I could not find if this has been discussed before so here goes. The story has been making it's rounds in the popular press for a few weeks now.

Basically Sushi is being mis-labelled in restaurants as to the species of fish. Since its is priced according to the fish used, diners appear to be getting ripped off. A link to the story may be found here

To be fair, there are some mis-reported facts

- This was not actually a scientific study but a school project by a pair of teens whose dad happened to be a university academic that allowed them to use genotyping facilities at the uni.

- The sample set included a small group of restaurants, so by is by no means statistically refelective.

- The journal mentioned in the article is not a journal but a popular non-scientific magazine.

As a lover of sushi, however, it is clear that this is occurring and got me thinking as to how often we are been fleeced with a white tuna sashimi that is actually something else.

Does it matter what it costs as long as you like it? If you thought you were being served white tuna sashimi and it was actually stickleback sashimi would it matter. Really.

The study unfortunately fails to mention what is perhaps the most egregious mislabelling of all. Fish do not have fingers.

If anyone wants to learn more about the modern food business and sushi in particular, read The Sushi Economy by Sasha Issenberg. It is available in paperback from Amazon for about 15 chuffs. It is a fascinating journey about how sushi became a global phenomenom and examines questions like the authenticity of certain fish. When a single tuna can fetch CHF 50,000 in the fish market in Tokyo, it is easy to imagine people trying to pull a fast one.

Uhh, certainly so. Silly analogy really... which i can extend to

"If you thought you were being served a beef burger and it was actually camel would it matter"

But different strokes, if you're content blindly believing what you eat is what you asked for then kudos to you

I wasn'tbeing provocotive just interested. Our daughter wouldn't ever eat rabbit because of the one that lives in a hutch at the end of her friends garden. It isn't something that we eat very often, but probably 3 times a year we do. If she asked what it was I told her chicken and she was happy. Last time we had it she saw me get it out of the fridge, she asked what it was and I said dinner, she said it isn't chicken is it. I was truthful and said no, it's rabbit. She replied she wouldn't eat it and was shocked when I said that she had had it several times. So, finally I get to the point, if you believe you are getting something you order and it turns out to be something different it doesn't really matter (except financially).I would never eat a burger whether it was beef, lamb or camel. Can't bear processed meat.

The concept of price was exactly my point. As correctly stated a single blue fin tuna can fetch upwards of 20K USD in Tokyo fish markets, and all it is used for is sushi.

If I am to pay for a blue fin tuna dish, I certainly would not expect to be a given a yellow fin for the same price... and i, personally, would be wholly unable to tell the difference. Which brings me to the original point of discussion.... Do we blindly pay for a "niche meal" under the sub-conscious pretence of being conniseurs? or do we enjoy indulging in the "faddiness" of a sushi culture, given that most of us would openly admit that sushi is not a staple food?

Snip
Chuckle.... you've probably traumatised her for life.

I completely disagree with you here.

I think it's plain wrong (and verging on unethical) to tell some they are eating one thing & feed them another. I would be very angry if someone told me I was eating say beef but it was actually camel. Not only price wise, but it's should be my choice whether I want to eat camel or not. This is of course just an example, what if I didn't eat camel for religious or health reasons. What if I was allergic to camel, rabbit, fish, seafood, peanuts, etc? I should know what is in my food. Or what if it was my moral conviction that rabbits, or camels, or pigs shouldn't be eaten? It's not right for someone to "sneak" some into my dinner.

As for burgers: "burgers" are not "processed meat". Some of them are, but that doesn't mean all of them are. Nor does it mean what it should be. A real good hamburger should be plain unadulterated 100% good quality ground beef. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes. It's fraud, plain and simple, to advertise one thing and sell another.

Whether or not I can tell the difference between some frighteningly expensive food, and a much cheaper version, is completely irrelevant.

On a more general note, there are also health issues to consider - eg: allergies to nuts can be fatal.

I never understand why it is so expensive. I would welcome a better value substitute. Lets face it , once you have touched the fish with ginger or that green mustard, the subtleties are all but gone. And rice is hardly expensive...
I lurve raw or lightly seared tuna though..

dave