John West Tuna!

chome4

New tins are now 112 grams (drained weight), down from 130 grams. Sold at the same price, of course.

DCFC79

chome4 wrote: »

New tins are now 112 grams (drained weight), down from 130 grams. Sold at the same price, of course.

Business costs are increasing so the costs are passed down to the consumer. At least the price hasn't been increased.

System

Perhaps they've reduced the mercury!

flashg67

DCFC79 wrote: »

Business costs are increasing so the costs are passed down to the consumer. At least the price hasn't been increased.

But the price has increased (if you want to buy 130g of Tuna that is!)

railbuff

exactly as DCFC79 says.

John West would have had several options

1) keep the same size tin and double the price
2) keep the same size tin and use some cheaper ingredients and charge the same price ( product may taste different)
3) reduce tin size and keep at same price

so they chose option 3

you will find they are not the only ones to do this as raw material/fuel prices increase

DCFC79

flashg67 wrote: »

But the price has increased (if you want to buy 130g of Tuna that is!)

I was just about to edit my reply to say something similar.

Not sure if the cost of tuna fishing has gone up as a whole but its possible.

meer53

Aldi Tuna, 57p per tin, better than John West.

DevCoder

Is it dolphin friendly though? (TIC)

Isnt John West moving to pole and line caught tuna? which might explain their cost increase.

stephen77

DCFC79 wrote: »

I was just about to edit my reply to say something similar.

Not sure if the cost of tuna fishing has gone up as a whole but its possible.

Are tuna and fish in general have twindling stocks?
Thus the price is going up supply and demand.

DevCoder

http://www.guampdn.com/article/20130106/NEWS01/301060316/Tuna-sells-1-76M-amid-dwindling-stock

Be glad you're not paying USD 1.76mio for it

Nauwol

Bought John West Tuna Chunks in Brine, 160g e, 112g drained weight. Opened the can, drained the contents with a bit of a squeeze in the tin.



To my amazement (and anger, to be honest), the contents were NO MORE THAN 77g!!!!



So I though, o.k., maybe JW define the process of draining (i.e. removing the added brine from the product) differently. Upon closer inspection of the can, however, the nutritional values for protein provided for the "drained can" definitely are based on 112g of high quality tuna and not a mixture of 77g of tuna and 35g of brine!


Am I the only one coming this result?





Could it be that by stretching the definition of what is described as "drained", JW are trying to stretch their profit margin at the expense of the unsuspecting consumer? We are not talking about "an acceptable margin of error" here, we are talking about a difference of over 30%!




Now, either there is a problem with JW definition of draining, or with claims regarding the nutritional value of the product - either way I feel cheated!



I have been seeing a lot of special offers on John West Tuna in the supermarkets of recent. Has that been funded by taking tuna out and making weight be replacing it by water? Is there a next food scandal on its way?


Does anyone have experience with things like this. To who's attention must I bring this?


Can someone in the MSE community validate my findings?