Sushi Otaku

Eight pacific nations have just banned the fishing of Bigeye and Yellowfin tuna from their territorial waters, in what is one of the largest statements to protect the two species from destruction. The tuna fishing ban is being undertaken by all Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA), including the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. These nations have now banned fishing in specific areas adjacent to their exclusive economic zones. With a $3 billion pacific fishing industry at stake, they have realized that a temporary ban, to allow stocks to recover, is the only way to save these fish. I can hear the price of tuna sashimi is going up already…

Not all tuna sashimi is Bluefin tuna. Japan is a major importer of Bigeye and Yellowfin tuna and in fact the wholesale price of Bigeye tuna is up 20% in the past three years, and the price of Yellowfin is up 30%, with no end in sight. This recent ban could easily cause prices to rise at an accelerated rate. Approximately 50% of the global tuna catch is from the Pacific Ocean and a majority of that is from the areas around the PNA. High fuel costs are also impacting the fishing industry, and it has gotten so bad it is now estimated that almost 30% of the long line fishing boats may suspend operations due to the prohibitive costs of remaining in operation. The only way to offset these rising costs is to raise the price of fish, which may end up being the saving grace for these fisheries. As prices increase, more sustainable types of fishing are better able to compete, which is a necessity if tuna stocks are to avoid collapse. Since modern fishing techniques were introduced in the 1950’s, the estimated global yellowfin tuna catch has increased from approximately 110,879 tonnes in 1950 to a peak of 1,436,602 tonnes in 2003. In 2006, that number had receded to 1,129,415 tonnes and has somewhat stabilized there for the time being. Without some conservation efforts, that number will continue to go down due to reduces numbers of fish in the ocean. And tuna are not the only fish in danger of over fishing. Ultimately, there is not simple solution to preserving these piscine communities, but with the push for sustainable fishing, acceptance that prices must go up, and the actions of people who avoid destructive fishing practices, we can ensure our supply of sushi and sashimi ingredients in the future.

<begin rant>I almost feel as though I’m turning this blog into an activist channel for the protection of endangered pelagic species. While I do not intend that to be the case, I do feel that it is important to raise this issue as it is important for anyone interested in seafood (and sushi/sashimi in particular) to be aware of these facts. I would be unhappy if my sushi dinners became a prohibitively expensive treat. Or a non-existent one. We need a greater impetus to ensure the survival of our aquatic fare, and the best way to achieve this is to be aware of what you eat, where it came from, and act accordingly. And it never hurts to ask questions.<end rant>

Meshi agare!
Warren
Sushi Otaku

2 Comments »

I’ve had a surprisingly large amount of inquiries over the years to add the nutritional values for Ankimo (monkfish liver) to my Sushi Nutritional Information and Calories page and I’ve finally managed to find that information. I’ve added it to the Sushi Calories and Nutritional Information page and I can’t believe it took me as long as it did.

Meshi agare!
Warren
Sushi Otaku

No Comments »

I had dinner with Mark Kurlansky last night, author of such amazing books as Cod, Salt, and The Big Oyster: History on the Half Shell. Well, actually, that’s kind of a lie; I snacked while he spoke of his latest work, The Last Fish Tale. He came to the local Community Association in a small town in Connecticut to mingle, chat, and talk about his new book, and while I expected a packed venue, there ended up being about 40 of us attending. I’m sure it had to do with the town being somewhat off the beaten track, if he were to speak in his native New York City

I’m sure he would have packed the halls, but the atmosphere last night was quite causal and even intimate. He was animated and friendly, and eager to discuss anything we wanted, and as the night progressed, talk became more and more interesting.

What began with a reading from his new book turned into a Q&A session afterwards and an informal chat session later in the evening. After a few questions about his new book, and the city of Gloucester, the real protagonist, the topic quickly evolved into a long discussion about the plight of the creatures in our oceans. The toll that modern fishing techniques, equipment and attitudes are taking on the sea is astounding. I have written many times about the plight of the Bluefin Tuna, but many other species such as Cod, Swordfish, the Patagonian Toothfish (Chilean Sea Bass), and even many species of shark are all in gave danger of disappearing from the waters that once sustained them. Pollution, climate changes, and over fishing are all contributing on what seems to be a war against these creatures who are unable to protect themselves from man. It may make people think when many of our sushi items are no longer available, or are so overpriced as to be prohibitive, but the fear will set in when these foods are no longer available at all, and the reverberations are felt throughout our economies and lifestyle. Many lives depend on the sea, and not just those who fish.

