Red Rooster 'Flathead' Fish & Chips, Misleading?

Related Stores

Red Rooster

• 

  [Deactivated] on 01/04/2015 - 23:34

  +1

  I've voted 'no' as they aren't promoting it as Australian fish.

  I do understand what you're saying, some people might assume that 'flathead' would be fished 'locally', but there's a good chance your local chippo's flathead wasn't Australian either - most of them sell fish imported from South America (and the flathead isn't actually flathead).

  SBS had a good show late last year, What's the Catch. Looks like you can watch it on SBS' website:
  http://www.sbs.com.au/programs/whats-the-catch

  So, while I voted 'no' for this Red Rooster specific poll, I agree that fish labeling laws should be changed so we know exactly what we are eating.

  "While most of us think we're eating Australian seafood, about 72% of what we eat is imported."
  http://labelmyfish.com/

  • 

    chipstss on 01/04/2015 - 23:54

    Yea I've watched What's the Catch also Gourmet farmer(his new series)

    I do understand what you're saying, some people might assume that 'flathead' would be fished 'locally'

    Most assume flathead is only an Australian fish and thus the flathead name implies local, using South American flathead is misleading since almost no one knows about that fish compared to the Australian species.

    Also I'm fairly sure but can't say for certain that my local is selling Australian flathead, it tastes nothing like Red Rooter though.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 03/04/2015 - 00:50

      Also I'm fairly sure but can't say for certain that my local is selling Australian flathead

      Serious question: why do you think it's Australian flathead?

      • 

        chipstss on 03/04/2015 - 01:27

        1. They're fairly reputable 2. Because its nothing like what Red Rooter served up.
           But I'll have to ask them what species it is next time.
      • 

        chipstss on 11/04/2015 - 18:59

        +1

        Actually I was wrong, I asked them they just said it was imported.
        I don't understand how businesses can get away with such misleading naming conventions when it comes to seafood, you can basically call any fish ANY name.
        Selling Catfish or Seabass as Barramundi won't get you in trouble, etc…. You don't even have to specify the country of origin when the seafood has been cooked.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 11/04/2015 - 19:16

        +2

        @chipstss:

        You don't even have to specify the country of origin when the seafood has been cooked.

        This is why there's a bit of a fuss and petitioning for change, like what the What's the Catch? host has been pushing: http://labelmyfish.com/ - it should be clear what fish it is, and where and how it was caught.

        I've got a place down the coast and the town has its own commercial fishing fleet. You'd think it would be easy getting local fish from a fishing town, but only a couple of the numerous fish'n'chips shops and seafood restaurants sell the local catch - and they can't compete on price with those that sell cheap imported stuff.

      • 

        chipstss on 11/04/2015 - 20:04

        +2

        @Thrift:

        and they can't compete on price with those that sell cheap imported stuff.

        True, if the labelmyfish regulations get through then it can only be good for Aus fisheries not to mention consumers know what they're getting.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 01/04/2015 - 23:48

  OP, I take it you hadn't read this thread?

  • 

    chipstss on 01/04/2015 - 23:50

    I just found that thread after some googling, seems most people in that thread agree that using the name Flathead is misleading to Australians. Although in this thread most say its not misleading but I would like to see some reasoning behind that.

• 

  GnarlyKnuckles on 01/04/2015 - 23:49

  +1

  You may be interested in this:

  https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/142129

  And personally I think it is misleading. As anyone who does any 'boat-fishing' in Victorian marine waters will tell you, one of the nicest fish you can catch is flathead. And they are expensive at the fish-monger (flathead tails), I think because the numbers commercial fishers can catch (and the methods they are allowed to use maybe?) are pretty limited. This South American species is totally different; it may have a "flat head", but it tastes nowhere near as nice.

  To me it's like finding a shark that in some pacific island somewhere is known as a 'snapper' because it snaps at you when it's caught, importing massive fillets of it, cuttting them into dainty wee pieces and crumbing them up/cooking it, and selling it in your restaurant as "gourmet snapper"; something like that.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 02/04/2015 - 00:40

  +2

  I get what you are saying in that if you mention to someone that you are eating "Flathead" without any mention of where you are buying it from, the lay person would assume it to be the most common type of flathead in Australia

  However considering it is from Red Rooster it would be a safe bet to assume that it is the cheapest type of Flathead that they can find anywhere in the world to get it in large volume and sell it at a cheap price.

  If it was Australian Flathead, I would presume that they would make it a marketing point to say "Australian Flathead" in the same way that McDonalds make it a marketing point to say "100% Australian Beef".

  For commodity items the rule is basically "Foreign unless specifically stated to be Australian"

  • 

    GnarlyKnuckles on 02/04/2015 - 00:44

    You do realise that the difference is not just the "point of origin" right though? The "flathead" RR is selling is an entirely different species/animal; not just an inferior quality product, or a lesser regulated product etc.; it's an entirely different species of fish. So it's nothing like the difference between beef from Australia vs. beef from OS.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 02/04/2015 - 03:31

      I don't know a lot about the fish industry, but I would imagine that the a certain species and it's actual place of origin would be closely tied together. I don't think that South America would farm Australian Flathead when they have their own species of Flathead they can use. Red Rooster just said Flathead, it can be any, just like when something is sold as "Salmon", being Pacific or Atlantic is not usually specified. With beef, there are different breeds of cattle too.

