Fugu: Poison Free

[HarryKeogh]

It's a shame when someone puts up many valid points then someone (in this example CFLarsen) doesn't comprehend any of them.

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

Not as easily as the rattlesnake or as the rhubarb.

Invalid argument: Fugu chefs go through a rigorous training.

Yet, deaths still occur.

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

It very much is a question of how it works since ingested rattlesnake poison isn't deadly while fugu poison is.

Invalid argument: Rhubarb can be deadly.

It's much easier to contain the poison. That's his point.

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

Yes. And if any bit of poison contaminates it you're in for a lot of trouble.

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

Again, not as easily and it's more difficult to contain the poison.

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

Yes. But it's harder to accidentally poison someone as, yet again, the poisonous parts are much easier to contain.

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

In your opinion. He's made many valid points in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, your refutation of his points is pathetic.

No. This thread is about fugu being toxic food.

I think it's more about you pestering Steve and making yourself look foolish.

Are you done ruining the thread, Claus?

 

[CFLarsen]

Not as easily as the rattlesnake or as the rhubarb.
...
It's much easier to contain the poison. That's his point.
...
Yes. And if any bit of poison contaminates it you're in for a lot of trouble.
...
Again, not as easily and it's more difficult to contain the poison.
...
Yes. But it's harder to accidentally poison someone as, yet again, the poisonous parts are much easier to contain.

Now you are introducing relatives.

Are you done ruining the thread, Claus?

If you don't like reading it, don't. But you don't decide who can write what.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Now you are introducing relatives.

I rather like his cousin, he owns a Scotch distillery.

If you don't like reading it, don't. But you don't decide who can write what.

Quite, but perhaps you ought to

Go fish

for a more suitable target.

Your call.

DR

 

[Rasmus]

Now you are introducing relatives.

And you are introducing new levels of stupidity.

it's no secret that poison is a question of dosage. Salt is poisonous if digested in large enough quantities, so are alcohol and even water.

It shouldn't also surprise you to hear that not all of these substances are regulated in any way. (Why, I even have pipes installed in my flat that will provide me with practically endless amounts of water - enough to kill hundreds if not thousands of people, at least.

So, why exactly is it not relevant to the argument that some substances are more dangerous than others?

 

[HarryKeogh]

Now you are introducing relatives.

No. Steve did. He was trying to explain to you how dangerous the fugu poison is compared to those other things.

But of course you didn't comprehend that as you were too busy sticking your fingers in your ears and declaring "invalid argument" when of course they weren't.

If you don't like reading it, don't. But you don't decide who can write what.

I do like reading it though. Well, not your inane crap but Steve is pretty knowledgeable on this topic and his points were interesting. Of course write whatever you want but one day take all the criticism you receive on a daily basis (for example just in this thread from Soapy Sam, Darth Rotor, Rasmus and myself) to heart.

Unless of course you enjoy playing the role of forum buffoon.

 

[CFLarsen]

So, why exactly is it not relevant to the argument that some substances are more dangerous than others?

It wasn't at first. Now it is? Same old crap from Steve.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Your entire thesis is not valid because rhubarb, puffer fish and rattlesnakes are not analogous on any of the following bases discussed:

1.Poison or Venom. Both organisms and the plant have different poisons.

2.Origin of poison: Two are genetic (rhubarb and snakes) but one is acquired (puffer fish)

3.Action of poison: All three have different actions.

4.Route of administration: The plant and the puffer are by ingestion, the snake
by injection.

5.The snakes “poison” (actually should be called venom) is destroyed by stomach acids and by cooking (heat) whereas the poison of the plant and the pufferfish are not.

6.The poison in the pufferfish is considerably more toxic than the poison of the other two.

7.Rhubarb is a member of the Plant Kingdom, Snakes and Fish are members of the Animal Kingdom. Snakes and fish are, however, members of different classes of the Animal Kingdom. They are not analogous save for the fact they are alive. So are you.