Mr. Kurlansky raised a very interesting point last night. While many people have been calling for a boycott of various fish that are in extreme danger, this will punish all fishermen equally and not effectively solve the problem of groups that essentially fish with malice. In order to keep a fish population healthy, a complete ban is not necessary (or even possible), however a strong push towards sustainable fishing will ensure a species survival. Large trawlers will decimate a species, with collateral damage to others, and will quickly empty an area of life. Quotas can be based on incorrect data, or even ignored. Sustainable hook and line fishing, however, will actually ensure that a species won’t be over fished (you just can’t catch enough fish with that method to ruin the population), and will actually produce a better product. If you have ever seen a comparison of a fish caught in a trawler with a fish caught with a hook and line, you would want to eat the hooked fish without question, and you would gladly pay more for the privilege. It sounds easy, but the only way for sustainable fishing to become common practice is if consumers ask for it. Your fishmonger may not know if the fish he sells originates from one source or the other, but if enough people ask, he will start to ask his suppliers. The information will move through the supply chain, and if fishermen begin to realize that consumers will only buy fish caught by sustainable practices, it may start a positive chain of events.

It almost seems like taking a step back technologically, and it is. But it is the only way to preserve the oceans, and if you want to eat your tuna, or mackerel sushi in the future, it is the only way you can ensure it will happen. Seafood may become more expensive, but at least we’ll still have it.

I grew up on the water. If I wasn’t digging clams on the shore of the Atlantic, I was casting a line into a lake in the Eastern Townships of Quebec. I was fishing before could read, and from the beginning, when my cousin helped me put my first worm on a hook and I reeled in a smallmouth bass, I have always had a healthy respect for the fish that was to end up on my plate. As a youth, I never thought much about the plight of the fish that I landed. It was breakfast, lunch, or dinner, and there would be another one tomorrow. I am no longer a child, and have come to realize that I cannot any longer think that way. The only way to ensure the survival of the oceans diversity is to promote sustainable fishing. The easiest way to do this is to simply ask for it.

Meshi agare!
Warren
Sushi Otaku

No Comments »

I recently added a writeup about Fugu (Puffer Fish) to the FAQ which hopefully provides some insight into why people eat such a potentially deadly dish. I’ve also included some interesting tid-bits about how the poison can be used in other ways, and how a person can actually eat fugu with no fear of being poisoned. Head on over to Sushi Items - Fugu for the whole article.

Meshi agare!
Warren
Sushi Otaku

No Comments »

At times, the most minor difference can make a tremendous impact; something that may not seem obvious but leaves a tip of the tongue realization. A new restaurant has opened near me and has grown on me quite a bit, but it is easy to know why. It is a seemingly small difference, however it shows that the itamae has an understanding of sushi that is often lacking in many sushi-ya. A good sushi restaurant is made not just by the freshness or the fish, or the value of the offerings, but also the little things that illustrate the care and understanding of those who provide your meal.

Sushi has always been about more than how fresh the fish is, how it is presented, the attentiveness of the wait staff, etc. But often people miss out on the actual creation of the food items. I’m obsessed with food and tend to be nosy. I am not at all uncomfortable wandering over to the itamae to watch the food preparation and discuss technique. I stare, I study, and I ponder (and silently critique). But I’m friendly and at least so far, no one has shooed me away. One particular thing I have noticed is the preparation of maki (cut rolls). A smart restaurant will do it’s best to reduce waste without sacrificing quality. For this reason, it is a very common practice at Japanese restaurants to prepare blocks of maguro (tuna) for sushi and sashimi, and they scrape and chop the trimmings for use in certain rolls. No one really notices that this is the cast offs and remainders that are being used as they are often mixed with spicy mayonnaise or panko (crunchy Japanese bread crumbs) and rolled up. It makes sense to not waste the meat, and I do not begrudge anyone for doing this.

