FDA Proposes Rule To Change Standard of Identity For Canned Tuna Fish?
Something Seems Fishy Here...
The FDA recently published a Constituent Update regarding a proposed rule that would revise the Standard of Identify (SOI) for canned tuna fish. This rule would change how the weight of tuna is determined as well as allow certain changes to spices that can be used. The proposed rule comes as a result of a “Citizen Petition” requesting the changes.
I say “Citizen Petition”, because the petition was actually filed by Tri Union Seafoods LLC, StarKist Co., and Bumble Bee Foods LLC. You may recognize those names as the names of major companies that produce canned tuna fish products. So this is actually a petition from the canned tuna fish industry, not a petition from consumers.
So what are the proposed rule changes and how would this affect consumers? Well, let’s take a look at that.
First of all, a Standard of Identity (SOI) is a type of regulation that has been enacted by the FDA. SOI’s haven’t been set for all possible types of foods in all situations, but where they have been set they describe the minimum standards a food item is required to meet in order to be allowed to be called that item. In the words of the FDA, “SOIs were developed to help protect consumers and promote honesty and fair dealing” [1]. This was necessary because some companies were marketing their products in ways that deceived consumers, for example products were sold as “fruit jam” but actually contained little or no fruit [1].
When it comes to canned tuna, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) does establish a Standard of Identity that is very detailed, but also quite lengthy. You can view the entire SOI here if you would like.
Some of the proposed rule changes have to do with flavoring and spices, which I’m not terribly concerned with at this time (with some exceptions). It is important to note that flavored tuna products have been available for quite some time and are pretty popular, so making some allowances for flavored tuna products does make sense. You may have noticed that flavored tuna products typically come in a soft pouch rather than a can. That is specifically because the SOI for canned tuna products applies only to canned tuna, so the pouches do not have to follow the SOI for canned tuna products (or so the rule change would seek to specify). The proposed rule changes would likely result in more flavored tuna products being available in cans instead of just pouches.
One concern that I do have with the rule for allowing changes in the spices used for canned tuna is that this may result in companies using spices to mask the poor flavor of lower-quality fish, resulting in more profits for the company, but lower-quality products for consumers. One specific example from the proposed rule that exacerbates this concern is that companies will be permitted to use more vegetable broth in their canned tuna products. Vegetable broth is used in canned tuna as a flavor enhancer and the current SOI limits vegetable broth to “an amount not in excess of 5 percent of the volume capacity of the container” per the CFR [2]. The proposed rule change will eliminate the limit, which will likely directly result in companies using vegetable broth to “enhance” the flavor of poorer quality fish to increase their profits at the cost of consumers.
The main concern that I have with the proposed rule is that it changes the method of how fill weight is determined from the pressed cake method to the drained method.
The current SOI for canned tuna specifies that the fill weight of tuna is to be determined using the pressed cake method. This method involves taking the tuna from 24 cans of the same size, draining the liquid from the tuna, “pressing” the tuna to remove excess liquid, and then taking the weight of the resulting “pressed cake”. The weight is then compared to the standards for the can size and it must meet or exceed the standard weight specified in the SOI.
The “Citizen Petition” claims that the pressed cake method is outdated and resource intense. They claim that the drained weight method will save the industry money and be less confusing for consumers. To be fair, the drained weight method is much simpler and less resource intense, one would simply take the tuna, drain off the excess liquid and then take the weight. My main concern with the change is that drained tuna would be expected to weigh more than pressed tuna as it will likely have a higher water content. If the standard for tuna fill weight is not updated (increased) to compensate for the change in weighing method it will result in consumers receiving less tuna solids and more liquid in each can of tuna while likely paying the same price.
Personally, I do not find all of the proposed rule changes to be in the best interest of consumers. Some of the changes seem to be in the best interest of the corporations and may actually come at a cost to consumers. As receiving less actual tuna solids in each can is unlikely to be nutritionally beneficial to consumers, and consuming poorer quality fish that have had their flavor masked by spices is also unlikely to nutritionally benefit consumers, I have to say that I oppose parts of this rule change.
I have submitted a comment detailing my concerns with the proposed rule and if you would like to comment on the proposed rule, comments are open until November 24, 2023. You can see and comment on the proposed rule here.
What do you think? Do you use canned tuna on a regular basis? How do you fell about the proposed rule change?
Thank you for reading my article! Please consider subscribing to receive updates and sharing with others! All of my articles are currently free to read and I would appreciate it if your could share them with others!
Sources:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Standards of Identity for Food”. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/standards-identity-food. Accessed August 16, 2023.
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. US Food & Drug Administration Web site. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=161.190. Accessed September 3, 2023.