Sushi Otaku

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 »

You are what you eat. While I always questioned this in a literal sense as a child, it is pretty much the case. But I don’t want to be made of heavy metals, and my body agrees. It is no news to anyone that we are poisoning our oceans, and unfortunately that means our food supplies. There has been much talk over the years about the amount of mercury in seafood, and while the studies have thus far been inconclusive as to the extent of the contamination, certain individuals, especially children and pregnant women, have always been steered away from the deep, cold water predatory fish out of fear of mercury contamination. We know that there is mercury in fish, but unless certain species made a bulk of your diet, it was never an issue if you ate of them sparingly. That may be no longer the case. Media fear mongering being what it is, making a gross generalization about contamination is sushi is ridiculous, but it is prudent to be aware of the potential health issues with eating certain sushi items, and it seems that tuna may be worse for us than we realize.

Mercury is naturally present in seawater, but modern industry has increased those levels exponentially, and as it is absorbed by plankton and other creatures that encompass the base level of the food chain. Heavy metals also concentrate as they work their way up the chain to the larger fish. Now, according to a recent study, mercury concentrations have reached potentially unsafe levels in bluefin tuna. With some of the tuna tested, it was found that by eating six pieces per week (or even two or three pieces per week of some samples), which is not unheard of, a person would exceed the mercury levels determined by the FDA as being safe. That’s no fun. Contamination has become a very real problem, and I definitely think that children and pregnant women would do best to completely avoid bluefin tuna (and even ahi, yellowfin tuna, just to be safe) until we can be assured of the safety of the food supply. This is not something that can be fixed overnight, either, especially as no single nation seems to be willing to step up to the plate to reduce pollution in any form.

Frankly, there is another reason to not eat bluefin tuna, as I have pointed out in numerous entries in the past (Trouble for Tuna I, II III, and IV), the fish are in very real danger of being wiped out due to over fishing. Perhaps the silver lining of the mercury issue will be that people will eat less, and the fish may be offered some time to recover from their predicament. There are still many sushi items available for you to enjoy, even for those whose preference was maguro (tuna). The toro lovers may have more to be sad about, but with the variety of seafood available, hopefully even they might be placated by minimizing their intake of toro and expanding to other buttery selections such as buri toro and ‘white tuna,’ which is usually not any form of tuna anyway.

Tuna has been out of my rotation for some time, and with these new data it seems that we should all take a hard look at what is on our plate. Be moderate with the predatory fish such as tuna, tilefish, swordfish, shark, and even salmon, and treat yourself to some new sushi items that you may have been eyeballing, but haven’t tried because you were happy with your spicy tuna roll. There is a lot out there and now is your chance to expand your repertoire. It is too bad that we have ruined what is a staple for many sushi fans, but at least I still have my spicy scallop roll.

Meshi agare!
Warren
The Sushi Guy

No Comments »