It seems like all packaged foods do this now
It seems like all packaged foods do this now
I bought 175 g pack of salami which had 162 g of salami as well.
280 comments
-
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.
-
When was the last time OP performed a guage R&R with a traceable calibrated mass standard? 😂
-
Somehow its always lower than claimed.
-
the tolerance exploit
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
The measuring error is on OP’s end, not the manufacturer.
-
-
-
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.
-
8g sure but this is only within 2% error. most scales would probably be within 3% so this isn't surprising
-
You would presumably use a higher precision scale for that purpose. I know my kitchen has a large scale that's only 1 g precision but can go up to 8 kg, and one that's .01g precision but only goes up to 500g.
-
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.
-
that's why you don't use a scale that's only accurate to the full gram (and barely that) when dealing with something where the cost is such that a missing half gram actually makes a difference.
-
Dealers digital scales have 2 decimal places.
-
-
please actually do it. Not for any real Reason but just because it's funny to use professional equipment to weigh Pasta
-
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.
-
Scales used for commercial purposes, such as weighing the amount of product in a package, are regularly calibrated and checked. Messing with the calibration is considered an economic crime and comes with very harsh penalties.
-
What!?
-
-
-
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
-
Idk about that. When I worked in a factory we always measured 510 g into our 500 g packages in order to avoid this happening. You're getting ripped off and making excuses for it.
-
So they package it wet? If the weight went down it means the pasta was wetter at time of boxing.
-
RH during packing 55%, RH in OPs house 25%
Just different conditions, even
histheir (sorry) neighbors house could have a different RH and different results.
-
can I see a pic out the box with it above weight stated?
-
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
-
-
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.
-
Yeah what about the other one, like drops on a cold beer?
-
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.
-
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
-
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
-
On our packaging (Germany) we have a little "e" meaning it will be ± the weight with a deviation of 1.5-9% depending on the volume.
https://www.payback.de/ratgeber/besser-leben/kleines-e-auf-verpackung-
Yeah pretty sure these are European rules as we have the same thing in the UK. Basically the current batch needs to remain above the average weight if it drops under the target weight packs will start getting rejected until the average increases.
-
-
I don’t see anything on the scale indicating it was not tared. Nor do I know whether or not you took a noodle or two out of the pile before weighing
For all we know, you tared this +20g and this is feel-good anti-corporate propaganda. Which is fine, we all hate the corporations…but propaganda is propaganda.
Op, please post a video showing a calibration weight on the scale followed immediately by your pasta taken directly out of a sealed box. For science.
-
Your sound logic side, 8g of pasta is hardly shrinkflation and I wouldn't be surprised if it's an accepted rounding error in plant packaging.
-
shrinkflation is 410 instead of 500 grams, then there is this weight skew
-
Also net weight vs gross weight. I think there's a law that regulates this where I live (France) because it's always specified but I don't see it here.
I assume OP is from Canada because I see English and French on the packaging. I lived there for a few years and was losing my mind over this kind of stuff the entire time. Prices never include taxes even though you basically always have to pay them, price per pound/gallon/unit is never displayed either and they really try to swindle you with this, I constantly saw "family sized" or whatever packages that actually cost more per pound than the regular version when I did the math. So I'm not surprised.
-
-
-
It's a 2% difference. The cutting and packaging is done (most probably) by machines. I have clinically diagnosed OCD, and I wouldn't care about 8g of missing pasta... How much do you leave on the plate/in the pot/throw away? :)
Otoh, hitting exactly 410g (assuming the scale is calibrated, and you have the same temperature, air moisture and altitude as the factory), is very difficult. They could adjust their machines so the variation hangs a bit more towards the customer, but for them, 2% x millions of boxes = profit.
-
Most of our packaging machines require < 1%, target <0.5% variance (both ways). Honestly in practice, over a whole batch the total variance is extremely tiny.
Add to this story the accuracy of a household, not-calibrated scale? Yeah I'd say this seems OK.
-
That seems around what I'd expect the measurement error to be anyway
-
This really isn't a big deal, the customer paid 2% less off this specific box. Oh.
This isn't a big deal, the customer paid 2% less than the calculated total for their entire order at checkout and only had to say "me shorting this transaction is just a statistical probability and you should view it as the cost of doing business with me." Oh.
This isn't a big deal, the customer gets massive subsidies from the government while the poor manufacturers have to pay stupid worker safety fees and unfair payroll during times of extreme economic 'fortune'. Oh.
-
-
🤔Hmm doubt it's humidity issue the issue. But more importantly why is it not in 500g packets like all the pasta in the world?
-
Because of shrinkflation
-
The worst of the flation family.
-
-
uh probably lines up with freedom units or cause funny number
-
Hmm, grocery store near me (USA) sells this in 16oz packages, or ~454g
-
1 lb is 453.6 gr so likely sinkflation unless there is another weight measurement I am not aware of (likely). https://duckduckgo.com/?q=1+lb+in+grams
-
-
Get a better scale first
-
How do we know your scale is right?
-
Also just as plausible that there's still some broken noodle crumbs and fragments stuck in the bottom flaps of the box.
