« Continue Browsing

e-mail article Print     e-mail article E-mail

Yukari Sakamoto, Published March 03 2012

Sushi story relied on hype, not facts

I am very disappointed in Sam Benshoof’s article on sushi (Feb. 21). First of all, he didn’t eat sushi, he ate sushi rolls. And not even Japanese sushi rolls, but bastardized American versions of them.

Second, to bring up mercury poisoning, Benshoof needs to do some fact checking on how much tuna or other large fish he would have to consume to be at risk.

Third, eel is not a fishy fish, so why even bring that up? It’s a light, delicate fish.

Fourth, the “crab” he ate most likely was surimi or fake crab made from white fish.

Fifth, this comment should never have been printed: “For example, most of the seafood I had during the taste test was cooked, as opposed to raw (which is probably for the best, because that much raw fish in such a short period could potentially be dangerous).” There is nothing dangerous about eating raw fish. Most raw fish are from small fish, and mercury poisoning is not a concern. Benshoof needs to check his facts.

Finally, he is obviously biased against sushi. Is this the type of person who should be writing about sushi? It is a disservice to your readers.

I am writing this as a chef and someone who has lived and worked for 10 summers serving Japanese food to kids at the Concordia Language Villages. What I read in this piece misinforms your readers and is a disservice to Japanese restaurants. He, or the editors, should see that facts are checked. Writing about mercury or consumption of raw fish incorrectly only creates more hype about nothing.