What's The Diff?

The things Quicken Loans team members care about and want to share with the world

The Sushi Detectives use DNA to solve the case of the fake sushi

The Sushi Detectives on the Quicken Loans blogThis is awesome and the kind of story I love to hear. It’s also why I absolutely refuse to eat sushi anywhere except restaurants and grocers that are frequented by Japanese people. I figure if anyone knows how to tell quality from crap when it comes to raw fish, it’s the locals.

Anyway, this story on ccn.com about Kate Stoeckle and Louisa Strauss, two New York high school students who used DNA testing to show that several New York restaurants were selling sushi that was mislabeled, caught my attention and I figured I’d pass it along to DIFF readers who hadn’t heard about it.

I’m really impressed with these two. It’s amazing that they took the iniative and had the knowledge to complete the study and investigation.  Cheating consumers is serious business, even when it’s just selling fish more expensively than should be.

Congratulations to Kate and Louisa for a job well done. Guess what? They are the DIFF!

Post Metadata

Social Bookmarking

AddThis Button

Comments

  1. A student in a class at here at the University of Hawaii did the same project. Also came out with similar conclusions! This is certainly not the first time this process has been done. Also, the article is misleading about Bar Code techniques. It is a pretty simplified and not perfectly reliable way of answering the ‘species’ question (but it probably works just great on fish, most of which genetically similar to snapper have already been sequenced). Also, the technology described with ‘hand-held’ devices is not a glimmer in the eye of reality :) Bar Code science does a great job of educating the public thereby getting research money by greatly oversimplifying what the inputs and outputs of the scientific processes are for species ID. I would be greatly interested in seeing the sequence of the red snapper that was actually “Atlantic Cod or Acadian redfish, an endangered species.” The sequence for Sebastes fasciatus is not yet public on the BarCode BOLD website. I’ll need to see if this report gets published :)

    Posted by: Genekid | August 23, 2008
  2. Must be a slow news day….

    Posted by: brian | August 23, 2008
  3. This article is so bad.
    “The results showed that 25 percent of the girls’ samples were mislabeled: half of the restaurant samples and six out of 10 grocery store samples.”
    So the average of 50% and 60% is 25%?
    Since when is 648 bases of DNA ‘very long’?
    Also, what’s a ‘flying roe fish’? Are you sure you don’t mean ‘flying fish roe’, CNN? Do you even know what ‘roe’ means, CNN? Are you listening to me?

    Posted by: Mike | August 24, 2008
  4. I am so impressed with these two women and their accomplishment. It made me wonder whether they were both seeking a career in the science field. Their minds have already been imprinted with the excitement and satisfaction of completing this study – who knows where they’ll go from here!!!

    Posted by: Alice | August 24, 2008
  5. “The results showed that 25 percent of the girls’ samples were mislabeled: half of the restaurant samples and six out of 10 grocery store samples.”
    Huh? 50% of one, plus 60% of the other equals 25% of the total? I don’t think I would trust them with my DNA.

    Posted by: WSJones | August 25, 2008
  6. The results showed that 25 percent of the girls’ samples were mislabeled: half of the restaurant samples and six out of 10 grocery store samples.
    WSJones beat me to it.
    What the ?!?!
    As a highly skilled IT worker, I am appalled at the emphasis placed on putting high tech in everybody’s hands, but we do not expect anybody to learn the things we knew when we invented all the high tech stuff.
    We are turning our nation into a cargo cult.

    Posted by: Michael K | August 25, 2008
  7. This is retarded, how many studies does it take to scientifically decalre this is accurate and not some made up mumbojumbo? WOW CSI and SUSHI, what better combination to attract attention.

    Posted by: JohnMackerel | August 26, 2008

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

* Name:
* Email Address:
URL:
Comments:


Secondary Navigation:


Promotional Information:


Partner Links:
Site Feeds:
Copyright:
Today's Date:
Thursday, July 27, 2017