Tuna chunks become tuna flakes after several up and down movements of the jaw and it's tuna, it taste the same :wink:

Not so, the flakes are often scrap/waste product whereas the chunks/steaks are usually much better quality fish

The fish connoisseurs are out in force...

Flakes wouldn't, but would you?

Tuna flakes... Tuna Chunks are a lot nicer :smiley:

Great price, excellent for the cats

the actual deal is 3 tins for £1.

flakes wouldn't give that to the dog's

Christ guys, it's all mushed up anyways, I would get it if we were talking vs a whole Tuna but c'mon, this is all going with mayonnaise :P

The fish connoisseurs are out in force...

Flakes wouldn't, but would you?

do they have it in spring water? Haha, dirty brine..

Is this fished from sustainable sources?

Looked it up myself: It initially appears they are but on closer inspection it does seem a little.. fishy:

Princes Sustainability Statement

Personally I read this as "most, but not all."

Hot for those who like flakes

I'm allergic to fish lol

Not so, the flakes are often scrap/waste product whereas the chunks/steaks are usually much better quality fish

​Surely its still tuna at the end of the day that you just mush up with mayo?

John West is terrible, 98% of their tuna is caught using harmful methods, compared to 75% for Princess.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/oceans/justtuna-league-table

I'll be more sustainable by recycling my empty tin of john west tuna steak as princes flakes make me wanna barf

word of warning when draining this tuna do not turn tin upside down and push lid up as you Will have a fishy shower as lid is thin it buckles cheap tins like cheap tuna in side

Mrs gave me a fishy shower last night too

25g protein per can!

Tuna is really cheap lately, ASDA were doing it for 40p a tin

Id be more worried about where it comes from rather than it being flaked or chunks. If its from the north pacific it could kill you slowly and painfully. Reseach it.

Wouldn't give Dogs to the flakes either :wink:

Certainly are :wink:

These sustainability statements are designed to hoodwink you. This statement is absolutely absent of a shred of evidence that they are actually doing sustainability. How do they measure their claim?!

Tuna flakes are always 3 for £1 in pound stretcher, tried them but not keen, they retain more water than chunks and don't taste as nice. Good deal if you like flakes though

Thanks for clearing that up! :man:

Yawn...

Hey everyone, wake up! Einstein's come back from the dead!

Tell us more of your insightful wisdom, oh intelligent one!

Why would you think Greenpeace has ANY power to tell any private company how to fish? If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.

​only 75% gawd.

Go into Aldi, you have the choice of the Dolphin murdered ones or not (I know this isn't the same as sustainability).

Flakes (Floor sweepings)
Cold.

Unfortunately research for most people is 20 minutes of googling and looking at the most scary sounding articles without doing any fact checking.

I hate skip jack tuna. Albacore or yellow tail all the way. Also Princes tastes like a hoover bag. :sunglasses:

Mercury in fish guidelines >

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/06/too-much-tuna-too-much-mercury/index.htm

http://www.food.gov.uk/news-updates/news/2015/13461/eating-fish-efsa

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/chem-chim/environ/mercur/cons-adv-etud-eng.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish

It's safe to eat all fish, just not too often depending on the fish, the guidelines are based on the current scientific evidence, which is why I've given more than one link so there's a broader range of information.

​couldn't care less if im honest

Lol, hit the link and it brings a picture up of a chicken, surely tuna doesn't taste like chicken?

Super hot deal, can't believe the amount of negative comments really considering it's 33p per tin!

If you want fancy, carefully caught tuna go pay for it! I'd say the fact you can get ANY kind of tuna for this price is pretty good myself....

Tuna flakes are bleedin awful. Tuna sludge more like

Is this nationwide?

I am not sure if these would be good for feeding to cats as there is too much salt in them .

This. I haven't bought Tuna since Fukushima. As most manufacturers no longer state where their Tuna was sourced, I'd rather not chance it.

No idea why people keep going on about chunks vs flakes, the important argument is oil Vs brine (oil being superior obviously)!

Sadly there are none of their shops near me, but it still a good deal so have an up-vote ;^>

​Tuna flakes make me gip from the smell I eat Tuna chunks all the time

​Chunks taste far better, I always thought they was always the same until I tasted both! Flakes like most people say are the remains of Tuna (not the scraps as they are used as pet food) they taste horrid no matter what juice they are stored in!!

Because I don't live in ignorance, I'm able to understand the impact of what happens beyond my own front door, because I care about people other than myself, because I understand that the planet has finite resources and that by killing them we're killing ourselves and future generations..

..but you're not going to understand a word of that.

Many private companies will do anything - anything - to make more money. That means doing it at your expense, which unsustainable fishing is. In buying fish from unsustainable sources you are, in a small way, helping to ensure that we might never be able to eat them again, depriving everyone of at least one food source, and helping to further upset the balance of the ecosystem on which we all depend to survive.

Except you aren't the only person who Princes sell to, so the impact is much bigger. Failure to accept this is moronic, aside from being selfish, and that's exactly why I'm taking the time to explain it in the assumption that even if it doesn't help you realise that, it might reach someone else and get us all a little bit closer to a sensible way of living on this planet.

Not at my expense at all: I don't buy tinned tuna.

I'm simply a realist. Private companies sell this because people demand it. The UK is a pull economy and if something does not sell, it will not be produced. You can cry and bemoan as much as you like but your efforts will fall on deaf ears.

