Canned Tuna Review
Posted: Friday, March 20, 2009
by Joel Hirschhorn
http://www.delusionaldemocracy.com
A very large source of fish for Americans is canned tuna, a billion dollar annual market. Yet this product has undergone serious changes over the years, most of which are distasteful literally and figuratively.
Right now, in these hard economic times, the change that is most galling is the sleazy reduction in weight from 6 ounces to 5 ounces for the most common size product. That equates to a 17 percent reduction in weight, that few consumers probably have noticed in the past few months. Indeed, you may still find older cans that have 6 ounces, as I did recently. Of course, prices were not reduced. Indeed, you may be paying more for the smaller cans unless you are a smart shopper looking for good sales.
Many people have noticed an even more serious and fishy deception. A big difference among canned tuna products is solid versus chunk versions. About three-quarters of consumption are the lower cost chunk varieties. I am only referring to tuna in water types of canned tuna, not the far less popular tuna in oil variations. What has changed over time is that the lower priced chunk versions no longer contain small pieces in the liquid. Rather than chunks, they contain what can charitably be described as mush or slush. So continued use of the word chunk is a total deception. Indeed, when you drain chunk tuna now you can see small particles of tuna in the liquid, meaning you are losing some tuna. Rather than call this stuff chunk tuna it should be called shredded tuna.
Wait; there is more to this story. Many people have also started to notice that the more expensive solid versions, that used to be one solid piece, actually resemble the older chunk versions. Some major brands also sell some sort of expensive premium canned tuna that are we used to get in the solid versions.
Wait. There is more bad news. The amount of liquid in the cans is far from trivial. If you believe what the fine print on the labels of the major brands says, then there is one ounce of liquid. So, the industry has gone from 5 ounces to 4 ounces of actual tuna. That equates to a 20 percent reduction in actual tuna, a big reduction if the price remains the same or is increased. Wait. A number of people on various web forums have reported that they have weighed the amounts of tuna and liquid and found that the liquid content is more like 2 ounces! Indeed, that is more consistent with my observations for current chunk tuna versions.
And what is that liquid in the cans? More and more consumers have started to notice that it is not just water, which is suggested by the labeling. On most cans there is some statement saying that there is also soy in the cans, which apparently comes from the use of vegetable broth in addition to water, which is stated in the fine print.
A most common consumer appraisal that I fully agree with is that store house brands of canned tuna are consistently better than the big popular brand names Bumble Bee, StarKist and Chicken of the Sea. The consensus is that, for example, the Costco Kirkland, Walmart and Safeway house canned tuna versions are much better quality and lower cost than the more familiar big brands. You are also more likely to still find the larger 6 ounce cans in the house versions.
By now many people have become aware that there is a small amount of mercury in canned tuna, particularly in the higher cost solid types. But the general consensus is that a person would have to ear an awful lot of canned tuna to be at risk. On the other hand, one benefit from eating canned tuna is the omega-3 oil that definitely promotes good health.
If you are using canned tuna for making salads, then the lower cost chunk versions can be a cost-effective option, but for other uses, like tuna and pasta, you definitely must use the solid types. Chunk versions should never cost more than $1 and if you look for sales you can get solid types for about $1. Overall, canned tuna is a healthy food and good source of protein, but we consumers are definitely not being treated with honesty and respect.
This Article has been viewed 8,932 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsJoel, I love tuna and my cat loves tuna. He eats tuna in oil (with a can of cat food); I eat the better stuff (no cat food though) because I'm a nice guy. Ficus' tuna is Bumblebee brand, 5 oz. for $1.15 at Publix Market in Central Florida in the last 6-months the price was $0.70 a can. Do the math on that! My tuna is in Spring water, 5 oz. packaged in lots of five cans. I don't recall the price but it's HIGH ($2.20 a can?). I hope Charlie the Tuna is getting a raise, but I doubt it the middle men are stuffing their banks accounts. Maybe somebody needs to do a website that shows the inconsistency you describe so well, but with all products and somehow show the pricing change from trawler to processor to market! Gordie
Dear Joel, I just put into the computer on Google," Why is tuna in the can full of mush? " just for the heck of it. I was surprised to see the comments you have made about the quallity of tuna. Your right on!! I also can remember the flaked chunks of tuna that was solid and could be flaked apart with a fork and at a much cheaper price. I also have a cat that I feed tuna to occasionally. We should boycott the mush!! Really. it looks pretty bad for human consumption. Anything could be mushed up with the contents. Personally, I won't eat it! The big companies need to wise up!
Canned tuna used to be 7 ounces--but the industry has shrunk the can size, chunk size (yes, now it's shredded tuna) with a ton of water: You're now, typically paying $1 for a 3 ounces of tuna (5 ounce can minus 2 ounces of water) or $5.33 a pound for shredded, dark tuna. Ridiculous. Perhaps it's in part a function of environmental groups having pressured fishermen to use highly inefficient methods to avoid the extraordinarily rare possibility of catching a dolphin. That's merely one of the infinite number of ways that environmentalists impose huge costs and other pain on the public in the name of dubious environmental gain.
