| At McDonald's they specifically market it as "the fish" in a non specific way. In a fine dining establishment they do actually market it as a particular type of fish. And particular types of fish do typically have different attributes (Heavy metal content or fat and oil content, parasite risks). If I sold you an "i7 with 16gig of ram" but when you opened the computer up it was actually a pentium 4 with 2 gig, you'd be really pissed. If I had just marketed it as "computer" you wouldn't have a basis to be angry. Imagine if I came back to you and said "oh gee, I guess that happens, knowing what I'm selling you is tough, our records aren't so good." I would be completely fucking negligent, at best, and more likely I would be dishonest. Particularly when I'm selling an inferior product as a superior one. You'll notice no one ever asks for escolar and gets something that is actually much better. If it happens repeatedly and endemically, it is almost certainly fraud. They're currently making a lot of money bilking consumers with an inferior product to what they have advertised. I guess my point is that mislabeled is too generous to the character of the industry. Mislabeled implies someone made a "mistake." "Fake fish" maybe isn't exactly semantically correct, but it is closer to the nature of crime. (Maybe we can agree on "fraudulent fish", I think I like that better.) |