Here comes the “but.” For me, food is about more than taste and presentation. Food is also about texture. I enjoy the feel of different food items, and when I eat a roll, I enjoy the feel of the meat in the roll. I eat a fair quantity of hamachi (yellowtail). Hamachi maki finds its way onto my plate at almost every sushi meal, and more often that not, it has been macerated prior to inclusion in the roll. To me, it becomes one big mushy pile, no matter how nice it may taste. I greatly value the practice of cutting a piece of hamachi and leaving it intact in the roll, which provides definition and a sense of variety while I eat. There are times when I specifically ask the itamae to leave the fish whole in a roll, it is that important to me (ok, I’m more than just a wasabi snob). Without this contrast, I do not find maki nearly as interesting.

While I believe the practice of including the trimmings in rolls should continue, as it reduces waste, I appreciate the itamae who takes the extra step and realizes that the texture of the meal is as important as quality and presentation. With many sushi chefs having less and less formal training these days, I feel that this perspective is becoming lost. Sushi is more than food, it is art. It is not black and white photography; it is full color, vibrant and nuanced. I do not walk in to a Japanese restaurant and start issuing commands, I am a polite diner, and while I may make my wishes gently known, I can appreciate when a chef has the presence of mind to understand the importance of his work. It is a very small gesture, but one with great ramifications. At least, great ramifications for me.

Meshi agare!
Warren
Sushi Otaku

4 Comments »

While I prefer to post fascinating tidbits of piscatory goings-on, I wanted to mention to everyone that Wasabi, the SushiFAQ forum, is back in action. After an onslaught of spam (Close Encounters of the Nasty Kind) the cleanup effort caused a minor (OK, major) explosion in the database and all posts have been lost due to corruption. Yet we persevere! We are now back up with a newer look and I encourage everyone to register at Wasabi - The SushiFAQ Chat Board and start discussing our favorite food, sushi! I’m often around and ready to answer any questions that I can, and there are plenty of other folks who hang about and are quite knowledgeable as well. Please join us, regale us with your wit, and talk fish.

Meshi agare!
Warren
The sushi guy

1 Comment »

Sushi has been a popular item in the west for a few decades now and as with anything that makes its way across cultures, it has readily changed to better match western palates. But unlike noodles and soybeans, sushi has not merely changed to fit our preferences; it has begun to shape how we view our foods in the west as well. Recently, I have seen what I believe to be the pinnacle of intrusion, the actual supplanting of traditional western food culture with an Eastern import, in an unlikely place. And due to this, sushi has become more than, or perhaps less than, just sushi, and I am not yet sure what this might mean. Allow me to elaborate…

I was at an Italian restaurant the other evening with friends, a rather upscale establishment started by a well-known celebrity chef (since New York needs more of these restaurants). Looking for great seafood and not having eaten there yet, it was a perfect choice to meet, and we were all eager to try it out. The menu was enticing, varied, and upon reflection, strange. The appetizer list had a section of raw fish, some ceviche style, and some purely raw, but some of the items were not listed by their Italian names (what I expected) nor their English names (what I also would have expected), but by their Japanese names. I ended up ordering hamachi sashimi in a somewhat upscale Italian restaurant, and it became one of many sushi items I had that evening. The fish was not sliced in the same manner as sushi would be, nor was it the same cut (portion) of the fish that is normally used to make sushi/sashimi. It was also not served in the manner of sushi or sashimi. Yet it was labeled as such. It was quite tasty, but I cannot fathom why they would list it as hamachi instead of yellowtail. It seemed odd to find an item referred to in the third party language without context in an Italian restaurant.

When Italian restaurants list items under their Japanese names, and sushi is available at 7-11 stores, I start to wonder what has changed. While there is certainly no rule that sushi and sashimi must remain in a Japanese restaurant, and that the terms be restricted to such use, it seems more than out of place to find such a dish, and the use of the terminology, in such surprising places. When something has become so pervasive that it can no longer be separated from its counterparts, I question one’s ability to define it. It dilutes the brand, and shows how pervasive it has become that it has jumped from exotic, to mainstream, and then possibly to boring. That said, there is nothing uninspiring about a lengthy and adventurous dinner at Sushi Yasuda in New York, yet still, perhaps, when a once exotic food has so ingrained itself in another culture it becomes something different entirely. Something that only in name retains its roots. What that thing is though is to me uncertain as becomes easy to lose the qualities that make it exotic fare.