This guy is right. It is a ripoff. There is no way that a smaller size can saves anyone any money. The customer is now paying for more can (packaging) and less tuna. That is no savings at all unless maybe if you are a goat that likes to eat cans. It is definitely a trick to deceive the customer by making the packaging look the same size but it being actually very significantly smaller. I would guess that initially one or two affiliated companies try this trick and then all the others jump on the bandwagon. It's not just with tuna. Have you tried to buy an actual 1/2 gallon of ice cream lately? Check the package of the one in your refrigerator. It may look like a half gallon package but check it......they pulled the same trick on you!
I grew up on canned tuna. It was one of my mothers favorite lunches for us. add a little mayo and sweet pickles and we were in heaven. The brand we used was carnation most of the time. I think most of the chunk tuna was good though and there was plenty for all 4 of us. Today it's hard to find a good can of chunk tuna in oil, without paying an arm and a leg for it. I so miss that fresh taste and smell I so vividly remember. We used to eat it once in a while just plain and it was still so good and tasty. Oh for the good ole days before "mush". Thanks for the info.
I have the same complaint as the rest of you....higher prices and lower quality. Of course, you can get the same quality as we did as kids, but you'll just pay more and buy it under a different label, like 'premium chunk tuna'. I must be older, since I remember when tuna came in 8 oz. cans, but then things in those days were sold in more traditional increments of pounds, gallons, etc. Geez, remember when a can of coffee was one pound, like 16 oz.? Tuna has progressively worked down to a 5 oz. standard, and some 'premium' tuna is now in 4.5 oz. cans. I used to get 2 sandwiches out of a can, now I get one...with a bit left over. But then a new car was $2,000 when we were kids, not 10 times as much (and more). Actually, the tuna companies have made the best corp. decisions possible to keep a half decent can at a half decent price. If you want better, pay more. These companies aren't the profit demons you may think....actually, their profits are marginal. The big culprit is the oil speculators who drove up the cost of fuel. Tuna fishing companies spend 50-75% of their production costs on oil. Also, various government mandates have decreased dramatically the size of the areas of legal fishing. One company in Japan has suspended all operations of it's 233 vessel tuna fleet. They claim that they cannot make a profit with fuel prices so high. Yep, when we were kids we enjoyed large cans of great tuna, but deisel fuel was 12 cents a gallon too. Frankly, I'm getting some pretty doggone good tuna these days, with minimal water, but it's not under the 'chunk light' label, and it's not the cheapest can on the shelves.
interesting to read the comments.
30 years ago tuna for canning was about usd 600 per mt. Now its about usd 1,000 per mt. Can and production costs combined are really no higher today than then, so your tuna should of gone up a bit, and I guess about usd 1.75 for a good quality solid full 7 ounce can draining to maybe 6oz is about right, but I bet you can not find it. You will have slush and paste in a smaller can for maybe less money, but that is just turning tuna into a ""come into our store "" line, Insist on quality, you will only ever get what you pay for..
I appreciate the article. But, Unfortunately I won't read the second page. I guess you fail to mention how deceptive website owners split articles to get more hits... Thought it wouldn't be noticed? Guess that's the difference between 6 Oz and 5 Oz.
I certainly noticed the can size reduction. I stopped buying canned tuna because of it. The can is so small, they can hardly get their logo onto it. We formerly had tuna on salad no more often than 2x per week because of the danger of mercury poisoning. One can for 3 of us wasn't exactly a generous protein serving, but we compensated at other meals, or I often added egg or cheese to the salad too. Tuna just isn't worth buying now. 5 oz at $1.50 is nearly $6 per pound. I can get real meat for less. Plus I feel a bit safer, not exposing my family to mercury.
It's one thing for overhead costs (fuel, packaging) to be passed along but this deceptive downsizing of the packaging and literally watering down of the product is sickening. People should be outraged at this thievery. Of course it's only immoral, not illegal in this country because any way to make money is OK. Shouldn't you have to improve the product to raise prices, not just add water or make a deceptive package? It's equivalent to the butcher putting his thumb on the scale. It's not surprising, lots of people cheat and steal to make money. What's discouraging is that the FDA or other law enforcement function doesn't police it. You've seen the same trend with yogurt packaging in recent years 8oz to 6oz of product, prices about the same. This actaully means more packaging costs, and waste per oz of product, but who cares about that when you can increase profits. Ice cream has gone from 1/2gal to 1.75qt to 1.5qt, price roughly the same. There's no improvement here just an insidious corporate deception. You see it with chips, pretzels and canned goods as well. (Ever notice how freely fruit floats in a can these days? It's about 1/2 water)). Container sizes are deiberately set at odd weights and sizes to make comparisons of value difficult for shoppers. May be one of our congressional representatives will call attention to this behavior. I've notified mine. I'm sure he'll get right on it.
BTW coffee is a little different. There advances have actually provided for an increase in extraction or cups/unit of weight so 13oz of ground coffee now yields the same number of cups as 16oz used to.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.