Follow up...

The Three Competitors!

So after posting my initial emails to Del Monte Foods (Starkist Tuna), I got a number of responses and decided to stage a Tuna Showdown between Starkist Tuna and any other brand (I chose my favorite, Chicken of The Sea). The following people were present: Steven Johnson, Samantha Recinto, and Matthew Rigsby.

The Analysis:
This was the set up. There were 3 Tuna products: Starkist Chunk Light Tuna (6oz can), Starkist Chunk Light Tuna (3oz pouch), and Chicken of The Sea Chunk Light Tuna (6oz can). The 2 cans range in cost from $0.30-$0.50. The Pouch was purchased on sale for $0.88 and generally costs $0.90-$1.05. All of them should theoretically contain 3oz of tuna, the cans holding an additional 3 oz of water.

Each product was drained (the cans were squeezed) and then the contents inside were analyzed after water removal was no longer possible. First the size of chunks was observed, as well as the overall quality/appearance. The Chicken of The Sea Tuna was drained further in a strainer, but the process was deemed unnecessary, as only an unmeasurable amount was added. This was not related to ease of draining, the practice was simply discontinued. Next, the remaining water for each product was measured. An exception to this was the pouch of Starkist Tuna, as our measuring equipment could not detect what would have seemed to have been only a few mL. Finally, the Tuna was taste tested.

The Analysis was judged on 4 different levels:

1. Size and quality of tuna chunks (since they are all called chunk light Tuna)
2. Ease of removing water
3. Quantity of water removed
4. Overall appearance/taste

The Results:

1 Size and Quality: The unquestionable winner was Chicken of The Sea Tuna. For reference, please view the attached photos. There were noticeably large chunks of tuna in the Chicken of The Sea can, whereas the Starkist can appeared in more of a shredded state. Many of the observers suggested that that was always how Tuna looked. However, a simple reflection of the name of the product (CHUNK light tuna, as opposed to SHREDDED light tuna) indicates the failure of the Starkist product in this category. The pouch of tuna was of the poorest quality in chunk size and quality. Whether because of its packaging, or because of flake selection, the pouch of tuna was closer to a crumble than either shreds, flakes, or chunks.

The Chicken of The Sea Chunk Quality Seen Up Close

The Starkist Can Quality Seen Up Close

The Starkist Pouch Quality Seen Up Close

Winner: Chicken of The Sea (2. Starkist Can 3. Starkist Pouch)

2. Water Removal: Disallowing previous bias, the 2 cans were equally mediocre in the ability to remove water. The Starkist can was significantly thinner and less durable. However, a can grip and squeeze device was used, so the quality of the can was not testable. The pouch was by far the easiest in removing water, simply because there was not a whole lot of water to remove. Both cans made small spills outside of the collecting bowl, due to the draining pressure. The pouch did not.

Winner: Starkist Pouch (2. Both Can Versions)

3. Quantity of Water (and therefore Quantity of Tuna): While significantly accurate devices were not employed, the quantity of water was measured for both cans. One point of note is that the theoretically correct amount of water in a can should be about 88-89 mL (3 oz). The Chicken of The Sea placed at approx. 90 mL. The Starkist Can placed at approx. 95-98 mL. The pouch, as stated before, held very little liquid. A few points to add, though, are first, the pouch weighed 3 oz, so any water means that there is less than 3 oz of tuna. The water for this product is not measurable against the cans. Also, because of the poor chunk quality of Starkist, it is arguable that more water was retained by Starkist, even though it produced more water. This could potentially mean that there is 5-10 mL more water in the Starkist can than in the Chicken of The Sea can.

The Water Quantity for Chicken Of The Sea. While it looks fuzzy, this was agreed upon at approx. 90 mL.

The Water Quantity for Starkist Tuna (can). While the exact amount is not known, all observers agreed that there was more water for Starkist, estimated at approx. 95-98 mL.

Winner: Chicken of The Sea Can (2. Starkist Pouch 3. Starkist Can)

4. The Chicken of The Sea Tuna was also rated most appealing, and was the best tasting can. This was in comparison to the visual product of both Starkist products. One important note is that the pouch tuna did have a lot more flavor, assumedly because the taste is not diluted in water. However, the Starkist can tasted like watery tuna, or tuna water, either one.

Winner: Can: Chicken of The Sea (2. Starkist) Pouch: Starkist (for flavor)



Conclusions:

After the test, when asked which product they would prefer, all observers selected Chicken of The Sea Tuna over Starkist. Matt Rigsby went so far as to choose the Chicken of The Sea Can ($0.40-$0.50) over the Starkist Pouch ($0.90-$1.05).

Personal Conclusion:
While I will feign respect at the pouch of Starkist Tuna, I must solidly attest to the quality of Chicken of The Sea's Tuna. COTS's base product, Chunk Light Tuna, beat out it's competitor's upgraded product costing twice as much. That competitor was Starkist. I am really glad that i convinced all of the observers to purchase COTS over Starkist, because i really can't stand starkist. In fact, I didn't even buy the can to hold to showdown. I refused to. I really can't wait to email Del Monte and let them know that I posted this on facebook, and convinced at least 3 friends to not buy Starkist again. That's what they get for providing a poor product, and then pretending like it's cuz they can't catch fish sometimes.

Love,
Grady