Imported Carbon Monoxide (CO) Treated Tunas Imported Carbon Monoxide (CO) Treated Tunas and its Impact on the Consumers and Fisheries and its Impact on the Consumers and Fisheries

Industry in HawaiiIndustry in Hawaii

Minling Pan Minling Pan NOAA Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science CenterNOAA Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

Wuyang HuWuyang HuUniversity of KentuckyUniversity of Kentucky

North American Association of Fisheries Economists (NAAFE) 2009 ForumNorth American Association of Fisheries Economists (NAAFE) 2009 Forum

Newport, RI, May 17-20, 2009Newport, RI, May 17-20, 2009

Research BackgroundResearch Background Hawaii residents have traditionally consumed Hawaii residents have traditionally consumed

substantial amounts of fresh bigeye and substantial amounts of fresh bigeye and yellowfin tunas. yellowfin tunas.

Typically, the local demand for tuna is met by Typically, the local demand for tuna is met by local commercial fisheries. local commercial fisheries.

The end products for consumption are known as The end products for consumption are known as sashimisashimi and and ahi pokeahi poke (bite-sized pieces of raw (bite-sized pieces of raw tunas mixed with seasoning). Some people call tunas mixed with seasoning). Some people call ahi pokeahi poke “ raw tuna salad” “ raw tuna salad”

Ahi Poke (Raw Tuna Salad)

Sashimi

Direct Tuna Imports to HawaiiDirect Tuna Imports to Hawaii Retail market observations suggest a growing emergence of Retail market observations suggest a growing emergence of

imported tunas imported tunas

However, no increase trends of direct imports to Hawaii; The data However, no increase trends of direct imports to Hawaii; The data show that imports were about 10% of locally caught tunasshow that imports were about 10% of locally caught tunas

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Dir

ect

imp

ort

s (m

illi

on

lb

s)

Imported Fresh Imported Frozen

Fresh Tunas Exports from HawaiiFresh Tunas Exports from Hawaii

Exports to Japan increased in recent yearsExports to Japan increased in recent years Exports to U.S. mainland, no dataExports to U.S. mainland, no data

-

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.4

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Exp

ort

s (m

illio

ns

lbs)

Fresh bigeye and yellowfin exported to Japan

Imported Tunas to HawaiiImported Tunas to Hawaii

Product from – previously frozen, treated Product from – previously frozen, treated with carbon monoxide (CO)with carbon monoxide (CO)

Transshipped to Hawaii from U.S. mainlandTransshipped to Hawaii from U.S. mainland A box with label “Frozen tuna, treated with carbon monoxide” to A box with label “Frozen tuna, treated with carbon monoxide” to

promote color retention”, packed in CApromote color retention”, packed in CA

Mostly sold as Mostly sold as ahi poke ahi poke in retail market in in retail market in HawaiiHawaii

What is CO Treated TunaWhat is CO Treated Tuna Cryogenic freezing Cryogenic freezing

Low temperature (- 196°C ~ -78°C ) to preserve tuna for fresh useLow temperature (- 196°C ~ -78°C ) to preserve tuna for fresh use High costHigh cost

Before freezing, treated with COBefore freezing, treated with CO CO can arrest the oxidization process and allows the fish to retain CO can arrest the oxidization process and allows the fish to retain

its fresh red color for days after thawing from frozenits fresh red color for days after thawing from frozen Invented in 1996 and patent in 1999, called “Tasteless Smoke”Invented in 1996 and patent in 1999, called “Tasteless Smoke”

Low cost and no seasonal limitationLow cost and no seasonal limitation Concerns over food safety and fish quality associated with carbon Concerns over food safety and fish quality associated with carbon

monoxide treated tuna monoxide treated tuna

Evidence of the increase trend into U.S. Evidence of the increase trend into U.S. Frozen tuna into LA portFrozen tuna into LA port Imports from Indonesia, Philippines, & Vietnam (source of CO Imports from Indonesia, Philippines, & Vietnam (source of CO

treated tunatreated tuna

Frozen Yellowfin and Bigeye Tuna Imported into Los Angeles Frozen Yellowfin and Bigeye Tuna Imported into Los Angeles (1989–2007)(1989–2007)

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Volume (in millions of pounds)

YELLOWFIN BIGEYE

Frozen Tuna Imports into U.S. Frozen Tuna Imports into U.S. from Indonesia, Philippines, & Vietnam (1989–2007)from Indonesia, Philippines, & Vietnam (1989–2007)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

Tu

na

Imp

ort

s (

mill

ion

lbs

)

Impacts to the IndustryImpacts to the Industry

Bigeye price declined Bigeye price declined from $5.30/lb 1991 to from $5.30/lb 1991 to $3:30/lb 2007$3:30/lb 2007

