Fugu: Poison Free

[godless dave]

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?

People who eat potentially poisonous pufferfish are not putting non-pufferfish-eaters at risk. There are plenty of non-poisonous fish available.

I feel that in this example something bad for mankind can be eliminated and should be allowed todo so.

I wouldn't consider pufferfish bad for mankind. Most people don't eat them.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Is the evil blowfish - also known as puffer, globefish, or
swellfish - in danger of extinction? In Japan, eating the
honorable fugu (blowfish) is the ideal of gourmet dining-and the
cooking version of Russian roulette. According to Japan Economic
newswire, a Japanese wholesaler exported the first 90 kg of
vacuum-packed fugu to Hong Kong in October 1995. Hong Kong is the
second market to import fugu from Japan. New York, which started
importing the fish in 1989, currently sells about 1 tons of fugu
every year, according to the wholesaler. Fugu's trade volume is
rising because of people's curiosity in eating such fish.

http://www.american.edu/TED/blowfish.htm

Puffer fish poisoning is probably the most common
fish poisoning along the coasts of Asia(1). It is variously
known as blowfish, toadfish, globefish, balloonfish,
Patkafish and Fugu(2,3).

http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/4502/4502a2.pdf

Both your statements are correct. However consumption of this fish is becoming sufficiently widespread particularly in South Asia and Japan as well as in pricey upscale Japanese restaurants in the U.S. to be of some concern. The production of poison free puffers will allow more people to safely enjoy this fish which is often trashed when caught in nets (because of its poisonous liver).

 

[SteveGrenard]

duplicate

 

[SteveGrenard]

I asked if you thought it always applied.

Answered. Re -read.

No, it doesn't.

good, glad to hear it.

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

No. I know plenty of a children and adults with Down Syndrome and they function quite well. It is impossible to know how profoundly impaired a Down baby may be. As far as haemophilia is concerned, another poor example. The disease can be controlled and treated and there are plenty of examples of accomplished individuals with the disorder. Abortion is a
personal choice to be made by the woman carrying the fetus. Nobody should be forced to have an abortion and I don't know of any law which does this, at least in the U.S.
How about Denmark?

 

[Dr. Imago]

Let me simplify it for everyone.

Eating fugu = bunge jumping.

Both are equally and unnecessarily expensive and pointless ways to prove to yourself, without much real mortal danger, that you're somehow a daring risk taker. They only just make you look mentally deficient to a lot of other people.

-Dr. Imago

 

[luchog]

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

Ocean Sunfish have not been conclusively demonstrated to carry tetrodotoxin. If they do, it's in concentrations far lower than is typically present in pufferfish.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Fugu is expensive in pricey restaurants because it requires preparation of a very well paid licensed or certified fugu chef. If the fugu were poison free then this cost would go away. Without this preparation puffer fish are not expensive.

 

[CFLarsen]

Answered. Re -read.

I did. Nowhere did I say or imply that you said "always".

No. I know plenty of a children and adults with Down Syndrome and they function quite well. It is impossible to know how profoundly impaired a Down baby may be. As far as haemophilia is concerned, another poor example. The disease can be controlled and treated and there are plenty of examples of accomplished individuals with the disorder. Abortion is a
personal choice to be made by the woman carrying the fetus. Nobody should be forced to have an abortion and I don't know of any law which does this, at least in the U.S.
How about Denmark?

But that is a sociological/cultural/moral decision, Steve. You are now rapidly abandoning your previous stance: That "science trumps sociological or special interests".

So, just in what circumstances - besides a fish that people only eat because it's dangerous - does science trump sociological or special interests?

 

[SteveGrenard]

I did. Nowhere did I say or imply that you said "always".

I pointed out where you used "always" to frame your comment.

But that is a sociological/cultural/moral decision, Steve. You are now rapidly abandoning your previous stance: That "science trumps sociological or special interests".

