Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Some Tuna Cans Just Got Upsized!

In an era of shrinking toilet paper rolls, candy bars, and ice cream containers, something unusual is going on at Costco. They have actually gotten some manufacturers to upsize their tuna cans.

Over the past decade or two, tuna cans have gone from 7 ounces to 6.5 ounces to 6.25 ounces to 6-1/8 ounces to 6 ounces and finally to 5 ounces last year. But look at the new Costco Kirkland brand cans:

*MOUSE PRINT:

costcotuna

costcotunatestThey have gone up to 7 ounces, and so have Chicken of the Sea and Starkist brands sold at Costco. The increased size comes at an increased price, no doubt, but tuna cans are now back to their original size. It appears that Costco is the only seller of the new upsized cans.

In Costco’s monthly magazine, their consumer reporter touted the fact their tuna contains fewer fillers and less water than competitors.  She went on to say that you get triple the tuna in their 7-ounce can  (12 tablespoons) compared to the tuna found in some brands’ 5-ounce cans (4 tablespoons). She enlisted her husband to do the test, as noted in the box on the left.

How is it possible that the 7-ounce can of tuna can contains triple the amount of tuna of a 5-ounce can when it only contains two extra ounces of contents?  The answer is it can’t unless the brand name manufacturer is packing more ocean in its cans than tuna.

Our trusty mouse measured the amount of tuna in a 5-ounce can of Chicken of the Sea solid white tuna, first squeezing out the water, and found that it contained one-half cup, which is 8 tablespoons (not the four tablespoons that Costco claimed).

chickensea5

It is reasonable to believe Costco’s claim that its brand of tuna in 7-ounce cans contains 12 tablespoons of tuna (3/4 cup), if a 5-ounce can of other name brands contains 8 tablespoons (1/2 cup).  It is not however plausible that Costco’s brand contains triple the amount of tuna.  Two requests to Costco to comment on their claim went unresponded to.

Costco’s 7-ounce cans cost $1.50 each (in packs of eight), while sale prices for brand name tuna in 5-ounce cans are typically about a dollar.  That makes them just about equivalent.

Share this story:

 


ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Plumped Chickens: You Are Paying for Water

plumped1If a butcher puts his thumb on the scale, you wind up paying for meat you never actually receive. 

Some chicken producers are now doing something similar when processing their chicken. On the left is a typical package of chicken you might find in any supermarket. It says “100% natural” breasts (with some rib meat).  You expect there to be nothing but chicken in the package in all likelihood. However, look at the fine print disclosure:
 

plumped2

*MOUSE PRINT: “with up to 15% natural chicken broth.”  What’s that?  Primarily salt and water.  So you are really paying $3.99 a pound for the water that comprises 15% of the package weight.

Current labeling law still allows the chicken to be labeled “all natural” because water and salt are natural ingredients, irrespective of the fact that they are being injected into the birds to make them weigh more.

Makers of plumped chickens say the extra water and salt help make the chicken more moist and tender. While that may be true, they are not eager to tell you that a four-ounce serving of enhanced chicken may have eight times the chicken’s normal sodium content — equivalent to the salt in a large serving of fast food french fries.

For more information on plumped chickens, here is a recent LA Times article, a video on the plumping process from CBS News, and Foster Farms’ wonderfully clever website, “Say No to Plumping“.

Share this story:

 


ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

8 Out of 10 Dogs Prefer…

When four out of five dentists recommend a certain toothpaste, you have to take the claim seriously. But how do you evaluate a claim like that for Nutro Natural Choice dog food which advertises “8 out of 10 dogs prefer Natural Choice Lamb & Rice Formula*”?

naturalchoice

*MOUSE PRINT: The asterisk refers to a fine print footnote that says, “Based on paired preference tests performed 10/2008.”

When Mouse Print* asked the company in an email to explain exactly how the test was done (Who interviewed the dogs or did they fill out a written questionnaire? Did you have a translator for foreign breeds? <grin>) the company declined to specify the methodology but rather invited a call to customer service. Upon doing so, the representative spoke only in generalities off the top of her head without real knowledge of the protocol.  And, being transferred to a supervisor only resulted in being deposited into voicemail.

Assuming the test was conducted in a legitimate manner, their own data do not support the claim they made that 8 out 10 dogs prefer their Nutro. When tested against Science Diet, only 67.3% preferred Nutro, not 80% or more. Likewise  only 73.3% preferred it over Natural Balance brand. In no example given in the ad did eight out of ten dogs tested prefer Nutro.

Certainly, Nutro did well in the tests, just not as well as they advertise. Hey, Nutro, why even make a claim that your own data contradict?

Share this story:

 


ADV