Is removing salade nicoise from the menu better than searching out sustainable tuna supplies? (Photo (c) FotoosVanRobin)
When you get a bit close to a subject, you get geeky. Before you know it you are scoffing at how other people could possible not know something, because you do. Yet of course it's true that the vast majority of the public are very much in the 'don't know' camp.
That's true of tuna. How many of the tuna-chomping public could tell a skipjack from an albacore in a police line up? How many know how big a yellowfin is? How many think the stuff in tins is bluefin?
Agreed, it is confusing. It's like we generically say 'rhino', or 'tiger', but there are in fact several species. It's more tricky too because to most of us tuna = food.
The big change in the last year or two has been that tuna has become synonymous with the problems facing fish. That causes a dilemma. What is better - that people think all tuna is a problem and simply avoid it? Or that people demand truly sustainable choice and help shape the market for the better?
The truth is that if you want to eat tuna (and that includes at some time in the future, or want someone else to be able to eat it), you should be trying to change the market and the fishery for the better. It is the demand for guilt-free food that has led to the better tuna choices out there today, like pole-and-line caught skipjack, or MSC-certified albacore. And it is that same demand that has tarnished the tuna name because of the well-documented problems with bluefin, bigeye and some other stocks.
A few months back I blogged about the Sushinho restaurant in London. They had decided to remove tuna from the menu entirely, a move I thought both brave and refreshing... after all sushi doesn't have to be tuna.
More recently there has been understated news of another big name taking tuna off the menu: namely the Hilton chain of restaurants. Reported on Atuna (I know, you are all avid readers), it seems that Hilton decided sourcing tuna responsibly was just too tricky, so they are taking it out of their kitchens.
I think that the Hilton chain is missing a trick here. Far be it from me to encourage more fish-eating, but there is an obvious role in promoting responsible sourcing of ingredients. That is true of restaurants, chefs, suppliers and retailers. Now, I may be missing something - but I'm sure that the Hilton chain could manage to source some guilt-free tuna if they tried. I mean, Soseki do it. Pret a Manger do it. Marks & Spencer do it. Sainsbury's do it. There's absolutely no reason why Hilton can't.
Surely the best option for the discerning hotelier would be to take the effort to source the best in ingredients, and proudly explain to the discerning diners just why they had bothered to do so?
