Sad, but true, went shopping at local supermarket for a few essentials on New Years Day.
As we have got older we have tried to pay attention to what we eat, but closer examination of the boxes in which the frozen "fish" came was an eye
Without naming names, the UK has some of the worlds largest frozen fish companies, one or two of which are still based in what were historically very
busy fishing ports.
First off, boxes simply labelled fish in batter etc turned out to contain Alaskan Pollack.
Then there were the expensive "bistro" recipe frozen fishies, close examination of the box showed that these were made in the UK, oh that's all
right then. Well, no, as reading the next part of the description showed it to be processed from Vietnamese farmed fish, at it carries a premium price
to go with the prettier boxes.
So, still at this stage trying to find something that remotely resembles something caught by a UK registered fishing vessel, landed in a UK port and
processed in a UK facility I continued my search and found fish caught in the North Atlantic that were apparently battered cod, haddock etc.
I then noticed that the ingredients etc. stated in usual minuscule print showed that only 54% of what was actually being sold was something called
fish! and the rest, some 46%, was anything but fish.
This applied equally to any Alaskan I.e. Pacific (Fukushima risk) fish as to Atlantic caught fish.
Now my maths says that we are therefore paying for something that we are only getting approx. half of what it would appear to be, although no doubt
any Pacific Piscatorial Pollution will remain free of charge!
So, what is the purpose of this thread? Well, as consumers we sure as heck are not buying what we think we are buying and we may, as time progresses,
be getting a little bit extra, free!
And who is responsible for 54% fish content to be allowed to be called fish?