Giving a woman a choice is not a scientific issue, it is a sociological and legal
issue. It is a far cry from the scientific elimination of the danger of eating a deadly fish
and is way way off topic. Science only intervenes in abortion when it is recommended for
medical issues involving the life of the mother. Even then this and all other reasons for
undergoing an abortion still can be reduced to the single premise that legally it is the
woman's choice. There are plenty of cases where women, for religious or whatever reasons,
choose not to undergo abortion even if it risks their own lives or if the fetus has a
serious congenital/genetic abnormality. The operative word is "choice." In the U.S. at least so long as this is the law, it is the law. In the final analysis, science has nothing to do with it.

So, just in what circumstances - besides a fish that people only eat because it's dangerous -does science trump sociological or special interests?

This thread is about a fish and protecting the jobs of a few hundred chefs in Japan.

I think we touched on vaccination. With scientific certanty I can tell you that religious sects that drink arsenic or handle deadly snakes are putting their members at risk. Science trumps their beliefs. This was proven to the minister of one such group whose wife died of a
untreated (medically) rattlesnake bite in church; and three years later he suffered a similar fate while on the pulpit. Just because there are fringe lunatics like this doesn't,
IMHO, mean we have to give them the right to put others, including children, at risk.
Science trumps religion in this case.

 

[CFLarsen]

I pointed out where you used "always" to frame your comment.

Stop lying. I didn't frame a comment. I asked you a question.

Giving a woman a choice is not a scientific issue, it is a sociological and legal
issue. It is a far cry from the scientific elimination of the danger of eating a deadly fish
and is way way off topic. Science only intervenes in abortion when it is recommended for
medical issues involving the life of the mother. Even then this and all other reasons for
undergoing an abortion still can be reduced to the single premise that legally it is the
woman's choice. There are plenty of cases where women, for religious or whatever reasons,
choose not to undergo abortion even if it risks their own lives or if the fetus has a
serious congenital/genetic abnormality. The operative word is "choice." In the U.S. at least so long as this is the law, it is the law. In the final analysis, science has nothing to do with it.

But then, science never trumps sociological or special interests.

This thread is about a fish and protecting the jobs of a few hundred chefs in Japan.

I think we touched on vaccination. With scientific certanty I can tell you that religious sects that drink arsenic or handle deadly snakes are putting their members at risk. Science trumps their beliefs. This was proven to the minister of one such group whose wife died of a
untreated (medically) rattlesnake bite in church; and three years later he suffered a similar fate while on the pulpit. Just because there are fringe lunatics like this doesn't,
IMHO, mean we have to give them the right to put others, including children, at risk.
Science trumps religion in this case.

You do understand that the whole idea of eating fugu fish is that there shouldn't be a risk, since the poison is removed?

Does that mean you support the banning of eating snakes and rhubarbs, too?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen says/asks:

I asked if you thought it always applied.


To which I answered, in many other cases it does (but not always):

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

People can eat snakes and rhubarb if they are hungry. Are you suggesting both of these are poisonous when swallowed?

I personally would eat neither of these.

There are two ways to remove the poison from fugu: they can be farmed raised as poison free or the liver and skin can be carefully removed by a chef who must make sure he diesn't leave even a single milligram behind which might be eaten. You decide which method would be preferable for yourself. Paying two hundred dollars for a fugu dish made by the special chef or paying five dollars for the same fish which was raised in the absence of any possibility it could ingest a tetrodotoxin producing bacteria.

And then there's the issue of the liver (pate.) It cannot be detoxified by the chef so he
must carefully discard it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Larsen says/asks:

I asked if you thought it always applied.


To which I answered, in many other cases it does (but not always):

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

You are back to your old fraudulous ways again. I didn't claim you said "always".

People can eat snakes and rhubarb if they are hungry. Are you suggesting both of these are poisonous when swallowed?

Some snakes are poisonous. Rhubarb leaves are deadly.

I personally would eat neither of these.

I didn't ask if you would eat them. I asked if you support the banning of eating snakes and rhubarbs. Do you?

