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.
Food companies found long ago that increasing prices would be noticed, while reducing the weight of products while keep the packaging looking the same would deceive customers and prevent cut backs in purchases. But there is a lot more to the canned tuna story.
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.
Joel S. Hirschhorn has succeeded as: a full professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison; a senior staffer, U.S. Congress (Office of Technology Assessment); head of an environmental consulting company; Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, National Governors Association; now an author and consultant. Recent books are: Sprawl Kills - How Blandburbs Steal Your Time, Health and Money, and Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government. He has published hundreds of articles in newspapers, magazines, journals and on many web magazine sites. He has given hundreds of talks at a wide range of conferences worldwide. He focuses on American culture, politics and government, and health issues.
Joel, I'm with ya on this! I bought a few cans of tuna on sale a few weeks ago, brought them home and noticed they were smaller than the cans I had in my pantry. The price of the newer tuna was higher, even on sale than what I had previously purchased. Another thing I have wondered...the quality of canned chicken has decreased to the point that I no longer buy it. It tastes like tuna. I've wondered if they interchange the meats depending on what they have more of! Sounds comical, but I wouldn't be surprised.
» left by Karen from Arizona (237 days 3 hours ago.)
Several years ago, I moved and one of the packing tasks was to clean out the pantry. Way in the back were two 6.25 ounce cans of a national brand chunk light tuna. I have no idea how old they were (no expiration date), but the cans were not bulging and when opened the tuna smelled OK. I used a fork to pry the tuna from the can and ate it. There was about one teaspoon of packing liquid. The next time I opened a can of tuna (not the old tuna), I poured the tuna into a strainer. After draining the water off, there was only 3.25 ounces of tuna from a can that said it contained 6 ounces and there were no chunks. The remainder was water. The third time to open tuna I made sure to get the one remaining 6.25 ounce old can There was just a hair over 6 ounces of tuna meat. I remember no time in the past 10 years when the price of tuna declined, yet there was almost 50% less tuna in the new can I measured. Who is cheating who? I seldom use canned tuna anymore.
» left by Gordie Hayduk from Central Florida USA (236 days 4 hours ago.)
Joel, 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
» left by Carol from Brigham City, Utah (219 days 21 hours ago.)
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!
» left by Marty Nemko, Ph.D. from Oakland, CA (217 days 13 hours ago.)
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!
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
tweet this!