8.Location of the poison: all three have poison situated in different locations: pufferfish: liver; plant: leaves; snakes specialized venom glands, ducts and hollow delivery fangs (all in the head)

In your haste to make an argument you overlook the most fundamental differences in the three examples you chose to compare. They far outweigh your single thesis that because all are poisonous they are all comparable. Well there are tens of thousands of poisonous plants and animals, including insects, and hundreds of thousands if not millions if you include toxin producing bacteria and you cannot always compare these as well if they are unrelated genetically as these three are. They are also separated by millions of years of evolutionary change and divergence.

I don’t know what purpose any further discussion of these invalid analogies could serve but thank you for giving me the opportunity to present this important information. If you have any further questions don’t hesitate to ask and I will do my best to answer you.

Back to the original question: does anyone have a good reason for agreeing with the fugu industry and the chefs who would ban poison-free fugu and fugu liver pate because it so obviously renders them redundant?

 

[athon]

Great thread, Steve, and good arguments you've made.

To be honest, while I can see the reason behind the effort, I question the point. Fugu isn't popular because it is necessarily desired for its tasty flesh (although never having eaten it, I'm only speculating). It is desired for its cultural heritage, which relates directly to the poison. It's like having non-alcoholic wine - even if it tastes the same, the alcohol is significant for a variety of reasons.

Pragmatically, the fugu still tastes like fugu and is still the same meat, for all purposes. But the point of eating the fish is not because it tastes nice, but because of the cultural significance of the toxin and the risks it poses.

Athon

 

[Rasmus]

Pragmatically, the fugu still tastes like fugu and is still the same meat, for all purposes. But the point of eating the fish is not because it tastes nice, but because of the cultural significance of the toxin and the risks it poses.

If the fish were otherwise cheap and affordable to the poor that would be a point. But I don't see how the fish that was farmed poison-free would still be cheap.

Secondly, I see your point - but not the problem. Possibly there exists today a tiny fraction of people that pay a lot of money because they genuinely like the taste of the fish. The vast majority of customers is in it for the kick, though. They would not take their business to the poison-free competition all of a sudden, would they?

 

[CFLarsen]

Your entire thesis is not valid because rhubarb, puffer fish and rattlesnakes are not analogous on any of the following bases discussed:

1.Poison or Venom. Both organisms and the plant have different poisons.

Now the poisons have to be different.

2.Origin of poison: Two are genetic (rhubarb and snakes) but one is acquired (puffer fish)

Now there has to be a difference in how the poison gets to be in the product.

3.Action of poison: All three have different actions.

Now there are different actions.

4.Route of administration: The plant and the puffer are by ingestion, the snake
by injection.

Now there are different routes of administration.

5.The snakes “poison” (actually should be called venom) is destroyed by stomach acids and by cooking (heat) whereas the poison of the plant and the pufferfish are not.

Now there is a difference in whether the poison can be destroyed or not.

6.The poison in the pufferfish is considerably more toxic than the poison of the other two.

And back to the level of toxicity.

7.Rhubarb is a member of the Plant Kingdom, Snakes and Fish are members of the Animal Kingdom. Snakes and fish are, however, members of different classes of the Animal Kingdom. They are not analogous save for the fact they are alive. So are you.

Now there is a difference in kingdoms.

8.Location of the poison: all three have poison situated in different locations: pufferfish: liver; plant: leaves; snakes specialized venom glands, ducts and hollow delivery fangs (all in the head)

Now there is a difference in location of the poison.

In your haste

In your haste to move the goal posts...

 

[athon]

If the fish were otherwise cheap and affordable to the poor that would be a point. But I don't see how the fish that was farmed poison-free would still be cheap.

Secondly, I see your point - but not the problem. Possibly there exists today a tiny fraction of people that pay a lot of money because they genuinely like the taste of the fish. The vast majority of customers is in it for the kick, though. They would not take their business to the poison-free competition all of a sudden, would they?

I'm not sure what you're saying, and am wondering if I wasn't all that clear. For what it's worth, I agree with you 100% (which is why I'm confused). I also don't think this 'detox' version of fugu would be cheaper, and indeed think it might be more expensive. That in itself is a disincentive for restaurents and chefs.

I also agree there would only be a minority of people who'd still purchase fugu simply because they like its taste, texture or because they don't mind having the tradition altered to not include the risk of death.

