Fi gure 8 

 PERCENTAGE OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES 

 CANNED IN NO. i CANS, 1935 - 1952 



YEAR 1935 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 1952 



Based on data in table 10 



U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 



A poesl'ble small chazige in cein size might result from the pending 

 rood and Drug Administration standards for canned tuna. These stand- 

 ards are expected to call for a fill-in wei^t of 6.0 ounces of tuna 

 for the solid pack smd 5»75 ounces for the other packs. Biis is greater 

 than the present fill-in weights used in the industry. One possibility 

 of avoiding an increase in the price per can ^ioh would result from such 

 a standard is a reduction in the height of the can hy such an amount that 

 the fill-in wei^t would not have to te changed. Biis could he done 

 without increasing the cost per can to the consumer as h« would get Just 

 ae much fish as formerly. One drawba^f to such a change is that it is 

 believed that foreign importations would still employ the standard No. ji 

 tuna can since it would not require any significant change in present 

 packing prooedxire of foreign prooessore to comply with the proposed 

 standards. This woxild place the domestic pack at a disadvantage. If 

 foreign and domestic cans of tuna were adjacent to each other on the 

 grocer's shelf, at the same price, consumers would tend to choose the 

 slightly larger oan. Present thinking in the tuna industry is reported 

 to be against adoption of the slightly smaller oan when and if the 

 standards go into effect. 



The tuna canning industry does not anticipate euiy marked change 

 in the oan sizes used in the futvire. The large institutional size 

 cans are said to be less popular than might be anticipated because the 

 production costs are vexy little less per pound of finished product than 

 smaller sizes. In fact, some processors claim that it costs as aiuch or 

 more, proportionally, to pack the Ho. k tuna oan as the Bo. ^ can. 



73 



