Fugu: Poison Free

[SteveGrenard]

An interesting essay appears in today's NY Times at the following URL detailing efforts to produce poison (tetrodotoxin) free puffer fish .....amazingly and paradoxically some fugu groups are fighting it. Yes, this belongs in science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/world/asia/04fugu.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all

By NORIMITSU ONISHI
Published: May 4, 2008
New York Times

SHIMONOSEKI, Japan — Poison has been as integral to fugu, the funny-looking, potentially deadly puffer fish prized by Japanese gourmands, as the savor of its pricey meat. So consider fugu, but poison-free.

Thanks to advances in fugu research and farming, Japanese fish farmers are now mass-producing fugu as harmless as goldfish. Most important, they have taken the poison out of fugu’s liver, considered both its most delicious and potentially most lethal part, one whose consumption has left countless Japanese dead over the centuries and whose sale remains illegal in the country.

But what could be seen as potential good news for gourmands has instead been grounds for controversy: powerful interests in the fugu industry, playing on lingering safety fears, are fighting to keep the ban on fugu livers even from poison-free fish.

long story, more at above URL.

 

[CFLarsen]

An interesting essay appears in today's NY Times at the following URL detailing efforts to produce poison (tetrodotoxin) free puffer fish .....amazingly and paradoxically some fugu groups are fighting it. Yes, this belongs in science.

Why "amazingly and paradoxically"?

 

[robinson]

Probably because the poison is what makes them high when they eat a little of it. Poison free means no buzz.

 

[SteveGrenard]

It's a very strange dynamic. The fugu industry groups and gourmet associations
want the ban on eating the liver of this fish to persist and for the poison free fugu to go away.
It is asserted that this is to keep the mystique of knowing you might die from eating this
fish were it not for the skills of the licensed fugu chefs to manually detoxify the fish.
Sciencecan replace these chefs by farm raising puffer fish and making sure they don't ingest bacteria which are the source of their poisonous liver, and in some cases, skin. So what should be hailed as a major advance is, instead, being fought to protect the interests of these special chefs and the restaurants that employ them. Therefore, paradoxically, they want the legal ban on eating the liver to persist even if the liver is not poisonous. That's a paradox.
i.e.: the producers of poison free puffers cannot legally sell their liver or pate made from their liver. The legal ban was due to the poison, the poison certifiably no longer exists in these fish farm raised not to have the poison.

Also read the whole article, it explains this better than I can.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's a very strange dynamic. The fugu industry groups and gourmet associations
want the ban on eating the liver of this fish to persist and for the poison free fugu to go away.
It is asserted that this is to keep the mystique of knowing you might die from eating this
fish were it not for the skills of the licensed fugu chefs to manually detoxify the fish.
Sciencecan replace these chefs by farm raising puffer fish and making sure they don't ingest bacteria which are the source of their poisonous liver, and in some cases, skin. So what should be hailed as a major advance is, instead, being fought to protect the interests of these special chefs and the restaurants that employ them. Therefore, paradoxically, they want the legal ban on eating the liver to persist even if the liver is not poisonous. That's a paradox.

i.e.: the producers of poison free puffers cannot legally sell their liver or pate made from their liver. The legal ban was due to the poison, the poison certifiably no longer exists in these fish farm raised not to have the poison.

Also read the whole article, it explains this better than I can.

I have. That's why I asked.

Why does this belong in the science section? It sounds more like you want to raise a special interest/cultural/political/sociological issue.

 

[SteveGrenard]

ok. I consider mariculture a science or field that is heavily dependent on science. I agree
that there are cases where a particular subject involves the interaction of a sociological issue with a scientific one. I am sure you can think of many. This is clearly one of those cases. The presence of tetrodotoxin in the liver of the puffer fish (and other animals including the skin of newts and frogs) has long been considered genetic. In the case of the poisonous puffer liver, science has determined that its presence is dependent on the ingestion of toxin producing bacteria in wild caught fish.

Mariculture is a specialized branch of aquaculture involving the cultivation of marine organisms for food and other products in the open ocean, an enclosed section of the ocean, or in tanks, ponds or raceways which are filled with seawater. An example of the latter is the farming of marine fish, including finfish and shellfish e.g.prawns, or oysters and seaweed in saltwater ponds. Non-food products produced by mariculture include: fish meal, nutrient agar, jewelries (e.g. cultured pearls), and cosmetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariculture

In direct answer to your question I feel that science trumps sociological or special interests.
Many of the threads here right now involve interaction between science and sociological, cultural and political controversies.