There are two ways to remove the poison from fugu: they can be farmed raised as poison free or the liver and skin can be carefully removed by a chef who must make sure he diesn't leave even a single milligram behind which might be eaten. You decide which method would be preferable for yourself. Paying two hundred dollars for a fugu dish made by the special chef or paying five dollars for the same fish which was raised in the absence of any possibility it could ingest a tetrodotoxin producing bacteria.

And then there's the issue of the liver (pate.) It cannot be detoxified by the chef so he
must carefully discard it.

If it is up to people to decide, why do you want to ban the poisonous fugu?

 

[Darth Rotor]

If it is up to people to decide, why do you want to ban the poisonous fugu?

Where did he say he wanted to ban poisonous fugu?

Claus, this thinly veiled attempt to continue your personal vendetta with Steve interrupted a very interesting article, and discussion, on what Japanese fish farmers were able to come up with by applying science. This is not the first scientific advance, or innovation, that has led to someone's ricebowl being threatened.

See buggy whip factories for another example.

DR

 

[CFLarsen]

Where did he say he wanted to ban poisonous fugu?

He wants science - that tells us that fugu is dangerous - to trump the sociological or special interests of some fugu groups.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Here's some science for you. Rhubarb is not completely poisonous, only the leaves are and these should be removed before cooking. There may be trace amount of oxalates in the flesh but they are not, obviously, dangerous as millions of pie eaters can attest.

It may interest you also to know that yes, not all snakes are venomous but the most frequently eaten snake in the U.S. is the Western Diamondback Rattlesnake which is venomous. It is eaten, usually deep fried, in abundance at the Sweetwater, Texas Annual Rattlesnake round-up. Rattlesnake meat does not contain the snake venom, only the venom glands and fangs do. But even if you actually swallowed rattlesnake venom it would do you no harm if you have an ulcer free stomach. There are two reasons for this: rattlesnake venom is harmful only if injected under the skin where it causes local tissue damage and systemic effects once it gets into the circulation. The second reason is that the lethal fractions of snake venoms are peptides which are denatured or destroyed by stomach acid. If you have an open ulcer in your stomach then the venom, if swallowed, can possibly enter your circulation and you can be harmed by swallowing it.

Another digression from the issue of the poison free fugu and whether or not the interests of a few hundred chefs trumps the production of poison free fugu or the other way round.

If it is up to people to decide, why do you want to ban the poisonous fugu?

I have already made the case above for why the production of poison free fugu including the liver should be encouraged. Even the best fugu chefs might leave a trace in their creations and diners do fall ill and die....but if you are contemptuous of wealthy people who pay exorbient prices for specially prepared fugu then you should at least be sympathetic to impoverished people who buy piuffers to eat, an otherwise cheap fish(without the cost of special preparation) try to competently prepare it and kill themselves and their families as a result. There are plenty of references to this occuring in South Asia and I provided one above.

I guess it is easy for you to say to people living way below the poverty level that it is up to them to decide if they are hungry enough to eat anything they can get their hands on, even if it means dying as a result.

 

[CFLarsen]

Here's some science for you. Rhubarb is not completely poisonous, only the leaves are and these should be removed before cooking. There may be trace amount of oxalates in the flesh but they are not, obviously, dangerous as millions of pie eaters can attest.

It may interest you also to know that yes, not all snakes are venomous but the most frequently eaten snake in the U.S. is the Western Diamondback Rattlesnake which is venomous. It is eaten, usually deep fried, in abundance at the Sweetwater, Texas Annual Rattlesnake round-up. Rattlesnake meat does not contain the snake venom, only the venom glands and fangs do. But even if you actually swallowed rattlesnake venom it would do you no harm if you have an ulcer free stomach. There are two reasons for this: rattlesnake venom is harmful only if injected under the skin where it causes local tissue damage and systemic effects once it gets into the circulation. The second reason is that the lethal fractions of snake venoms are peptides which are denatured or destroyed by stomach acid. If you have an open ulcer in your stomach then the venom, if swallowed, can possibly enter your circulation and you can be harmed by swallowing it.

Another digression from the issue of the poison free fugu and whether or not the interests of a few hundred chefs trumps the production of poison free fugu or the other way round.