The problem, therefore, is in the hands of the researchers, who have to find a way to make this fish appealing without the traditional factors which made it appealing in the first place. I don't like their chances.

Athon

 

[Rasmus]

The problem, therefore, is in the hands of the researchers, who have to find a way to make this fish appealing without the traditional factors which made it appealing in the first place. I don't like their chances.

I fully agree with the rest.

But why is there an incentive to change anything at all?

There is tons of fish that you can eat safely and that tastes good. So, if you want a tasty fish you have enough options.

Then there is fugu, which you would it for very different reasons.

Why should fugu have to be changed into the first kind of fish?

There are two ways I can come down from a skyscraper: I can take the elevators or I can basejump with a parachute. There would be no point whatsoever to tether and adopt the parachute until jumping off the building would be perfectly safe: If I wanted perfectly safe, I'd simply take the elevator.

There might be a small number of people that want to be able to basejump without any risk. If that number is large enough, someone *could* bother to design a safe, tethered parachute. But there would be no need to.

 

[athon]

But why is there an incentive to change anything at all?

I assume the incentive is a) because people die from eating toxic fugu, and b) there might be a profit to be made.

Mind you, I don't think either of these are viable in the end. So long as toxic fugu is available in some form, there will be a risk of people dying. So making a non-toxic version won't have much of an impact there, if any at all. And I also doubt there is a significant profit margin in it.

So, while they might be incentives, I don't agree they're very worthwhile ones.

Why should fugu have to be changed into the first kind of fish?

Ah, ok. Did you think I was supporting the venture? I think the science is interesting, and it's an interesting case study into science impacting on tradition. However it's not really well thought out and I don't see them succeeding in making any difference in the end.

That said, I don't know much about Japanese culture and am happy to admit I might be missing something. Maybe there's a market for non-toxic fugu. I'd try it out of curiosity value, I admit. But unless it's delicious I wouldn't be a returning customer.

Athon

 

[Rasmus]

I assume the incentive is a) because people die from eating toxic fugu, and b) there might be a profit to be made.

Mind you, I don't think either of these are viable in the end. So long as toxic fugu is available in some form, there will be a risk of people dying. So making a non-toxic version won't have much of an impact there, if any at all. And I also doubt there is a significant profit margin in it.

So, while they might be incentives, I don't agree they're very worthwhile ones.

But the people that dies fall in two categories:

Those who willingly take that risk. They wouldn't be interested in non-toxic fugu, presumably.

Those who cannot afford any other food. They would most likely not benefit from the bred/engineered non-toxic fugu.

Ah, ok. Did you think I was supporting the venture? I think the science is interesting, and it's an interesting case study into science impacting on tradition.

I wasn't sure.

I agree it is interesting, but I am not sure there will be an impact on tradition.

Actually, I can see a way that would make this even more interesting: Imagine someone found a way to simply reduce the effect of the poison - or the amount thereof - to a degree that would simply not be lethal in most cases.

However it's not really well thought out and I don't see them succeeding in making any difference in the end.

We agree.

That said, I don't know much about Japanese culture and am happy to admit I might be missing something. Maybe there's a market for non-toxic fugu. I'd try it out of curiosity value, I admit. But unless it's delicious I wouldn't be a returning customer.

That is a good point, though: The fish just might be very tasty on top of being lethal.

 

[Flo]

But the people that dies fall in two categories:

Those who willingly take that risk. They wouldn't be interested in non-toxic fugu, presumably.

From my experience talking with fugu lovers in Japan, they would definitely be interested in non-toxic, or at least less toxic, fugu, provided it tastes exactly the same as the toxic one, which they swear it doesn't. I can see part of their point since a fish will not taste the same depending on what it has been fed with, but I would be surprised to learn that the difference in taste is due to the lack of toxin and not to the industrial food fed to the fugu.

Those who cannot afford any other food. They would most likely not benefit from the bred/engineered non-toxic fugu.

There's already "almost non-toxic" fugu on the Japanese market, and it's every bit as expensive as the wild one.