 

[robinson]

I wonder what other toxic life forms could be used for food if we remove the source of the toxins?

Like the porcupinefish, ocean sunfish, triggerfish, or even the Blue-ringed Octopus. Yum!

Fascinating.

 

[casebro]

I wonder what other toxic life forms could be used for food if we remove the source of the toxins?

Like the porcupinefish, ocean sunfish, triggerfish, or even the Blue-ringed Octopus. Yum!

Fascinating.

Trigger fish are toxic? The ones in the Sea of Cortez? With the dorsal spine that stays locked upwards, unless the next spine is folded first? ( evolutionary mechanism, like a gun's sear)

Meat is not flakey. Texture sort of like beef, chunks stay together well in stew. Oily, tastes fantastic in a chowder. The thought of Trigger Fish stew will almost get me to travel into Mexico again.

What part is poisonous?

 

[robinson]

Only a few species have the Tetrodotoxin. Obviously not the delicious Mexican variety.

 

[CFLarsen]

ok. I consider mariculture a science or field that is heavily dependent on science. I agree
that there are cases where a particular subject involves the interaction of a sociological issue with a scientific one. I am sure you can think of many. This is clearly one of those cases. The presence of tetrodotoxin in the liver of the puffer fish (and other animals including the skin of newts and frogs) has long been considered genetic. In the case of the poisonous puffer liver, science has determined that its presence is dependent on the ingestion of toxin producing bacteria in wild caught fish.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariculture

That is entirely irrelevant to my question. I didn't ask about mariculture but why you think a special interest/cultural/political/sociological issue belongs in science.

In direct answer to your question I feel that science trumps sociological or special interests.

Do you think that science always trumps sociological or special interests? If something is bad for mankind, and science has a way to remove it, that's the path we should take, regardless of what special interest/cultural/political/sociological issues there are?

 

[Matlatzinca]

That is entirely irrelevant to my question. I didn't ask about mariculture but why you think a special interest/cultural/political/sociological issue belongs in science.



Do you think that science always trumps sociological or special interests? If something is bad for mankind, and science has a way to remove it, that's the path we should take, regardless of what special interest/cultural/political/sociological issues there are?

I would propose that this is actually an anthropology thread, therefore belongs in science.

 

[TheDaver]

Off-topic nitpick on the article: The author uses the word “gourmand” where he probably ought to use the word “gourmet”. There’s a big difference. A gourmet is someone who enjoys fine food. A gourmand is essentially a glutton.

 

[TheDaver]

Oh, and I can understand people being against poison-free fugu. Heck, I’m even ever so slightly against it myself. Do people hunt just because they like the taste of venison? Do people bungee-jump or skydive because they like the feeling of weightlessness? Of course not. It’s because they like the challenge or the risk. The appeal of fugu is in the skill required to prepare it, and the small but ever-present threat of poisoning. Remove that and it's just another of dozens of kinds of tasty fish.

 

[luchog]

I wonder what other toxic life forms could be used for food if we remove the source of the toxins?

Like the porcupinefish, ocean sunfish, triggerfish, or even the Blue-ringed Octopus. Yum!

Since when is Ocean Sunfish toxic? In fact, Ocean Sunfish, aka Mola mola, quite a popular fish in Japan, Taiwan, and Hawaii; and are slowly becoming so on the US west coast. Unfortunately, they're considered a "garbage fish" in much of the rest of the fishing industry; and the destruction of enourmous numbers of Mola mola are threatening their continued existence.

 

[luchog]

I would propose that this is actually an anthropology thread, therefore belongs in science.

If all the numerous Expelled threads belong here, so does this one.

 

[DavidS]

Trigger fish are toxic? The ones in the Sea of Cortez? With the dorsal spine that stays locked upwards, unless the next spine is folded first? ( evolutionary mechanism, like a gun's sear)

Meat is not flakey. Texture sort of like beef, chunks stay together well in stew. Oily, tastes fantastic in a chowder. The thought of Trigger Fish stew will almost get me to travel into Mexico again.