We need the great traditional Japanese restaurants such as Sushi Yasuda, and the impressive sushi works of Nobu to keep the art and evolution of good sushi and sashimi ever present in our cultural palate. We need reminders that what to westerners is exotic fare can evolve and remain such, and hopefully there will be no need to lament what sushi has become. Some foods and cultures mix exceptionally well, such as the infusion of French culinary culture into traditional Vietnamese cooking. But a melange can only go so far before it leaves the realm of fusion and becomes pedestrian. My final feeling that we have reached the point of no return will be when I see, in the glass window next to the garish clown, a poster for the new McMaki with cheese.

Meshi agare!
Warren
The sushi guy

No Comments »

Making sushi at home is fun, easy, and actually less expensive than going out to a restaurant. Aside from the intimidation factor, the big issue that many people seem to have, and ask me all the time, is where do you get sushi grade fish to make sushi at home… While I have a few links up on SushiFAQ, I though to write a short piece about what to look for and how to find it for those of you who want to take the plunge and start making your own sushi.

What is Sushi Grade Fish?
Firstly, you should keep in mind that there really is no such food grade as sushi grade fish. For a detailed treatise on what really makes a piece of fish sushi grade, I recommend reading the section of SushiFAQ which answers this question, What is sushi grade fish? However, what this term really means is that the fish is fresh and handled properly enough that one can be reasonably sure that it is clean and parasite free. In most cases it has been frozen to a low enough temperature for long enough that any parasites that the fish may have had have been destroyed. Most fish that you will find in any grocery store or fish market is not sushi grade fish, so ask questions and know what you are buying if you intend to eat any seafood raw.

Sourcing your fish
When choosing your fish, make sure it looks clean, not slimy, and smells subtly of the ocean, and not overly fishy. If it looks or smells funny, avoid it (but some fish, such as tuna, may have a slight rainbow hue on the surface of the flesh which is normal and natural, not a sign of poor quality or processing). Remember, the nose knows. There are a few places that one might find fish of high enough quality that it can safely be made into sushi at home:

Japanese Markets – If you are fortunate enough to have a Japanese market near you, they may very well sell fish that is considered sushi grade. If you are in or near a city, chances are, you may find a Japanese grocery store somewhere local. While you will generally find a variety of fish there, you can ask or look for the area where they will probably sell fish that has already been cleaned and cut into pieces that are ready for sushi. Often, they are cut into a rectangle, ready to be sliced against the grain for perfect sushi neta. Just make sure that the fish you but is specifically meant to be eaten raw, as it may not be in the same area as the fish sold which is intended to be cooked. I buy a lot of fish from my local Japanese grocer.

Grocery Store/Fishmonger – Don’t even think about it. While it couldn’t hurt to ask you local fishmonger if they do in fact sell sushi grade fish, most do not, and never assume that a fish you buy from a grocery store or fishmonger is safe to eat raw.

Online – In my experience, the best online purveyor of sushi grade fish is Catalina Offshore Products (Bias Alert! In the interest of full disclosure, this is an affiliate link, but everything I say here is true, and in my opinion, this quality of COP seafood is unparalleled). They have an incredible assortment of different seafood, a great deal of which is sushi grade and sold for making sushi at home. They even have items that can be hard to find, such as abalone and multiple grades of uni (sea urchin), and even have one of my all time favorite seasonal items, ankimo (monkfish liver), which can be very difficult to find. Most items are shipped frozen, so you can defrost and use at your leisure, and, if you are totally new to making sushi at home, they even sell sushi kits and all the ingredients you will need to get started. There are a few other places online that I have used, but they all seem to come and go, and I am now at a point where I personally only buy online from Catalina.

The Ocean – Yes, believe it or not, you can eat salt water fish you catch yourself as sushi. I mention this with big red blinking words of caution, however, as most people cannot necessarily be certain a fish a fish is parasite free and clean enough to eat raw without proper training, but if you know what to look for, you can tell a good fish from a bad one. I have eaten tuna right out of the water and can say that is a vastly different food than tuna that has been frozen, thawed, and shipped around the world for a few days. It is truly an amazing food.

