Maybe I just haven’t spent enough time in Japan, but this part of a story about raising tuna caught (pun not intended) me by surprise:

This is clearly a labour of love, but how will he feel when the time comes to send his fish to the market to be slaughtered for the first time?

“It will be like sending my daughters off to get married,” he says with a grin. “Joy and sadness.” But will he be eating them? “Definitely!”

Eating your daughters after they are married? I think something must be missing in that translation. Although it does make me wonder why people are often so intent on eating things that are raised in far away places, often saying the further the better the taste, but they do not want their children marrying anyone from outside a small radius…strange analogy, I know, but the BBC started it.

This site has some useful information about how sulfur is regulated quite differently for different foods, although the risks may be the same:

Sulfites are not allowed on red meat. Sodium bisulfite does such a good job of color fixing, that sulfited ground beef can be rotten and you can’t tell by looking at it. For this reason, the FDA has an absolute prohibition against sulfites in meat. However, the rule doesn’t apply to other ingredients that may be mixed into the meat. For instance, sausage may legally contain corn syrup, molasses, or wine.

SharkFish is another story. Sulfites are a preservative for fish. Theoretically, sulfited fish must carry a warning somewhere near the fish display, but I’ve never seen one.

The author goes on to describe how he has tried to find sulfur in various foods but often suspected the wrong thing, or had a hard time tracing the source(s) of his allergic reactions.

Interesting case example by Patagonia on how they generated support for fishing regulations:

Swordfish, like many of our large predatory fish, have experienced a decline in their numbers. In 1998, SeaWeb and the Natural Resources Defense Council launched the “Give Swordfish a Break” campaign with the support of 27 high-profile chefs who signed a pledge to not serve swordfish in their restaurants. It grew to include more than 700 chefs and other food-industry professionals, and was among the first attempts to harness market forces in the name of ocean ecology.

The end of the campaign came as a result of new rules issued by U.S. regulators who halted or limited commercial long-line fishing in three areas off the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts, where too many young, undersized swordfish were being caught and discarded.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many of those 27 chefs had actually served a regular diet of swordfish before they pledged to never serve it.

Patagonia also takes some credit for strengthening the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its recent reauthorization.

Senator Boxer has issued a statement about an odd change in US policy. Sorry I don’t have a link as this was sent to me directly:

The Department of Agriculture recently announced that it would remove the word “hunger� from reports on the nation’s food supply. Instead, it announced that it would use “low food security� or “very low food security� in its reports. I have written to Secretary of Agriculture Michael Johanns to express my displeasure over this change.

Officials at the Department of Agriculture report that the change in labels was not a plot to try to disguise or mask hunger in America. Instead, they claim that “hungerâ€? is too amorphous a phrase to describe, in their terms, ”a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation.”

Although I have monitored the politics of food-aid and security for many years, I have to say it is not clear to me why a term like “hunger” suddenly would be seen as vague compared to “low food security”. Strange. Was someone offended to hear that people in America go “hungry”? Senator Boxer puts it this way:

I believe that most Americans are acutely aware of the meaning of “hunger,� especially when used in official reports meant to describe peoples’ access to the food supply.

Exactly, so perhaps that’s why they changed it? Now politicians can say “this report shows no one in America ever goes hungry“, even though the numbers might show 35 million people still experience “low food security” issues.

I’d write more, but you’ll have to excuse me as I’m experiencing a high bladder security issue…probably a result of my low food countermeasures.