That is a good point, though: The fish just might be very tasty on top of being lethal.

I've had it a couple of time in good Tokyo restaurants: I found it rather bland and disappointing. Of course, you can't tell it to someone who just spent a few hundreds $ on a meal, just like in the comic strip "Survival in the office" about office ladies and fugu. It goes like this:

OL1: Dad invited me to this famous fugu restaurant for my birthday.
OL2: How was it ? Did you enjoy this delicate taste ?
OL1: Well, it was kind of bland, rather disappointing, but I had to tell Dad I enjoyed it and I recognised it was a taste "for adults".
OL2: Yeah, it's hard to tell someone who spent so much on your meal that you didn't appreciate it.
OL3, thinking: So, that's how the mystique of fugu is maintained ...

I've been talking with a friend of mine in Tokyo, and she confirmed this scenario ...

 

[TX50]

... OL1: Well, it was kind of bland, rather disappointing, but I had to tell Dad I enjoyed it and I recognised it was a taste "for adults".

That, to me, succinctly sums up all Japanese cuisine.

 

[Flo]

That, to me, succinctly sums up all Japanese cuisine.

Barbarian ! Heretic ! (goes gobble some Natto ...)

 

[SteveGrenard]

Thank you for these interesting viewpoints.

On the subject of farm raised fish vrs wild caught, in general, I always thought farm raised
or captive bred if you prefer would be much less expensive than wild caught. I see this in my market which labels farm and wild caught fish. Popular farm raised species such as catfish, salmon, carp, tilapia and others are much cheaper when farm raised. In fact
tilapia were, if I recall correctly, first farm raised specifically to provide protein to impoverished populations.

It would seem to be to be less expensive to harvest fish on a "fish-farm" instead of sending out trawlers to capture and process them at sea, transport them to market, etc. There is also an ecological/conservation benefit of farm raised over wild caught.

I realize it is early in the game for farm raised, toxin free pufferfish but if they become popular enough they are apt to become quite inexpensive. Even as a wild caught it is a
cheap and plentiful fish so yes in the beginning farm raised may command a premium
over wild caught.

Captive bred tropical fish for hobbyists as well as captive bred snakes, lizards, even frogs, also for hobbyists or for research, are far less expensive than having to go out and catch them in the wild ... unless that's your thing and you just want to do it. There is also
important conservation benefits to be had by captive breeding animals as opposed to
collecting them in the wild.

 

[luchog]

To be honest, while I can see the reason behind the effort, I question the point. Fugu isn't popular because it is necessarily desired for its tasty flesh (although never having eaten it, I'm only speculating).

I haven't either; but I do know one person who has, and says that it's very tasty, and not very fishlike.

It is desired for its cultural heritage, which relates directly to the poison. It's like having non-alcoholic wine - even if it tastes the same, the alcohol is significant for a variety of reasons.

Pragmatically, the fugu still tastes like fugu and is still the same meat, for all purposes. But the point of eating the fish is not because it tastes nice, but because of the cultural significance of the toxin and the risks it poses.

A large part of the appeal for most people is the mystique and the risk. That says nothing about whether banning poison-free pufferfish for the sole purpose of maintaining that mystique, and a small specialist industry, is a valid reaction.

 

[luchog]

I assume the incentive is a) because people die from eating toxic fugu, and b) there might be a profit to be made.

Mind you, I don't think either of these are viable in the end. So long as toxic fugu is available in some form, there will be a risk of people dying. So making a non-toxic version won't have much of an impact there, if any at all. And I also doubt there is a significant profit margin in it.

You're making unsupported assumptions. It should be fairly obvious that people typically don't get involved in any business venture unless there is a profit to be made. That's what seperates businesses from charities and hobbies.

So, while they might be incentives, I don't agree they're very worthwhile ones.

Making money seems to be a sufficiently worthwhile incentive to me.

That said, I don't know much about Japanese culture and am happy to admit I might be missing something. Maybe there's a market for non-toxic fugu.

Yes you are, and it certainly seems that there is. G-D knows the Japanese will eat pretty much anything else (well, maybe not some of the stuff that Scandanavians eat, but still...).