There you have it. Thanks to the internet and the globalization of culinary interests, one can probably expect to be able to get high quality fish for sushi without too much effort. The Internet has opened up that option for a lot of folks, and with more and more people eating sushi, whether for the perceived health benefits, or simply because it’s just so darned good, our ability to find great ingredients increases. I have introduced a lot of friends to making sushi at home, and when they see how easy it can be, they often continue the practice. You don’t need a book, just the desire, and the right fish can make your evening sushiful and fun. Perfect sushi rice isn’t hard to make and sushi kits are easily acquired, so once you have what you need, get down to business. And if you want to let me know how your sushi making went, please comment below, I’d love to hear.

Meshi agare!
Warren
The sushi guy

1 Comment »

In what is good news for California Roll eaters, today Japan has formally announced a campaign for certifying Japanese food overseas without Big Brother inspecting the sushi. Initially covered back in December of 2006 in my piece “The sushi police are here to see you,” the Japanese ministry of Agriculture, along with a “non-governmental group of experts” has launched a campaign which will allow Japanese restaurants in various countries to certify their food as authentic and proudly display the Japanese Seal of Approval. With chopsticks holding a cherry blossom in front of a rising sun, the logo seems to capture the essence of Japanese food and culture, while allowing restaurants to tout their traditional offerings.

There will be no sushi police, merely the ability for restaurant goers to be sure that the food they are eating adheres to traditional standards. These standards do not cover foods such as the American California Roll and other items that westerners have become accustomed to, but may never have known are not standard fare in Japan. “Our objective is to promote Japanese food, not eliminate Japanese restaurants” a member of the board was quoted as saying.

In order to qualify for certification, restaurants should use authentic Japanese products, such as wasabi (preferably from the Izu peninsula), koshihikari rice (grown in Japan), pickled ginger (preferably from Tochigi), and miso paste (preferably from the Nagano mountains). They must also display knowledge of Japanese recipes as well as proper hygiene (great news! ). Restaurants must adhere to the five specified criteria of authenticity, such as dish arrangement, originality, and customer service.

On March 27^th and 28^th the organization will be holding a conference to review the certification criteria and process, and have invited restaurant owners from around the world. There are an estimated 25,000 Japanese restaurants around to world, and that number is expected to double over the next few years. With all those restaurants, the hope is that as consumption of Japanese food increases world-wide, standards will be maintained, to a degree, and that Japanese food will remain relatively the same, unlike “Chinese food” restaurants, which have almost nothing in common with traditional Chinese meals. For westerners, you will still have your spicy tuna rolls, California rolls, and Philadelphia rolls in many of your local restaurants. But you will also be able to go out and find traditional Japanese food as well, certified by the Japanese government. Practically speaking, there won’t be much difference, and there will be no sushi police watching over your shoulder. Not that I was worried anyway, but still, it wouldn’t have been fun to have to go under the table to sneak some avocado into my unagi maki.

Meshi Agare!
Warren
The sushi guy

No Comments »

The fish hit the fan the other day with the publication the New York Times article regarding the risk of mercury in tuna, which I covered in my entry Some More Mercury With Your Tuna? But was it junk science? Or was it something that needed to be said? Rebuttals came swiftly, and among them, two stand out particularly in the melee. The Center for Consumer Freedom and the National Fisheries Institute both released the hounds and took the author to task over the research methodology as well as the conclusions, countering that the story may not have been as accurate as the author would like us to believe. I am not so sure that I agree, but I reprint their comments for your perusal, and I encourage all my readers to scroll down to the conclusion of this entry for my perspective on the whole matter, which frankly, has become a beast that needs to be addressed.

The Center for Consumer Freedom took issue with the article and made the following points in asking for a full retraction of the story which they felt was factually erroneous:

• The Times neglected to inform readers that the Food and
  Drug Administration’s methylmercury “Action Level” (1.0 part per million)
  includes a generous ten-fold safety cushion. FDA has written that the Action
  Level “was established to limit consumers’ methyl mercury exposure to levels
  10 times lower than the lowest levels associated with adverse effects.” In
  reality, the highest-mercury sample reported by the Times (1.4 ppm) contains
  less than one-seventh the amount of mercury that might be a cause for health
  concern.

• The Times mistakenly claimed that consumers eating a
  fixed number of pieces of sushi tuna will “reach what the Environmental
  Protection Agency calls its weekly reference dose.” In fact, EPA writes that
  “reference doses” are meant to identify levels that are “likely to be
  without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.” By
  definition, it’s not possible for anyone to exceed a reference dose with a
  single week’s worth of exposure.