But in all cases - fugu, rhubarb and venomous snakes - the poison is removed before consumption. Just as there can be mistakes when preparing fugu, there can also be mistakes when preparing rhubarb and snakes.

So, why treat one - the Japanese fugu - differently from other poisonous eats?

I have already made the case above for why the production of poison free fugu including the liver should be encouraged. Even the best fugu chefs might leave a trace in their creations and diners do fall ill and die....but if you are contemptuous of wealthy people who pay exorbient prices for specially prepared fugu then you should at least be sympathetic to impoverished people who buy piuffers to eat, an otherwise cheap fish(without the cost of special preparation) try to competently prepare it and kill themselves and their families as a result. There are plenty of references to this occuring in South Asia and I provided one above.

I guess it is easy for you to say to people living way below the poverty level that it is up to them to decide if they are hungry enough to eat anything they can get their hands on, even if it means dying as a result.

I haven't said anything either way. The issue isn't what I think, but why you treat fugu differently than rhubarb and snakes.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Toccata and fugu

Claus- Those of us who have read this forum for years are aware that you have profound suspicions about SteveGrenard's attitudes and motivations relating to scepticism and the paranormal.

Your suspicions may , for all I know, be fully justified. SG may be out to discredit JREf and the entire sceptical movement (if one exists), while secretly plotting to put Gary Schwarz on the throne of Emperor of Earth.

I confess that I see little evidence of this: in fact, I generally find SG's threads on such matters as sleep research and animal toxins to be informative and interesting, with any concealed motive so subtle and so deeply buried that like the invisible unicorn in the garage, it is hard to see how one might be there at all.

Your tendency to respond repeatedly in such threads with off topic queries about his motivation I find, frankly, rather tiresome.

If you feel a serious need to inform new readers that SG is actually running some hidden agenda here, then can I ask you, out of mercy to those with slow connections who do not wish to reread this debate daily, to collate your reasons into one brief thread containing links to your reasoning, then to post that once in each SG thread , and thereafter to leave it alone unless you have something relevant to the specific topic of that particular thread to add.

I appreciate your motive is sincere and your reasons may be good ones, but this constant belligerence is rather wearing. I honestly feel you are alienating your natural, older, allies here by behaving this way, while not informing newer members of the historical reasons for your concerns.

A simple statement along the lines of "SG is a very bad man, with links to al Qaida and the NWO, Follow this link to Skeptic Report for details" would do nicely.

We now return to the more interesting subject of why any idiot would pay good money for a potentially lethal fish supper.

 

[SteveGrenard]

But in all cases - fugu, rhubarb and venomous snakes - the poison is removed before consumption. Just as there can be mistakes when preparing fugu, there can also be mistakes when preparing rhubarb and snakes.

So, why treat one - the Japanese fugu - differently from other poisonous eats?

An excellent question. I will answer you in list form:

1. The venom in snakes is confined to the head -- the venom glands, ducts and fangs with spillage into the oral cavity in some species.

2. The venom, fangs/teeth, mouth, ducts and venom glands are easily removed by simply chopping off the snakes head. The flesh or other organs of the snake do not contain venom or any poisonous substance.

3. BUT even if one were to eat/drink snake venom, it is not dangerous by swallowing because:

a. it must be injected into/under the skin and/or a blood vessel to be harmful
b. it is rendered harmless by the acid in the stomach anyway
c. is only possibly dangerous if swallowed if one has an ulcer

4. Rhubarb contains high levels of oxalates or salts of oxalic acid which if ingested, are
absorbed into the blood stream, can damage the kidneys. Spinach leaves which are eaten
also contains this substance but in much lower amounts.

5. The large fleshy stem of rhubarb is not toxic and is used as pie filling.

6. The toxic parts of rhubarb, the leaves, are easily removed. Since the poison is embedded in the leaves there is no chance of contaminating or spilling any onto the stem which is eaten. This is not the case in fugu:

A. Fugu contains one of the deadliest substances on the earth, tetrodotoxin, a neurotoxin
that rapidly results in respiratory and cardiac arrest. Just 1/1000th of a gram is
considered lethal in an average adult human.

