I bought 175 g pack of salami which had 162 g of salami as well.
Let me introduce you to tolerance in measuring instruments and measuring errors.
Edit: Apparently I’m pro evil companies because I just pointed out that scales (and more importantly non-professional scales) have relatively high error tolerances (+ the measurament method error). Thus the measuring of this pasta and the possible interpretations of it have to take into account that.
“Always” is a really strong word that you should not be using in this context since it’s just not true.
For example, there once was more than indicated on a package of lentils in 1958. So it’s clearly not always.
That does not apply in today’s world where shrinkflation and consumer fraud run rampant.
It us solely the company’s responsibility to ensure each package is labeled with the correct weight, not the consumer to tolerate excuses like “measuing errors” whether they’re valid or not. Companies have too much power to just not know or be able to accurately weigh or label their product, ergo if there’s a problem, they chose to have it in there. And if you dispute that, I will simply block you and move on.
Stop defending evil corporations. Stop doing this.
You think tolerances and measuring errors don’t exist just because shrinkflation and fraud are things that exist?
I hate capitalism and corporate bullshit, too, but I don’t need to get outraged at the shit that’s barely an inconvenience like missing 8 grams of spaghetti in a 410 gram package that was mass produced. That shit would happen even if the companies weren’t asshats.
Yes, they are literally just excuses for shrinkflation and companies only benefit from shitheads like you to give them an easy out.
The world doesn’t revolve around tiny minute details and jargon from a field that doesn’t actually positively affect most people’s lives.
Our kitchen scales are the standard, not your overblown overpriced ones that are too precise to be meaningful to the average consumer.
We are in charge, not you.
All that speech does not change that the weighing scales he is using is cheap af and thus the measuring error is high enough. Even if the guys at the company had the best measuring system in the world without error and they packed 410g of pasta, the guy measuring at home with that scale would probably mesure a vaule not equal to the nominal one.
Maybe the scales have measuring errors because they defend evil corporations. “Please scales stop defending evil corporations!!”. Dude i hate scales they are so much pro system…
Srry your comment was too funny for me.
All that speech doesn’t change the fact that your standards don’t matter, ours do, and if our scales don’t match what that package says, you have to put more product in to make it do so or you are defrauding us. Period.
Now come back when you’re ready to meet our standards.
Sup, I’m your local friendly USDA contractor who very much uses scales everyday. Consumer grade kitchen scales are terrible and will lie to you. The fact that it does not go out to the tenths or hundredths is a big flag for accuracy.
We check test our scales twice a year to make sure they are accurate. I once tried check testing my kitchen scale I use for canning for giggles and it failed miserably. It would only register weight on 2 out of 4 quadrants until I got to 10g or so. I’m sure my ohaus is going to show a different and more accurate result if I where to try it.
Eight grams off? That seems rather significant. I mean we use to buy 20 grams of weed we’d know if it was almost half shy.
Unless you were using a certified scale and checking it with certified check weights every time you used it, you were just guessing and hoping your dealer wasn’t randomly or purposely off. And density of the material weighed matters also. Weed is far less dense than pasta so a discrepancy can be more noticeable since it takes a larger volume of weed to reach a particular weight than pasta does.
Understand that a digital kitchen scale is made with the cheapest load sensors a manufacturer is willing to pay for. Nor do they come with any kind of traceable certification as to accuracy class. In fact you get no guarantee that your shiny new kitchen scale is fit for even that purpose - just that it turns on, lights up, and displays something when you place a load upon it.
Accuracy is a cruel and VERY expensive mistress to chase. And most people don’t understand it anyway.
Now, I agree with you that if you believe a home kitchen scale is telling the truth, you are a fool. But as an old toolmaker who dabbled in accuracy for a living, displayed digits does not equal accuracy nor even repeatability. And there can be a fair amount of interpretation involved in analog beam scales.
I think it’s just another PPS, (piss poor scale), scale that is neither accurate nor repeatable. And the packaging material weights are rarely included in listed weights. Since packaging can change at any time due to costs.
Well, it can’t be packaged to scientific standards, it has to be packaged to ours.
Scale accuracy was never a problem or scrutinized until ow, and successfully helped people lose weight, so it’s not the accuracy of the scales that is an issue.
This is blatant consumer fraud and nothing in your field can change that fact, clearly.
This just doesn’t make sense.
You wouldn’t say the same when talking about other products. If you buy ibuprofen for example you wouldn’t say “it can’t be packaged to scientific standards, it has to be packaged to ours” if you try to weigh a single pill with your kitchen scale.
