The following are helpful but none directly answer the question. Tuna producers petitioned for "drained weight" years ago, but "nada" happened:http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/00/Sep00/090100/c000056.pdf NOAA is involved and this touches on drained weight, but as a basis for meeting claims of solid, chunk, etc.http://www.seafood.nmfs.noaa.gov/pdfs/canned_tuna_and_bonito.pdf FDA is involved too:CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21
| | | | | | | | | CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21(a) Identity. | | | | View on www.accessdata.fda.gov | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | At any rate the article makes the claim that the Federal standard for 5 Oz net weight is 2.84 oz drained weight, but I cant find it in any agency's CFR. The article also makes the claim of a substantial shortfall to that requirement. 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 6:23 PM Subject: [USMA:54912] Re: Even Obsolescent "Ounces" Can Be Deceptive John, All that I can find on the *inspection* of canned tuna is from NIST (NCWM) Handbook 133 (2016 Edition),Paragraph 2.5 on Page 32: (wording adapted to canned tuna) All cans in the sample will be opened and measured. The mass of each can plus the mass of each drained-away liquid is measured. This sum is subtracted from each gross mass to determine the net mass of tuna in each can, and the package errorof each can, for the calculation of fill compliance statistics....I suspect that NOAA regulates the sale of *fresh* fish. That is news to me. Gene On Nov 26, 2015, at 12:00 PM, jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net wrote: 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."