-
Huh? Well how do we know that any scale at all is right?
Pretty sure that every modern scale has a "tare" button that resets the weight and zeroes everything out.
-
Yeah, but if it measures every 1 gram at 0.98 gram, it will display less in the end
-
That is only single point calibration. You want more than that in case the transfer function is non-linear. Ideally at least two for the extremes of range.
Basically imagine if y does not equal x, say y = x -0.01*x + b. Your tare is going to adjust b such that at x = 0 you get y equals 0. That doesn't fix x is equal to 900. At 900 you would get 891.
Generally speaking for weight you have differential or integral non-linearity. You fix both by multiple calibration points. Which leads to the range transition problem but whatever. No excuse anymore with FPGAs.
-
Taring isn't the same as calibration. Every scale should have instructions on its tolerance (± x grams) and a calibration weight. You'll have to buy the calibration weight separately.
-
Well how do we know that any scale at all is right?
My lab has weights that get calibrated against a NIST standard annually. We use those weights to perform daily quality control that our scale is accurate (to +/- 0.01g). If the quality control fails then we recalibrate the scale.
-
-
I worked on a manufacturing line for 4oz pepper cans
They had a machine that weighed them and kicked out underweight ones.
The tolerances were horrible.
McCormick was 3.9 I think
Black and white can 3.5. !!!
Yes both were made on the same exact line
-
Depending on where you live this is actually illegal. In Germany, as example, if you say that something contains 200g it means that there have to be at least 200g inside. If its less, that can cost the producer a lot if he gets fined for it.
-
Except no. First issue it's messured wrong. You messure a full package and then an empty one in the factory. Losses during shipping and so on is the problem of the customer. Especially meat looses a lot of water. People don't weigh the water in the cloth.
Also the little e (estimated sign, 76/211/EEC) besides the package does specially allow variations. Only the entire batch must be correct on average. But there is a limit on how much variations is allowed. And big companies are closely watched.
-
*loses
-
Ah kk. Didn't knew that.
-
-
Right. And they actually do it. Another thing: there's a list here von "Verbraucherschutz" (consumer protection) that lists all products that have less than before in it to the same price, of course it's on the package, but most people don't pay attention to it. The "Mogelpackung Liste" (cheat packaging list): https://www.vzhh.de/mogelpackungsliste
-
Not really: The average has to be equal or higher as on the label, and the per-package negative error can't be, for things 300-500g, greater than 3%. 3% of 410g are 12.3g so 402g are actually within EU spec.
Also your kitchen scales aren't calibrated that's another +-1% error even if it's a half-decent one.
-
If it was actually the case that they were sold a mislabeled box by mass, it’s a crime everywhere and has been for like five thousand years. Standards for scales in marketplaces was one of the first sets of laws of human civilization.
-
-
Yes, it seems that way because your kitchen scale is faulty and measuring everything a bit on the light side.
-
Or it was measured differently. They could have stacked ten of them on a scale at once while you are stacking one at a time.
Or it was measured differently and they used the legally allowed error bars.
Or the kitchen scale was off.
Or there is some missing mass from say dust.
Or they were assholes and knew they could get away with it.
Lots going on and it would be hard to debug.
-
Nah, it's probably correct. I work in food industry and it's pretty much never EXACTLY right. It's always a few grams over or under, and if the bosses get to choose they choose to have it be under.
-
-
Could be worth checking your scale, if everything seems to be underweight. Low battery can show as lower result on some scales
-
I need to start using old batteries in my bathroom scale.
-
I use no batteries and am very happy with what it displays.
-
-
Fun fact: a US nickel weighs 5.000g, and 5 US quarters weigh 1.0000oz
-
From the mint yes, dont try this with a circulated coin though lol
-
Woah- intentionally?
If so, that's amazing. What a clever idea
-
-
-
If everything you're measuring is lower than expected, you should check the calibration of the scale. Weigh 2 or 3 things you know the weight of that are at different ranges of weights, light, heavy, medium, and see if any are off. Often a scale will be accurate at only within a certain range and get progressively less accurate as the weight increases or decreases from that range.
-
I have the same scale. I wouldn't trust it too far, especially combined with the tolerances and humidity weight changes.
-
There are different factors. One being accuracy of the scale, then there is loss of weight due to moisture loss, and also there are greedy companies. It can be any of theese(or a combination of theese)
-
While companies are greedy, there's no need to misrepresent their product when they can just do shrinkflation instead without a lot of consumers noticing.
-
-
Well... Cardboard is quite edible, maybe you should also put it on the balance.
-
I weighted my 500 gram broccoli recently and it was over 800 grams so I guess this goes both ways. Or then they're compensating for the stem.
-
But you can eat the stem. Just peel it and cut it into pieces.
-
Weight a Costco chicken some time. They're often around 50% larger than the weight on the package.
-
-
2% off isn't that bad.
-
Sure.
I just wonder how often I will find a package that gives me a 2℅ gain. If it's all fair and square, it should be fairly common. If not, either the scales need recalibration or... (insert sinister music)... there is intent here and that is another way to maximise profits; 2% at a time.
