Walking down the canned fish aisle at the grocery store can feel overwhelming with dozens of tuna brands staring back at you. Most people assume all canned tuna tastes pretty much the same, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Some brands will leave you with a dry, metallic mess that tastes more like the can than actual fish, while others deliver restaurant-quality results that work perfectly in everything from quick sandwiches to fancy pasta dishes.
Chicken of the Sea tastes like wet cardboard
Remember Jessica Simpson’s famous confusion about whether Chicken of the Sea was actually chicken or fish? After tasting this brand, it’s easy to understand her bewilderment because it barely tastes like either. The moment you crack open a can, you’re greeted with a puddle of water surrounding pale, lifeless chunks of what used to be tuna. The fish itself feels bone-dry despite being submerged in all that liquid, creating an unpleasant contrast that makes every bite feel like chewing sawdust.
The taste is where things get really disappointing. Professional taste testers consistently describe this brand as completely leached of any real tuna character, leaving behind only bland, salty water and mushy texture. Even drowning it in mayonnaise for tuna salad can’t salvage the lackluster results. At around $1.16 for a 5-ounce can, it might seem like a bargain, but you’ll end up wasting money on something that ruins whatever dish you’re trying to make.
StarKist delivers overwhelming fishiness in the worst way
StarKist might be one of the most recognizable names in canned tuna, but recognition doesn’t equal quality. This brand has a major problem with delivering an overpowering fishy taste that hits you like a slap in the face. It’s not the clean, ocean-fresh fish taste you want from good tuna – instead, it’s the kind of aggressive fishiness that reminds you of a bait shop on a hot summer day.
The texture makes things even worse, with a mushy consistency that falls apart the moment you touch it with a fork. Taste test results show that many people can’t even finish a single bite of this tuna because the combination of overwhelming fishiness and poor texture is so off-putting. Despite being widely available and competitively priced at around $1.69 for solid albacore, this brand consistently ranks at the bottom of professional taste tests for good reason.
Safe Catch sounds healthy but tastes terrible
Safe Catch markets itself as the premium option with the lowest mercury levels and sustainable fishing practices, which sounds great on paper. The company tests every single fish for mercury and packs their tuna without water, oil, or preservatives. At $4.14 for a 5-ounce can, you’re paying a premium price for what should be premium quality, but the reality is far different from the marketing promises.
The actual eating experience is genuinely unpleasant. The tuna has a strange metallic taste that lingers long after you’ve swallowed, combined with an overly salty profile that doesn’t taste natural. Professional reviewers describe the aftertaste as particularly offensive, giving off fishy vibes that are nothing like clean, quality tuna should taste. The texture might be less dry than water-packed alternatives, but that small advantage can’t make up for the unpalatable metallic and salty combination that ruins any recipe.
Bumble Bee feels like eating wood chips
Bumble Bee’s solid white albacore tuna looks promising when you first open the can, with its clean white appearance and chunky texture. The company has had some business troubles over the years, including price-fixing scandals and bankruptcy, but the real problem lies in what ends up on your plate. The moment you take a bite, you’re hit with an unusual sawdust-like sensation that makes eating feel like chewing on bland wood chips rather than fish.
The dry texture compounds the strange woody taste, creating an experience that’s more like eating cardboard than seafood. Even though it’s competitively priced at around $1.94 for a 5-ounce can, taste tests reveal consistent complaints about the sawdust-like character that overwhelms any actual tuna taste. The chunks might look substantial, but they crumble into dry, flavorless pieces that require significant amounts of mayo or other moisture just to become edible in basic recipes like tuna salad.
Blue Harbor offers zero taste and gritty texture
Blue Harbor presents itself as a sustainable option with line-caught albacore and Marine Stewardship Council certification, which appeals to environmentally conscious shoppers. The packaging promises quality with its clean design and eco-friendly messaging, but opening the can reveals a product that barely registers as food. The tuna has virtually no discernible taste – not good taste, not bad taste, just nothing at all.
