Sushi Otaku

Sustainable sushi is a new movement driven by the need to balance our food supply with our insatiable demand for sushi. Due to the overfishing of some species, guides are now available to help consumers choose food items that will have less environmental impact. The sustainable sushi guides help consumers determine what fish are becoming endangered by overfishing and often list the fish by both the English name and the Japanese name. The pocket guides want people to ask if the sushi they are getting was caught or farmed, allowing them to make responsible decisions when dining.

The Environmental Defense Fund’s guide is slightly more focused on the health of the consumer as well as the health of the oceans. The Defense Fund also, for example, lists Bluefin Tuna as a no-no because overfishing has caused the population of the fish to drop 90% in 30 years. Other “pass on this” selections are; farmed arctic char, red snapper, freshwater eel and monkfish.

The idea is to get more sushi chefs and restaurants to become ocean friendly. Americans love sushi and normally do not think to ask about the types of fish being served or whether they are thriving or dwindling in the ocean waters. Four conservations groups have guides coming out but the Environmental Defense Fund is said to be more informational than the others because it also lists the health benefits of each fish. The ideal is for sushi restaurants to serve more locally produced fish and also to back off from those nearing endangerment. Most seafood restaurants are already on the same page but many feel the sushi industry is dragging their heels which is what prompted the guides.

Besides the guides there are now online pages (including the SushiFAQ Sustainable Sushi Guide) that help consumers to know which fish to steer away from and which are good to go. With more and more focus on the environment it was only a matter of time before this movement took off. Sustainable sushi is all about becoming more environmentally aware and ocean friendly.

The only problem with the guides is that the ecosystem and the conditions in the ocean are constantly changing. What is said to be a safe fish today may not be safe at all tomorrow. The guides promoters have set up websites to keep the public informed of any updates that come along and if any new fish wind up on the “do not eat” list. Currently, farmed salmon is an “eat all you want” fish and has the green light from all concerned. Bluefin Tuna seems to be in real trouble and people are being greatly encouraged not to eat it and to ask if the tuna at a sushi restaurant is actually Bluefin tuna.

There has been a boon in popularity for sushi and fish in general since it became known that fish contains Omega 3 fatty acids. Since then more people have begun eating fish and the oceans are now being converged on by more fishing boats. Our oceans are over fished and the population of many of the species is dwindling. So now that we have found a healthy food that we like (in general) we are told not to eat some of it.

While restaurants in general and seafood restaurants have been fairly quick to take up the hint and start serving ocean friendly fish, it seems to be the sushi restaurants that are doing the most balking. Probably due to the increase in popularity in fish since the health benefits of fish have been realized. It seems that even being environmentally aware, they would still do a great business. So they shouldn’t serve Bluefin tuna, how about Yellowfin? There are just too many other options to hold out on a list of fish that will be out of existence all together if they are not left to reproduce.

It has taken the world long enough to become environmentally aware and it stands to reason that if the consumer becomes aware, they are going to demand that the services they obtain and the products they consume are made by businesses that are also environmentally aware.

Future generations depend on the choices we make today. If we aren’t careful there may not be sushi as we know it for our children and their children. Unless we conserve the resources we have now, we will all suffer. If the Bluefin tuna and other species of fish were given time to recoup from their losses recovery is not out of the question. It is time that restaurants are made to understand the criticality of this issue. Educating yourself is the first step in helping address this situation.  We need to halt the over fishing of many species of fish and animals. There are many alternate choices the sushi industry can make as there are other types of fish that are just as good. We can all agree that sushi is delicious and worth saving. Let’s do what we can to make sure it can be enjoyed by future generations as well. Read our guide to sustainable sushi or find one of the many available find out what you should and should not order next time you go out for fish or sushi. It all begins with you.

Warren
Sushi Otaku

No Comments »

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

3 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 »

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

1 Comment »