How do you convince Americans to eat fish? Disguise it as meat, of course ⁠44%

By Arwa Mahdawi⁠0%

4/8/2026, 10:00:30 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Appeal to Emotion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.3% saturation with 146 hits. Analysis detected 1,443 faulty-reasoning hits from 498 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠44% (11,893 of 21,230 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.00% of the article peer group.

The seafood industry is trying to tackle a slippery problem: the US has never developed a taste for fish. 
Americans will eat canned cheese product and put marshmallow “fluff” on their sandwiches, but they seem to balk at eating fish. 
The average American consumes about 19lb (under 9kg) of the stuff a year, while the global average is 45lb. 
Over in Iceland, they’re really getting their omega-3s in: they lead the world with around 200lb of seafood a year. 
Still, the tide may be turning: Big Fish has come up with a cunning plan to crack the US market. 
You know how there are sneaky ways of hiding veggies in recipes for picky toddlers? 
That’s basically the strategy. 
Except instead of hiding spinach in a chocolate pancake, the plan is to make fish look like meat. 
Think tuna that looks like chicken nuggets and salmon sticks that look like beef jerky. 
It’s not quite fake meat – it’s Fishy Meat™. 
Yum. 
Obviously, this isn’t a completely new idea: plant-based meat really went mainstream when it was put in the meat department, rather than the “vegetarian” aisle. 
And fish-as-meat marketing, in the guise of tuna steaks and salmon burgers, has been around for a while. 
However, according to recent AP reporting from the Seafood Expo circuit (one of the coolest places to see and be seen), it looks like the surreptitious seafood trend has really started to take off. 
Honestly, I can see why. 
The strategy is sound; unlike (most) fish, the idea has legs. 
Whether it’s good for the environment for the 348 million people in the US to suddenly up their seafood consumption, however, is a whole other question. 
And not to be shellfish, but I’m really here to make questionable aquatic puns, not get into the gloomy details of overfishing and the general collapse of life on Earth. 
Guardian columnist George Monbiot has written eloquently on this subject, however, and his analysis (from 2019) is that there are almost no fish or shellfish we can safely eat, if we want to save our oceans. 
“If you really want to make a difference, stop eating fish.” 
It may not be by choice, or for environmental reasons, but I reckon the US may start to heed that advice. 
Disguising fish as meat doesn’t matter if no one can afford to buy it. 
Food inflation was already bad and now it’s being supercharged by tariffs and the Iran war. 
If supply chains collapse because of Donald Trump’s war, nobody’s going to be eating Fishy Meat. 
Instead, the US will be eating crow. 
Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist 
The assault on freedom with Mehdi Hasan and Arwa Mahdawi 
On Monday 8 June, join Mehdi Hasan and Arwa Mahdawi to discuss the seismic changes in geopolitics, the alarming rise of populism and nationalism, and the global implications. 
Live in London and livestreamed worldwide; book tickets here 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 4.1%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias1.0%This article: 8.8%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.1%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias8.8%This article: 7.2%Arwa Mahdawi: 3.4%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic7.2%This article: 7.8%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.2%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic7.8%This article: 5.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.3%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias5.0%This article: 2.2%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.5%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias2.2%This article: 12.9%Arwa Mahdawi: 10.3%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect12.9%This article: 5.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion5.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.0%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias8.2%This article: 7.4%Arwa Mahdawi: 2.9%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias7.4%This article: 29.3%Arwa Mahdawi: 16.6%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias29.3%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.4%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.0%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 2.2%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.4%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.5%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.1%Recency Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 3.4%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.8%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.5%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.8%This article: 15.3%Arwa Mahdawi: 5.2%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority15.3%This article: 11.4%Arwa Mahdawi: 2.4%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma11.4%This article: 3.2%Arwa Mahdawi: 2.7%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope3.2%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.3%Arwa Mahdawi: 9.5%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization19.3%This article: 6.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.9%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring6.0%This article: 4.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.1%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon4.0%This article: 19.1%Arwa Mahdawi: 11.0%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion19.1%This article: 2.2%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.5%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question2.2%This article: 11.4%Arwa Mahdawi: 4.1%the Guardian: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.4%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.4%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division4.0%This article: 10.8%Arwa Mahdawi: 2.9%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal10.8%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.3%Arwa Mahdawi: 2.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.3%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.2%Arwa Mahdawi: 3.8%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote2.2%This article: 2.2%Arwa Mahdawi: 2.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.2%This article: 18.5%Arwa Mahdawi: 20.7%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice18.5%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 5.7%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 10.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 5.5%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Arwa Mahdawi: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 13.3%Arwa Mahdawi: 1.4%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…13.3%

498 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.4%attributed speech451writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageGeorge Monbiot • 36 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Monbiot • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

George Monbiot

100%flagged-word coverage
47 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote+23.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%George Monbiot: 23.4%23.4%Quote-first Misdirection+23.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%George Monbiot: 23.4%23.4%Biased Writer Voice-20.4 ptsWriter: 20.4%George Monbiot: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -14.6 ptsWriter: 14.6%George Monbiot: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-11.1 ptsWriter: 11.1%George Monbiot: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.