What makes Blue Harbor particularly unpleasant is the gritty texture that feels like dampened sandpaper in your mouth. Detailed taste evaluations consistently note this sandy, rough quality that makes chewing uncomfortable and unappetizing. While the sustainable fishing practices deserve recognition, the complete lack of taste combined with the unpleasant mouthfeel means this tuna will ruin whatever dish you’re trying to create, regardless of how many other ingredients you add to mask its shortcomings.
Trader Joe’s delivers bland disappointment despite the hype
Trader Joe’s has built a reputation for offering unique, high-quality products at reasonable prices, which makes their canned tuna particularly disappointing. The store offers limited options – basically salt or no-salt albacore and wild skipjack in packets – but none of them deliver the taste experience you’d expect from a brand known for food quality. The tuna lacks any distinctive character, tasting more like flavorless protein than actual fish.
The texture falls somewhere between mushy and dry, creating an unpleasant mouthfeel that doesn’t improve with mixing into salads or sandwiches. Comparative taste tests show that despite Trader Joe’s claims about mercury testing and sustainable fishing practices, the actual eating experience ranks poorly against other brands. The lack of real tuna taste means you’ll need to add significant seasonings and mix-ins to make it palatable, essentially masking the main ingredient entirely.
Good and Gather tastes overly salty and mushy
Target’s Good and Gather brand seems like it should be a safe middle-ground option with Marine Stewardship Council certification and competitive pricing at around $2.19 for solid white albacore. The sustainable fishing practices and attractive packaging suggest a quality product, but the actual tuna inside tells a different story. The overwhelming saltiness hits you immediately, creating an unpleasant briny experience that masks any natural fish taste.
The texture problems make things worse, with a mushy consistency that falls apart when you try to mix it into recipes. Professional taste panels note sharp, acidic, and bitter undertones that create an unpleasant eating experience. Some testers even describe detecting grassy or celery-like off-tastes that have nothing to do with tuna. The tiny, shredded flakes dissolve into an unappetizing paste that resembles wet wood pulp more than fish, making it impossible to create decent tuna salad or other dishes.
365 by Whole Foods tastes more like oil than fish
Whole Foods’ 365 brand carries expectations of quality and sustainability that their albacore tuna completely fails to meet. Whether you choose the water-packed version at $2.99 or the extra-virgin olive oil variety, both options deliver disappointing results that don’t justify the premium pricing. The oil-packed version has a bizarre problem where it tastes overwhelmingly of olive oil while somehow still leaving the actual tuna dry and unpleasant.
The water-packed alternative isn’t much better, offering large chunks that look promising but taste bland and require significant moisture to become edible. Blind taste tests consistently rank this brand poorly because the tuna lacks any distinctive character or appealing taste. Despite the Marine Stewardship Council certification and sustainable fishing claims, the actual product tastes more like packaging materials than quality fish, making it a waste of money regardless of your environmental concerns.
What actually makes good canned tuna worth buying
After wading through all these disappointing options, it’s worth understanding what separates good canned tuna from the terrible stuff. Quality tuna should have distinct, meaty flakes that hold together when you fork them but break apart easily when mixed. The fish should taste clean and oceanic without any metallic, woody, or overly fishy off-notes that overpower your recipes.
The best brands like Tonnino and Ortiz consistently deliver restaurant-quality results that work beautifully in everything from simple sandwiches to elegant pasta dishes. These premium options cost more – sometimes $7 or more per can – but they provide actual tuna taste that doesn’t require masking with excessive mayo or seasonings. The texture remains firm and appealing, while the fish itself delivers the clean, satisfying taste that good canned tuna should provide.
Skip the disappointing brands that will ruin your lunch and invest in quality tuna that actually tastes like fish instead of cardboard or metal. Your sandwiches, salads, and pasta dishes will thank you, and you’ll finally understand why some people genuinely enjoy eating canned tuna instead of just tolerating it as cheap protein.