Landing increased Landing increased from 3 to 13 million lbs from 3 to 13 million lbs

Total imports?Total imports? ((U.S. mainlandU.S. mainland ~ Foreign) ~ Foreign)

Total exports?Total exports? ((U.S. mainlandU.S. mainland + Japan) + Japan)

Total consumption? Total consumption? ((U.S. mainlandU.S. mainland + Japan) + Japan)

Pilot Study on the Retail MarketPilot Study on the Retail Market CO treated tunas price is lower $2-3 per pound CO treated tunas price is lower $2-3 per pound

(compared to locally fresh)(compared to locally fresh)

Noticeably larger volumes of previously frozen & CO Noticeably larger volumes of previously frozen & CO treated treated ahi pokeahi poke available in seafood display windows available in seafood display windows compared to fresh compared to fresh ahi pokeahi poke

Consumers may not be aware of the existing of the CO treated tunas – inflated demand tunas – inflated demand Very small difference in the appearance Very small difference in the appearance Advertised as “freshly made”Advertised as “freshly made”

To conduct a conjoint study To conduct a conjoint study Quantify consumers’ preference for the treated tuna vs. locally Quantify consumers’ preference for the treated tuna vs. locally

caught tunacaught tuna Understand consumer behavior changes given full knowledge Understand consumer behavior changes given full knowledge

about the productabout the product

Consumer Preference (Conjoint) StudyConsumer Preference (Conjoint) Study Survey design – two partsSurvey design – two parts

Consumers’ knowledge/awareness on the CO Consumers’ knowledge/awareness on the CO treated tuna in the retail markettreated tuna in the retail market

Conjoint study – measure consumers’ value on different Conjoint study – measure consumers’ value on different attributes of the attributes of the ahiahi poke (ongoing study) poke (ongoing study)

Focus groupFocus group Testing the surveyTesting the survey

Fieldwork (~400 interviews)Fieldwork (~400 interviews) Farmers markets (50%)Farmers markets (50%) Supper markets (50%)Supper markets (50%)

Survey Results Survey Results – Importance of the attributes– Importance of the attributes

 

Previouslyfrozen

(%)Origin (%)

Treatment (CO treated)

(%)Color (%)

Recipe (%)

Price (%)

Very important 51 55 67 65 51 50

Somewhat Important 37 32 20 29 33 42

NotImportant 9 11 6 5 14 8

Don't Know 2 2 7 1 2 0

Have You ever Purchased TS or CO Treated Ahi Have You ever Purchased TS or CO Treated Ahi Poke?Poke?

Answers Freq. (N) Percent

Yes 106 25%

No 158 37%

Don't know 161 38%

Total 425 100%

Survey Results Survey Results Are you aware of TS or CO treated Are you aware of TS or CO treated ahiahi poke? poke?

Are you aware ofAre you aware of

Actual purchasing Actual purchasing behaviorbehavior

Answer N %

Yes 198 47%

No 222 53%

Total 420 100%

47% >$6.99

23% ~$7-8.99

31% >$9.00

36% >$6.99

24% ~$7-8.99

40% >$9.00

Yes

No

Primary Factor to Determine Primary Factor to Determine FreshnessFreshness

  Freq. Percent

Color 148 35%

Taste 105 25%

Knowing its never been frozen 32 8%

Knowing its locally-caught 40 9%

No difference 49 12%

Other 49 12%

Total 423 100%

Which One Looks Better?Which One Looks Better?

 Cube

(before marinate)Poke

(after marinate)

Which one looks better to you?  N % N %

Card 1 (treated with CO) 214 53% 171 42%

Card 2 (Fresh) 111 28% 149 37%

Both are good 7 2% 7 2%

Neither 71 18% 79 19%

Preliminary Results & ConclusionsPreliminary Results & Conclusions The demand of CO treated tunas may have been The demand of CO treated tunas may have been

inflated due to consumers’ unawarenessinflated due to consumers’ unawareness

More than 50% of consumers were not aware of More than 50% of consumers were not aware of the existence of CO treated tunasthe existence of CO treated tunas

Color played an important role in determining Color played an important role in determining freshness. However, CO treatment made the freshness. However, CO treatment made the product look fresh/fresher product look fresh/fresher

The ongoing conjoint analysis is expected to The ongoing conjoint analysis is expected to quantify the marginal value of various attributes quantify the marginal value of various attributes of the tuna products, such treated vs. no-treated, of the tuna products, such treated vs. no-treated, imported vs. local, and previously frozen vs. freshimported vs. local, and previously frozen vs. fresh