• The Times also omitted information about safety margins
  built into the EPA’s mercury reference dose. Like the FDA’s Action Level,
  that reference dose incorporates a ten-fold safety factor. In the example of
  the highest-mercury sample identified by the Times, a consumer would
  actually have to eat 26 pieces per week—over an entire lifetime—before
  accumulating the lowest level of mercury in his or her body associated with
  adverse health effects in scientific studies.

• The Times wrote that “mercury enters the environment as
  an industrial pollutant.” In fact, virtually all the mercury in tuna (an
  ocean fish) enters the environment naturally through undersea volcanic
  activity.

• The Times wrote that “methylmercury [is] the form of
  mercury found in fish tied to health problems.” In reality, the medical
  literature contains no documented cases of mercury toxicity from eating fish in
  the United States; the only cases recorded anywhere occurred more than 40 years
  ago in Japan as the result of an industrial spill.

The National Fisheries Institute has also taken notice of the work and has requested a formal retraction as well, their concerns being:

• There is little if any acknowledgment or explanation of the widely
  accepted benefits associated with eating seafood. Well researched
  science-based articles that deal with the mercury issue deserve to include a
  discussion of the benefits of Omega 3 fatty acids. An article that presents
  a risk-only analysis ignores widely tested and reported health benefits that
  offset many of the concerns raised.
• The sourcing found throughout the report is almost completely one-sided.
  Aside from the Environmental Protection Agency and restaurants whose sushi
  was tested by the Times, the only sources consulted are experts with clear
  self-interests and or activist groups engaged in both lobbying and
  fundraising against coal fired power plants, a source of mercury. Examples
  include:
  • Despite the availability of well regarded, independent, objective
    laboratories Burros chose to have her Sushi samples tested by Dr.
    Michael Gochfeld. As part of his own work Gochfeld treats patients for
    issues related to mercury. Because Gochfeld’s research and practice
    stands to benefit from alarmist stories about mercury he should not be
    considered an objective clinician in this case.
  • Kate Mahaffey from the EPA tells readers that a rise in blood
    mercury levels in this country “appears” to be related to Americans
    eating fish that are higher in mercury. This is pure speculation and is
    in fact refuted by the latest consumption data that shows lower mercury
    seafood like shrimp, salmon and tilapia are some of the most popular.
  • Environmental Defense is a political activist group with scant
    expertise in the medical science of food consumption. Burros omits
    mention of their fundraising agenda, instead describing them
    disingenuously as “work[ing]…to improve human health.” Yet, the “advice”
    they offer is at odds with what every major medical, health and
    government agency has publicly recommended.
• Throughout the article there is a sensational mischaracterization of the
  RfD (reference dose). Burros suggests that people who eat a certain number
  of pieces of sushi are at risk of exceeding EPA’s reference dose level. It
  does not mention that those guidelines are based on consumption over one’s
  entire lifetime and not merely a certain number of days or weeks. Nor does
  it mention the built in ten-fold safety factor.
• In mentioning the levels of mercury found in the samples tested Burros
  fails to explain that the FDA’s “Action Level” is a calculated estimate that
  also includes a ten-fold safety factor.

I am a skeptical person by nature. I normally dig deeply into things that interest me (sushi obsession anyone?) and have a fairly analytical mind. I like to think that I won’t be swayed either way by articles and press releases of this nature, however it is sometimes easy to get caught up in things. A day before the NYT article came out I had made plans to dine with six of my co-workers next week, taking them to one of my favorite sushi restaurants (which was one of those on the list). When the Times article was published, I was still game, but morale was low so we made reservations at a different type of restaurant. Oh well.

But I have two goals with this missive, to encourage people to understand the context of these articles as well as raise awareness regarding what might be a safety issue in our favorite food. The New York Times has a vested interest in publishing articles that get everyone all fired up. Sensationalism sells papers (and subsequently advertising space), while keeping the reader engaged and discussing the fear du jour. On the other hand, the National Fisheries Institute and the Center for Consumer Freedom are both organizations with deep ties to the restaurant and seafood industry, and themselves have a vested interest in keeping people eating fish. It would seem, on the surface, that not much has really changed. We always knew that there was mercury in fish, and more in the larger predatory fish than the smaller fish down the food chain. Pregnant women and children have always been asked to avoid these fish, and others to consume them in moderation. So what is the real story?