      • 

        GnarlyKnuckles on 02/04/2015 - 11:03

        +1

        It's a completely different kind of fish; not just a variation on the Australian one. I believe it's a different genus; so it's like comparing, say, tuna to salmon, rather than one type of salmon to another. So to my mind, they are blatantly using the name to deceive. Seems odd that they would do it to me, cause anyone that likes 'real' flathead will know as soon as they taste it that it's not it.
        As an aside, wasn't it red rooter that had those "barramundi burgers' a while back? I presume they actually were barramundi, cause it'd be pretty hard to find a cheap knock off of that fish that happened to share the common name! lol

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 03/04/2015 - 00:30

        @GnarlyKnuckles: however, the majority of barramundi sold in Australia comes from Asia.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 02/04/2015 - 01:15

  Strictly speaking, not misleading, but I've ticked the top box anyway.

  In their choice of fish to flog, highly likely intent by Red Rooster that people associate the name with the fish & chips most people ate growing up.

  Similar 'likely' intent by others to deceive in the labelling of some salmon products, with that situation worse in some places overseas.

  Then there's the whole tradename-applied scam that goes on for otherwise unpalatable-sounding fish..

  In the U.S., 'Patagonian Toothfish' started to be marketed by a wholesaler as 'Chilean Seabass'.
  Result? Huge sales, sold at a premium price, and regarded as classy fare.

  All despite being a nothing-special, ordinary-tasting, cod-related species.

  Gotta love marketing…

  • 

    Charity on 02/04/2015 - 03:41

    Yum yum. Love Patagonian Toothfish. Has always had a high-end price in Aus.

  • 

    GnarlyKnuckles on 02/04/2015 - 23:45

    Glad you ticked the top box Tas, but may I suggest that what you allude to happened back in the 1970's, and it has nothing to do with trying to pass a cheap/ easy-to-acquire-in-bulk/ relatively bad-tasting species off as a different species, to unsuspecting consumers.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 03/04/2015 - 08:20

      Not in the mood.

      Then there's…

      You'll notice that halfway down my comment I change tack to something not entirely unrelated.

      Yep, and in that, an historical reference, but one with ongoing impact in relation to perception, consumption and even overfishing.
      Maybe that will be the fate of the South American flathead, by way of a not entirely unrelated method and con/sub-sequent chain.

      Yep, and I was also just adding something interesting to the thread, mate.

      Gnarly, have you read some of your rambles/excursions? My God. As tangents go, the above pales in comparison.

      Something for you to ponder, should you so wish.
      Have a good day.

      Don't let a South American Flathead, or Seabass - let alone a Patagonian Toothfish, bite you on the arse.

• 

  Charity on 02/04/2015 - 03:34

  Seriously? You can't expect gourmet fish from Red ROOSTER!!

  Perhaps you want them to call it by the correct scientific name, the platycephalidae 'n chips special. That way they could satisfy your demands of serving any block-head bottom feeding fish. This would avoid all confusion, right?

  Bottom line, it is still a flathead. Suck it up, and stop feeling so entitled. Red Rooster doesn't owe you a god-damn thing. ☺

  • 

    chipstss on 02/04/2015 - 09:58

    Lol! Flathead is not gourmet fish, I expected flathead not …. Flathead?
    See the problem? http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/Global/australia/images/…

  • 

    GnarlyKnuckles on 02/04/2015 - 23:56

    +1

    "You can't expect gourmet fish from Red ROOSTER!"

    I certainly don't; but I still reckon it's bad form for them to use a blatantly misleading term to refer to something they're selling. I'm thinking you probably don't know anyone who goes fishing in salt water SoZ? If you do, explain the question at hand to them, and ask them what they think…

    I reckon if presented with the facts, they would agree 100% that selling something in Australia as "flathead" when it is not even of the genus "Platycephalus" is blatantly deceptive.

• 

  Ughhh on 02/04/2015 - 05:13

  Sometimes, I assume a lot of things, does that mean everything is misleading?

  Maybe I'll just assume you work for competitor.

  • 

    chipstss on 02/04/2015 - 10:04

    +2

    Kek, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume when a food chain in Australia claims to sell flathead that it is actually flathead, there are not many other fish by the name of flathead. Its not like I'm complaining that they called it cod but not the type of cod I had in mind.

• 

  xoom on 02/04/2015 - 08:07

  Its a flathead.

  Now if red roosters served you turkey instead of chicken when you ordered chicken.

  Then you are onto something.

  Is this post sponsored by ACA/TODAY TONIGHT?

  Can't possibly be an april fools joke.

• 

  sparkles on 02/04/2015 - 08:56

  +2

  Let's face it, you are not going to get anything but the cheapest fish at Red Rooster. Can't even begin to imagine what is in a Filet-O-Fish.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 02/04/2015 - 09:46

    It would be interesting to know - especially now.

    I haven't had a Filet-O-Fish since I was a kid. The fish in it tasted lousy, even then.

    Very little Hamburglar-related theft of that particular product.

  • 

    chipstss on 02/04/2015 - 10:00

    +1

    Supposedly Pollock or Hoki

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 03/04/2015 - 17:21

      +1

      Yep, it's Pollock, according to their website.

• 

  whooah1979 on 02/04/2015 - 09:19

  http://fishbase.org/summary/465