What part is poisonous?

I certainly hope not -- I love 'em. At least gray, queen, and ocean triggerfish from the northern Gulf of Mexico (off TX) are tasty in my opinion and demonstrably plentiful. Meat is pale, firm, and mild-flavored -- and nicely flaky in every instance I've seen. Their shoe-leather-tough hides, compact body shape, and tough ribs pose a minor cleaning challenge, but once adapted technique is learned that's no hill for a stepper.

Next week I'll be fishing offshore Port Aransas, weather permitting. While these notorious bait thieves won't be my primary target species, I won't be too upset if they interfere with my red snapper fishing. I'll gladly downsize to effectively catch them, and I won't be releasing any of my first twenty (NMFS aggregate "reef fish" limit) over 14" (could keep smaller, but IMO that size is needed for nice filets).

OTOH, I don't think I'd eat any triggers from an area where they were grazing on coral substrates (e.g. Florida), for fear of ciguatera poisoning. Not much coral in the northwestern GoM (Flower Garden Banks is a notable exception, but at ~120 nm off Louisiana lies well beyond my day-trip range and far from my middle-TX-coast area).

 

[casebro]

I wonder what other toxic life forms could be used for food if we remove the source of the toxins?

Like the porcupinefish, ocean sunfish, triggerfish, or even the Blue-ringed Octopus. Yum!

Fascinating.

Okay, I did some studying-up. All the species Robinson mentioned have the same tetrodontotoxin. Seems it is generated by little germ-things in the water. Staphylococcus was mentioned. The toxin is built up in the skins, livers, and reproductive parts of the higher-food-chain fish. Cooking destroys the germs, but not the toxin. So don't eat mola-mola skin or organs. Meat is OK, no build up there. And I suppose the toxin effects are dose-dependent, so a bit of exposure while cleaning would be harmless?

But the blue-ringed octopus cultures the germs and uses the toxin on purpose as a venom.

Ciguatera is similar. Different 'germs'- dynoflagellates? like coral? I always thought that cig was an infection/parasite like amoebas rather than a build up of toxin in the fish. But a friend claims he has relapses, so I dunno. Maybe it's like LSD flashbacks? Or maybe he is making coral reefs in his intestinal track?

 

[robinson]

Okay, I did some studying-up. All the species Robinson mentioned have the same tetrodontotoxin.

Let me just say, you are my favorite person now.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Do you think that science always trumps sociological or special interests?

Exactly where have I said "always". But yes, in this and in many other cases it does.

If something is bad for mankind, and science has a way to remove it, that's the path we should take, regardless of what special interest/cultural/political/sociological issues there are?

So does this mean you are opposed to vaccines. They remove diseases that are "bad for mankind" but certainly are the subject of special interest opposition, political
interference and sociological criticism... also does this mean you are in favor of religions
which shun medical help and, sociologically speaking, place their faith in a god or a saint or whatever to heal them?

I feel that in this example something bad for mankind can be eliminated and should be allowed todo so .... even though it has engendered criticism and protest by special interest groups. You need to realize the degree to which tetrodotoxin in Puffer causes sickness and death. Whole families have succumbed to this toxin after a family dinner. The minimum lethal dose for the average human is only a milligram, about enough to put on the head of a pin. Even expertly prepared puffer is sometimes is found to contain minute traces which have caused illness and death. By banning the sale of the most toxic part of the fish which has been raised free of this toxin the special interest groups are effectively trying to prevent mariculturists from profiting from their efforts, and predictably therefore, quite possibly ending them. Are you suggesting that even though there is incontrovertible evidence these tasty fish can be raised without risk of poisoning their eaters, society and government instead should continue to ban the consumption of the allegedly toxic part of this animal, continue to employ licensed chefs to remove those parts, whether toxic or not. And, as a result put the producers of these safe puffer fish out of business.

 

[CFLarsen]

Exactly where have I said "always". But yes, in this and in many other cases it does.

I asked if you thought it always applied.

So does this mean you are opposed to vaccines.

No, it doesn't.

They remove diseases that are "bad for mankind"

Should a woman carrying a fetus with Down Syndrome or Haemophilia be forced to have an abortion?