That's just not true. People aren't demanding tuna that isn't sustainable, sure you'll have the usual minority of "I don't care" brigade and they'll be a lost cause, but most will be buying tuna completely unaware of the situation either way. Mainly because companies would love this to be hushed up so they can keep making money in the short term.

I don't think you understand how groups like Greenpeace, and discussing sustainability in places like this, actually works. It's about raising awareness because of the above. People wouldn't know half the damage that's being done if it wasn't for Greenpeace and their campaigns, and with enough awareness, people do indeed stop buying these products.

So asking about the sustainability practice is exactly harnessing that power of something that doesn't sell not being produced.

And how has that gone for them? JW and Princes' continue to do what they like because Greenpeace have ZERO power.

Well, their John West campaign is ongoing. As, it appears, is your ignorance:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/successes

Claimed success. JW still doing what they've always done...

And that article is from 2011.

This counters what you have said

What are you talking about? One of the articles is from 2011. You can clearly read so why didn't you see the others? I'm not just talking about tuna. JW is one of their ongoing campaigns which is exactly what I said. In contrast, your idea that an organisation would have kept going from 1971 without any power to effect change is quite simply laughable, which is why I linked you to clear proof of the opposite.


You aren't a realist. You're just genuinely ignorant.

How's their fight vs the Japanese going?

Since it's obvious you're not someone who's genuinely looking to educate yourself a bit and aren't really asking that as an open question, I'll assume you're either:

1) Being petulant
2) Actually trying to claim that, because one cause is difficult, that somehow negates all they've managed to achieve (and will in future) despite you having previously claimed they have "zero" power
3) All of the above

Petulant? No dear, simply correct.

Greenpeace, as much as you love to claim are some angels sent from God, are actually a small charity trying to cash in on global events to suit their own cause. Take whaling that I've mentioned (which you could not even challenge): Greenpeace conduct (and have conducted) many anti-whaling expeditions, but only to gain economic donations from the US economy. It had little to do with saving the environment.

You would find, if YOU educate YOURself that shark hunting is a much bigger problem for the environment, but since sharks are predominated hated or described as a pest, they're not a big money maker in the US.

Naturally, Greenpeace (and yourself no doubt) will reject this. However, a Greenpeace activist by the name of Kumi Naidoo. admitted that the anti-whale campaign was a "miscalculation", much like their whole ethos.

So as I said previously, not many people care about how their tuna is sourced. Companies will continue to provide it as there is a demand. If you are oblivious to simple economics then I cannot help that. Good try though! :wink:

Yes, petulant. And additionally this is known as a strawman argument.

What exactly did you want me to challenge on whaling? Are you seriously trying to tell me that because Greenpeace and the many other likeminded bodies who oppose Japan's position on whaling have yet to stop them, that all efforts to reduce whaling have been ineffective and therefore a waste of time?


Please provide a source for your claim. Until you do it can be considered entirely false.

In a similar vein, the link you've provided, aside from it being in Norwegian, is also behind a paywall.


Again, no source. Your posts are riddled with little more than conjecture, ignorant of both logic and the facts. And quite what shark hunting has to do with anything I'm not sure, as if caring about what happens to the planet that (currently) allows us all to be alive is somehow invalid if one is aware of the impact on whales but not on sharks.

As an aside, would I be correct that you are a climate change denier, sir/madam? Or do you just have an irrational allergy to Greenpeace alone?

And as if it couldn't be more perfect timing, I have, as a Greenpeace supporter, literally just received the following email in my inbox:

"Waitrose have announced that if John West don’t clean up their act by 2017, they’ll take their unsustainable tuna off the shelves! [...] Waitrose’s announcement comes just one week after Tesco threatened to drop John West unless they sort out their supply chain."

:smile:

The Norweigan article WAS the proof, dear.


But yours are correct?


Humans have contributed to a change in climate, but climate change as a concept is cyclical.


You brought them up...

"If this, then that..." Don't think JW care too much what Waitrose think. They have a 5.2% market share of the UK.

Tesco should worry more about what in their cans of Tesco value tuna....

..a 5.2% share of the market while they're still on shelves, which they will not want to lose. The power of financial pressure, you see. Basic economics.

:smile:

By this point, I'm satisfied that you are quite possibly not just a climate changer denier but also someone who prefers the sound of their own voice (or indeed in this case, the sight of their own typing) long over the reality of any situation in general. We already waste too much energy as a species and that's what I'm doing on you. So you can have the last word if you feel you need it, because you've already been proven wrong. And thank you for your email today Greenpeace, and keep up the great work.

<3

JW won't care given that their parent owner has a turnover of almost £2.5bn per year. They'll continue via other stores such as Farm Foods/Poundland/etc and through their other subsidiaries throughout the world


Says the person who has to vehemently protect Greenpeace...


And will continue to do so...


By whom? You've proven nothing other than Greenpeace still have zero effect on JWs fishing exploits

For previous posters on Green peace they have a campaign going where they ask members
to email say a supermarket . The John West Tuna campaign resulted in 42,000 people emailing Waitrose supermarket resulting in them announcing they will stop stocking John West in 2017 if John West have not changed their fishing policy by then .

Greenpeace are now asking members to email Tescos . So people power can make a difference another example of which is change.org petitions which have and are changing Government policy or holding them to account.

As the song goes " he had high hopes ...look their goes another rubber tree plant!"

Is this still on?