A recently published blog/article in Newsweek refuted a number of these counter arguments, which I will paraphrase for you. I admit to a degree of bias myself, as I love sushi and would like to believe that my favorite food is entirely safe, however an objective perspective drives me to raise awareness over protecting my own interests. The points made countering the CCF were:

The claim is that the “action level” set by the FDA for methylmercury “was established to limit consumers’ methyl mercury exposure to levels 10 times lower than the lowest levels associated with adverse effects.” The “action level” was set in the 1970’s and does not define any safe level of methylmercury consumption. The “action level” is merely a legal term which defines the contamination (greater than 1 part per million in this case) at which a food item can be said to be contaminated enough to be removed from the market. Apparently, the action level was originally intended to be 0.5 parts per million, however a lawsuit was filed by the U.S. fishing industry claiming that the economic impact of setting the level at 0.5 would be devastating for the fishing industry, and as it happened, it seems that profits have trumped safety as a Judge ruled in favor of the fishing industry and the level was raised. The FDA has not declared and safe dosage of methylmercury as, in fact, the consumption of any methylmercury is actually unsafe, however due to it’s prevalence in our environment, it cannot be entirely avoided. The Environmental Protection Agency does list a reference dose which measures an amount consumed (rather than contained in a food), which is 0.1 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day. If one were to use this measure, a person who weighs 130 pounds (60 kilos) could consume 42 micrograms of mercury per week (0.1 ug/kg/day x 60 kg x 7 days) and stay within the EPA’s “presumed safe” limit. By consuming 4 oz of the tuna the NY Times had analyzed, one would exceed that ‘safe’ level and consume 48 ug of mercury in that week. And it’s not just tuna, 16 ounces of swordfish would contain 480 ug of mercury, which is greater than 11 times the EPA’s presumed safe level.

The CCF claims that “By definition, it’s not possible for anyone to exceed a reference dose with a single week’s worth of exposure.” Not true, as indicated above, and even a single can or tuna fish has approximately 65 ug of mercury, which is more than the weekly reference dose suggested by the EPA.

The DDF states “Like the FDA’s Action Level, that reference dose incorporates a ten-fold safety factor. In the example of the highest-mercury sample identified by the Times, a consumer would actually have to eat 26 pieces per week—over an entire lifetime.” Again, there really is no safe dose of methylmercury, and the levels also have to be put in perspective. While a few micrograms of mercury may not be as harmful to a fully grown adult, the risk to the fetus of a pregnant woman, for example, is much greater. Methylercury causes brain damage, and a developing fetus is particularly at risk from any environmental contamination.

From my perspective, I feel the same way about sushi (and tuna) that I did three days ago, and I am not going to be the veritable headless chicken and run for the hills based on an article. But what this article has done is bring more attention to the danger of mercury in our food supply, and that is very real. Seafood has been touted for its health benefits, and this is still the case. The Omega-3 fatty acids contained in seafood are considered the good fats, and are heart-friendly. One does not need to eat tuna, however to achieve these benefits, there are plenty of fish in the sea (sorry about that) and a paper by the ocean conservation group Oceana, “Hold The Mercury: How Consumers Can Avoid Mercury When Buying Fish“, outlines the diverse ways to reap the benefits of seafood varieties while avoiding fish with higher mercury content.

Interestingly, Japan has entirely refused to take any action because of the NYT article as “The newspaper is exaggerating the risk,” according to Teruo Tagaki, the chief of the Fisheries Agency’s products safety office. Japan has always had closer cultural ties to the sea, and seafood is a significant influence in the traditional Japanese diet. Personally, I don’t think I’d like to eat any amount of mercury, but then again, every time I go swimming in the ocean I drink it down, so what’s a piece of fish? I also avoid tuna as the species is in danger from serious over fishing. But, what I’m trying to say it to use your own judgment, if you feel you should avoid the risk entirely, by all means, do so. Sensationalism sells papers, even if it’s true. But for me, a great sushi meal is sensational, and I’ll still be going out for sushi as much as I can manage.

Meshi agare!
Warren
The sushi guy

1 Comment »