B. The lethal toxin in fugu is sequestered in the liver, one of the largest organs in the
body after the skin; when a chef cuts this out it is not difficult to miss a practically
microscopic trace of the toxin infected tissue which would be left behind in the fish to
be served. Such a trace can be fatal.

This is why in Japan chefs must be licensed to prepare this fish but that fact does not preclude others from doing so, particularly outside Japan and throughout South Asia. It also does not preclude a licensed chef from accidentally leaving a trace behind.

Serving the liver pate of fugu or, for that matter, fugu preparation by a chef who is not licensed is illegal in Japan. The scientific advances made by the mariculturists in raising
toxin free fugu means that the liver pate can now be served with impunity and, in addition, that licensed chefs are not necessarily needed to prepare fugu in public restaurants.
It also brings down the cost of the dish considerably as without prep this is a cheap or trash fish.

Comparing fugu with venomous snakes and rhubarb is comparing apples and oranges. And besides this thread is about fugu, not snakes or rhubarb. The toxin in fugu is much deadlier, drop for drop, than rattlesnake venom or rhubarb leaves. And it is much easier to leave traces behind. And in the case of snake venom it isn't even dangerous when swallowed, only when injected or somehow allowed to reach the blood stream. This is why snakes administrer their venom with hollow fangs connected by ducts to venom glands. They work very much like a hypodermic needle. A dead headless snake will not hurt anyone who fries it up and eats it
even if there remains traces of the snakes venom on the food.

You just can't compare fugu against rattlesnakes or rhubarb.

 

[Gurdur]

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

This is often claimed, but any dose actually high enough to have any effect whatsoever is also big enough to be very fatal indeed. Fugu eaters will sometimes comment on numbing of lips; it seems to be a purely imaginary reaction of theirs, since if they got a dose good enough to numb lips, however slightly, they're .... dead.

Not the first time humans have imagined things to make them more exciting or trendy.

 

[CFLarsen]

1. The venom in snakes is confined to the head -- the venom glands, ducts and fangs with spillage into the oral cavity in some species.

Invalid argument: The venom in fugu can also be eliminated by removing the poisonous parts.

2. The venom, fangs/teeth, mouth, ducts and venom glands are easily removed by simply chopping off the snakes head. The flesh or other organs of the snake do not contain venom or any poisonous substance.

Invalid argument: Fugu chefs go through a rigorous training.

3. BUT even if one were to eat/drink snake venom, it is not dangerous by swallowing because:

a. it must be injected into/under the skin and/or a blood vessel to be harmful
b. it is rendered harmless by the acid in the stomach anyway
c. is only possibly dangerous if swallowed if one has an ulcer

Invalid argument: It isn't a question of how the poison works, but whether it is poisonous or not.

4. Rhubarb contains high levels of oxalates or salts of oxalic acid which if ingested, are
absorbed into the blood stream, can damage the kidneys. Spinach leaves which are eaten
also contains this substance but in much lower amounts.

Invalid argument: Rhubarb can be deadly.

5. The large fleshy stem of rhubarb is not toxic and is used as pie filling.

Invalid argument: There are also non-toxic parts of the fugu.

6. The toxic parts of rhubarb, the leaves, are easily removed. Since the poison is embedded in the leaves there is no chance of contaminating or spilling any onto the stem which is eaten. This is not the case in fugu:

Invalid argument: The venom in fugu can also be eliminated by removing the poisonous parts.

This is why in Japan chefs must be licensed to prepare this fish but that fact does not preclude others from doing so, particularly outside Japan and throughout South Asia. It also does not preclude a licensed chef from accidentally leaving a trace behind.

Invalid argument: Someone who doesn't know how to handle snakes and rhubarb can also make mistakes.

Comparing fugu with venomous snakes and rhubarb is comparing apples and oranges.

Not correct. Not a single one of your arguments is valid.

And besides this thread is about fugu, not snakes or rhubarb.

No. This thread is about fugu being toxic food.