I took it directly from the article, but I was not able to "fact check" it (I
hope the reporter did), as I couldn't find the Federal rule; I did try.
Remember that USDA, not FDA, regulates meat. I was surprised that NOAA
regulates fish, but I did find a source to confirm that. Given that "other
agencies" are involved on certain commodities, I suppose it is not surprising.
I was able to find a photo that shows Canada labels drained weight first,
followed by net weight. The US only requires net weight (as drained is not on
the label) and since I am a pretty good Googler, the drained weight fill
standard is at least "not transparent" and a bit hard to find.
Note that certain commodities are labeled by drained weight and the claim of
the label must be substantiated. However, canned tuna is not labeled by drained
weight in the US; I believe it should be, as no one (in my opinion) would use
the tuna water (or oil) in a recipe.
From: "mechtly, eugene a" <mech...@illinois.edu>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Cc: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 11:55 AM
Subject: [USMA:54910] Re: Even Obsolescent "Ounces" Can Be Deceptive
John,
I generally have great confidence in the accuracy of your statements.
But, where do you find the statement that “the Feds only require 2.84 oz in a 5
oz can (56.8%)” of tuna?
Filling accuracy of canned tuna is regulated by the NCWM, a conference of
state, regional, and local regulators, not by a federal agency.
Confirmation of expected Drained Net Mass is already the tested standard in the
US by NCWM inspectors.
Granted, the declaration in Canada of both net, and drained net is of more
value to consumers.
Gene Mechtly
On Nov 20, 2015, at 8:43 AM, jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I'm a little surprised the Feds only require 2.84 oz in a 5 oz can (56.8%).
This strikes me as a product that should be sold by drained weight as nobody
uses that water. In Canada, it IS. A little Googling shows that Safeway
Canada sells a roughly 6 oz can, labeled 170 g net weight, 120 g drained weight
or 70.6% tuna. Obviously, Canadian regulations do a better job of protecting
the consumer, American regulations do a better job of letting
manufacturer/retailer fleece the consumer.
From: "c...@traditio.com" <c...@traditio.com>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 12:10 AM
Subject: [USMA:54902] Even Obsolescent "Ounces" Can Be Deceptive
At least with grams, you wouldn't have to use two decimal places!
"Lawsuit: Safeway ripped off canned-tuna customers
A $5 million class-action lawsuit filed in San Francisco accuses Safeway
of shortchanging customers who purchased store-brand canned tuna.
Ehder Soto of Aptos, Calif., said in court documents that government
testing showed that cans of tuna he bought regularly from a local Safeway
supermarket did not contain the full five ounces as advertised on the
label, according to the Santa Cruz Sentinel.
"I would not have purchased Safeway Chunk Light Tuna in Water if I had
known that the cans were underfilled and underweight," Soto stated in
court documents.
The documents said the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
found that 106 out of 108 Safeway tuna cans were underfilled. They
averaged 2.29 ounces of pressed cake tuna, or 19.4 percent below the
federally mandated minimum standard of fill 2.84 ounces, according to the
lawsuit."
