: What's your chicken policy?

maki — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:25:41 +0100

It may well be that 2008 is the year when questions of ethics and choice really come to the fore. In the UK, coincidentally or not three major TV programmes on the subject have been airing this week. As I mentioned earlier the BBC is airing a second season (series) of Kill It, Cook It, Eat It, a program about the slaughtering of animals for human consumption. On Channel 4, two heavyweights of the TV cooking world, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Jamie Oliver, are tackling the issue of battery raised chickens. In the U.S. Michael Pollan, author of the seminal The Omnivore’s Dilemma, has a new book out, In Defense Of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto (I haven’t read this yet). Here in Switzerland, the leading supermarket chain stopped selling traditionally raised fois gras, at least in the German speaking parts of the country.

I don’t really have hard-and-fast rules on food. I’m not a diehard locavore, I’m not a ethically-motivated vegan, I buy conventionally farmed produce as well as organic. One food I do have a firm line on is chicken. Ever since I found out in what conditions factory farmed chickens are raised, I have only bought organically raised ‘happy’ chickens and eggs, as I wrote about two years ago. I think that chicken is a sort of bottom line type of food. A lot of people nowadays may be avoiding red meat and pork (is pork a red or white meat? I’m never sure), but they do eat chicken. And even if you don’t eat chicken, you may eat eggs.

So, I’m curious. What are your personal policies when it comes to chicken? I’ ve put up a poll about it - please vote, and tell me your opinion in the comments there.

Link to chicken poll

Chicken: what's your choice?

maki — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:01:07 +0100

Kill It, Cook It, Eat It is back too

maki — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:51:23 +0100

I just realised that Kill It, Cook It, Eat It, the BBC Three show that brings you into a real working abattoir, is also back for another series (season) starting tonight at 10:30PM BT/11:30PM CET (also repeated at 12:45AM/1:45AM). I mentioned it yesterday as one of my top food TV shows of last year. It will be shown every night for this week, and the lineup looks interesting, to say the least. They are going for the baby animals…

Monday (today): Suckling Pig
Tuesday: Kid Goat
Wednesday: Veal
Thursday: Milk Fed Lamb
Friday: Omnibus (recap of the week I guess)

For more information, see the BBC Three site.

Swiss shopping news: Get used to happy foie gras

maki — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:22:38 +0100

We received a PR release the other day from LeShop, Migros’ home food delivery web site, that they are no longer going to be selling traditionally raised (with the gavage method of force-feeding) foie gras to German speaking Switzerland. This didn’t come about because of government legislation, but apparently was a decision made by Migros, following the results of customer surveys which were overwhelmingly against gavage.

Indeed if I put in my postal code (which is in German speaking Switzerland) before browsing around LeShop’s site, the traditional foie gras doesn’t even show up. Only a non-gavé version of foie gras shows up. (It looks suspiciously like liverwurst, but I’ll reserve judgement.) Non-gavé basically means that instead of being force-fed, the geese (or ducks) have been gently persuaded to feed. (Maybe they should be sat down in front of a TV with a remote control too.)

Migros is just one store, but anyone who lives in Switzerland knows how much they dominate here, so it’s quite a big deal when they stop selling something for ethical/political reasons.

It all seems a little bit silly though, since you could just go over to to French speaking (or I guess, Italian speaking) Switzerland, or even France, to get a lobe of gavé foie gras if you wanted to. (Strasbourg, which is one place known for good foie gras, is just 2 hours by train from Basel.) Non-chain comestibles stores in the area are probably going to continue to sell it for the time being too, and no word yet on what Coop will do. Besides, I wonder how many of those customers surveyed actually have had real foie gras to start with. The results of the survey cold have been influenced by a recent feature on gavage that was shown the leading consumer reports show on SF DRS, the leading Swiss German TV channel, though I’m not sure if the survey was taken before or after that show.

But I guess the decision was made, either for the sake of P.R or for genuine ethical considerations. In any case, I’m now very curious about this non-gavé foie gras, and will try it soon and report back.

I must say I am not necessarily gnashing my teeth over the foie gras issue, for selfish reasons: I like foie gras well enough, but I wouldn’t kill for it. I like it in its simplest form, poached and sliced, preferably served cold. All those fancy patés and seared foie gras and whatever…don’t do much for me. Now if we were talking about caviar or toro…

Do you think about the carbon footprint of your holiday feasts?

maki — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:48:15 +0100

As I’ve mentioned her before several times, I’m not a diehard locavore. But I do try to keep an eye on how far my food has travelled to get to me. Admittedly, many of my seasonings and such have travelled a long way, because I need my Japanese food and I’m here in the middle of Europe. For fresh produce and meats and things like that I do try to buy things that haven’t travelled too far as much as I can. I think I’ve fairly typical in that respect these days.

Yesterday there was this news story from the UK about the carbon footprint of a typical Christmas dinner. It was picked up by several news outlets (e.g. here and here, indicating the interest in ‘going green’ I guess. That turkey dinner with cranberry sauce is supposed to “generate the equivalent of 20 kg of carbon dioxide emissions”, according to researchers at the School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science at the University of Manchester. The main culprit is cranberries, which are usually shipped from the U.S. and account for half of that carbon footprint.

I admit I had two opposing reactions to the story. My kneejerk reaction was to think “It’s the holidays for goodness’ sake. Let me just enjoy my dinner!” That was followed by a twinge of guilt, that I should be caring about the issue even if it is the holidays.

What do you think? Do you think how far your dried apricots have come (probably from Australia), or where your oranges and cloves are grown (around here cloves most likely come from China and oranges from Israel, Spain or the U.S.) Does the carbon footprint issue make you reconsider your holiday menus? Or do you set those concerns aside?

Me, I’m going halfway (as I usually do)…I do enjoy my far-travelled citrus fruit, since there aren’t any fresh fruits growing in or near Switzerland now. But I think we may go with a glazed Swiss-grown ham for Christmas dinner. We’ll pass on the cranberry sauce, and maybe pull out the red currants from our garden that we froze this summer.