Stuff HAS to be packaged to scientific standards. Period.
If your tools at home aren’t accurate enough or simply aren’t properly calibrated for a specific job, it can’t be the fault of the producer.
If you use a 2€ kitchen scale that is 10 years old you can’t blame the producer if your measurement is off by 10%.
The producer cannot make sure YOUR equipment is proper for the task, and they can’t make sure EVERYONES scales see the exact same. So of course they have to weigh with their own scales and surprise surprise they use extremely precise scales that are properly calibrated and tested regularly.
I think you’re a bit off track. scale accuracy has been a subject of careful scrutiny for millenia. You absolutely have to use the right tool for the job. A kitchen scale is not the right tool for the job. It would be like complaining that you can’t take your car’s lug nuts off with a pipe wrench.
Your comment doesn’t make sense, since home tools are not precise enough and that is not the manufacter fault. I suggest you read about Metrology
I remember being in school 20 years ago and being taught about scale inaccuracies and the importance of frequent calibration. The thing about weight loss is that you will lose weight if you’re in a deficit. Your daily calorie needs are going to fluctuate a little bit, regardless. Most people don’t keep activity the exact same, sleep the exact same, take exactly the same steps everyday, plus hormones fluctuate, etc. Your measurements don’t have to be precise, just close enough. People have also lost weight with sloppy volumetric measurements, counting out chips, or even eyeballing the amount of space taken up on their plate. MyPlate.gov was rolled out after consumer research found that it works.
wouldnt weight slightly fluctuate with moisture content?
yeah. 8g is a tiny weight difference here and could easily be accounted-for due to humidity with pasta. it’s about the weight of 3-4 strands of that pasta
Could also just be losing a strand or two in packaging. It happens. That’s why they’re allowed some wiggle room on the packaging weight, and 8 grams is a pretty reasonable margin of error for a product like this.
Shrinkflation is definitely a thing, but this isn’t a good example.
So they package it wet? If the weight went down it means the pasta was wetter at time of boxing.
not wet, but probably not nearly as dry, per se. also, fluctuations in temperature (specifically, mass of air in the packaging), as well as calibration issues on the devices- if you use two devices to measure… you’ll always get slightly off measurements.
It’s far more likely that this is just weight variation which is allowable per the Food Safety and Inspection Service
However, I would sooner blame the scale itself as it doesn’t look like a scientific scale. So it’s likely not calibrated and will drift over time. Plenty of things could explain an 8g difference as measured by the average joe.
The Hoover Dam concrete would cure in 125 years by conventional or natural methods. Crews, however, used some innovative engineering methods to hasten the process.
Nearly 600 miles of steel pipes woven through the concrete blocks significantly reduced the chemical heat from the setting for the concrete. Crews relied on 1,000-pound blocks of ice produced daily at the site’s ammonia-refrigeration plant.
Would have doesn’t mean is. Source
When you see “Net weight” or a symbol that looks like a big minuscule “e”, it means that the package weight doesn’t count.
I had to explain to my kids the other day how you don’t ever wish death on anyone. I was just going to ask if OP lives somewhere dry, because that would explain why they’re seeing this with so many foods.
People might be wondering wtf there’s no moisture in dry pasta. But there is: it will absorb moisture content from the surrounding atmosphere.
I had to learn about this effect because of woodworking. Wood absorbs enough moisture to appreciably change in size over the seasons, to the point where your whole table can crack in half if it’s built the wrong way.
If you want to get technical, aren’t grams a measure of mass, not weight, so a kitchen scale needs to assume a value for gravity’s acceleration to tell you grams, which could be slightly off depending where you are on earth?
I thought that you were on to something and did a quick google search: the variation is apparently only 0.5%. And a variation that big is only found when comparing a measurement on the poles (heavier) vs the equator (lighter) and I think it unlikely that this pasta was made on Antarctica. So nope, it’s not the reason, they really do owe the op 2 grams of pasta.
tldr; why not both
Volume is not mass, and neither of them is weight. A gram is strictly speaking a measure of mass, and we just consider it to be a unit of weight in casual terms because the only frame of reference the vast majority of us have has reasonably constant gravity so we conflate mass and weight. That you can sort of use grams to measure volume is literally only because the density of common stuff (especially water) is close enough for most purposes. It’s kinda like measuring a distance in units of time so long as the method of travel is known. I can say “an hour’s walk” and I’m not really measuring distance there but you know roughly how far I mean
I think its a fair question from a certain perspective.
However, the law requires that the package contents contain at least as much as stated. If humidity is an issue, it’s up to the manufacturer to factor that in. Besides, this is dry pasta my friend.
I also bought salami. It was 13 g short. It’s produced in the plant 4km from me.
There are no excuses to short the customer and it is illegal.
It is not illegal to sell a single container under the listed net weight.
The net weight must not be under the average weight of a sample of packages. There’s a whole set of rules for maximum allowable variance and for packages under a pound, it’s a little more than 7 grams.
Your scale is almost certainly not accurate enough to tell the difference a few tenths of a gram would make.
ha, define dry (youll need to be precise). how long in the atmosphere is a packaged product warrantied to hold its weight? just curious
No you’re not curious lol You’re doing textbook sea lioning
Go find someone else to mildly anmoy
And that’s literally how we got the bakers dozen.
If your dozen of baked goods wasn’t above a threshold you would be harshly punished. So bakers would give an extra so there’s no way they would get in trouble.
Why are you getting downvoted? Why is Lemmy defending rich corporations and not consumers??
You opened dry pasta in a dry room and got less than the advertised amount. If there’s residual moisture in the factory that evaporates, that is their problem, not ours. Yes it’s a small variation, but that reasoning works both ways: they should include a few extra strands to make sure the consumer gets the right amount.
-2% is probably allowed and this is -1.95%. It’s okay I guess. I’d probably trust my cheap, regularly used and never calibrated kitchen scale less than I would trust these companies to comply with such rules.
Actually it’s usually closer to 5%, but to avoid consumers getting mad most companies have internal variance limits of less. Still, 2% is pretty tight for manufacturing equipment. Despite the mass prevalence of corporate greed, it does end up being better for most companies overall to be on the slightly heavy end of net weight rather than lower end and most manufacturing guardrails and in line weight checks are calibrated with that in mind.
This is entirely due to the risk of images like this going viral and causing blowback for the company. So, to keep products on average a little heavier, posting things like this is great
Hopefully it’s got to average. If they’re cutting 2% off all the time that’s no good
That’s probably what they’re trying to do. The better their quality management is the closer to consistently packing -1.95% they’ll be.
There should be random spot checks. Just grab a bag, weigh the contents, eat it. Like 50/year, or whatever N is required for certainty. Is the mean at 0 deviation, or is it low, or high? Then fines collected for the deviations, but only if they don’t average to zero. Only if they’re tilted.
The FDA regulation on Net Weight is found in 21 CFR 101.105. In this regulation FDA makes allowance for reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice. FDA states that variations from the stated quantity of contents should not be unreasonably large.
While FDA does not provide a specific allowable tolerance for Net Weight, this matter could come under FTC jurisdiction. FTC has proposed regulations that would unify USDA and FDA Net Contents labeling and incorporate information found in the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) Handbook 133.
NIST Handbook 133 specifies that the average net quantity of contents in a lot must at least equal the net quantity declared on the label. Plus or minus deviation is permitted when caused by unavoidable variation in weighing and measuring that occur in good manufacturing practice. The maximum allowable variance for a package with a net weight declaration of 5 oz is 5/16 oz. Packages under-filled by more than this amount are considered non-compliant.
The maximum allowable variance for a package with a net weight declaration of 5 oz is 5/16 oz.
oddly, that’s just over 8g, the difference noted in OP’s example. so, OP’s package is within he allowable tolerance, just.
And it would probably be more expensive to get precision-calibrated equipment to get you at the bottom end of the tolerance to save product cost than what it would cost to just aim for the correct value with less precise equipment.
This one is a conspiracy theory I struggle to get behind. It seems like the conspiracy would be less profitable than the “proper” behavior here.
You know full well that they did some statistical analysis and determined the minimum possible amount of pasta that they could try to put in that box, taking into account variations in their machinery and moisture content.
Thank you! I don’t get why they use such weird measurements. Why not use %?
5/16 oz
How many football fields to the gallon is that? On a serious note this is something far better expressed as a fraction than an amount of difference for one specific container size…
It’s not really clear whether the variance scales linearly with weight. We only know 1 data point. It could be bracketed for different weight groups.
The FDA is probably not operating in what I can only assume is Canada from the Eng/Fra and grams usage.
But I’m sure they have something to allow for fluctuations in weight, would rather it be mandated as a minimum allowing for a bit of extra weight to over compensate however.
A lot of American stuff has English French and Spanish so it can cover the whole continent basically
In the nineties, 4oz ground pepper cans made on a line I worked on.
The tolerances were horrible.
McCormick was 3.9 I think
Black and white can 3.5. !!! (25%)
Yes both were made on the same exact line