-
You know all those people who find 3 pop tarts in a bag instead of 2? There's the other side.
-
-
-
Weigh some things you know the exact weight of like 1L of water or your phone (you can google most phones weights, without the case and only if you dont have a screen protector of course). I had the same issue at home but realized my scale was jus off most of the time.
-
If your scale is 0.01g precise, just measure a coin. Everyone has them and they have really exact weight (down to the .01g).
-
Scales that go to 0.01g can't weigh 400g. Or at least not with the same precision. At 0.01g you definitely need to calibrate the thing to local gravity and, depending on your geology and whatnot, insulate it against vibrations. Weighing stuff gets crazy fast when it comes to accuracy though 0.01g isn't yet in "hold your breath" territory.
Generally speaking if your scales don't come with a spec sheet don't trust the number of digits. And I've never seen a spec sheet for a kitchen scale that wasn't from G&G, a manufacturer of professional scales that happens to build kitchen scales with left-over sensors not making the cut for the professional series. Their top consumer model does 0.1g from 0-3kg, 1g up to 15kg, forget about weighing spices or such with any other scale with that kind of range you need a second much smaller one. 55 Euro, doesn't like rechargeable batteries but can run off a wall plug and you can also solder on the data port that's missing it will spit out measurements over it just like the professional ones. Oh: LED display. As in not LCD. Green on black, actually readable. In a sense it's worth the money just for that.
-
I imagine this varies a lot on which country you're in. In the US, coins seem to be mostly toleranced at around 3-5%, but you could probably get away with a large number of coins in good condition from different years.
-
-
-
This is why in the EU they need to display net weight.
-
No shit Sherlock, that's what it is in the US as well. This is just OP being a dumbass and assuming a conspiracy instead of understanding his scale just sucks.
-
I'm not from the US. I only got that later from reading the comments.
But yeah I agree it sucks.
-
-
-
That brings up a question, is that 410g required to be just the edible product or could it include the weight of the packaging?
-
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.7
It is required to be the contents. There is very little leeway for error. The FDA can and will shut your whole company down for labeling issues.
-
Nice, I did not know about this.
-
-
There's an allowed margin of error, too. If they happen to have gram-level precision, but have 10g leeway for a given product, this might be a good way to save scrape out a bit more margin.
-
-
Net Weight vs Gross Weight
-
Aren't the figures on the package meant to be net weight though?
-
I believe so too.
But maybe that's not a legal requirement everywhere.
From the packagings I remember, wherever the package weight is significant, "Net Weight" is explicitly stated. So, when I see it not written, I don't assume.
-
-
-
I was kinda confused why everyone's sucking the D of the corps here, and comments reiterating stuff already said.
But then I reminded myself at least 150 up voted this and all is right again.
-
Some of us work for corps and see people trying to do their best to help people every day. It’s tempting to think there’s this hidden layer of control somewhere, where the evil people are. Maybe it’s there, I dunno. To me the evil people seem to be spread throughout.
-
It's more like people here are engineers and understand the concept of standard variance.
-
Me no understand, me say bad. No value me want, they bad. If they don't like things that they can't understand probably stoo using internet and technology in general for the good. Go back to the good old rock and stone.
-
-
I don't think it is counts as D sucking of big corp if someone corrects invalid information. There are plenty of bad things corps do, we don't have to fabricate false claims, it's dangerous.
-
So if moisture is a factor, what do you propose otherwise?
-
-
When did shrinkflation become acceptable for pasta? Even though it‘s been legal for a while to sell more individual package sizes, I would never accept a package of pasta that doesn‘t say 500g or more on it.
-
I am half tempted to buy a pasta making machine. The more and more food I make myself the angrier I get at the food production world.
A dumbass like me shouldn't be able to make better tasting products for lower cost than food factories.
-
-
Packaging machines are getting more accurate, but producers just use that to stretch the legal limits instead of improving their honesty.
-
Marginavera
-
Plenty of people have already explained that consumer scales show bullshit. But there's another reason why your weight is not the same as producer's weight.
You see, kilograms are a unit of measure of mass, not weight. Weight is measured in Newtons. And 1kg = 1 * g Newtons. But here's the catch - g is not constant in real life. It changes from 9.7639 to 9.8337 depending on your location. That's almost 1% of variance.
What that means is that if you take your scales and your pasta and go on a worldwide trip, then you will see different weight in different locations.
-
The real crime here is that you bought Barilla instead of DeCecco.
-
De Cecco, Garofalo, or Voiello.
If you have to get Barilla, at least get their fancier one (Al Bronzo or at least Collezione).
-
-
They all have legally allowed margins of error.they use it to their full advantage.
Record profits is just code for "the successful fleecing of the 99%"... It has a better ring to it.
-
"shrinkflation" or smth
-
Weigh another one with the package and see if it matches to what it says on the package. Use the produce weight scale at the store so you don't have to buy two of them. I have a suspicion that you're buying the package. But then if that's the case then those meat moisture absorbers also will add a lot of weight when it comes to buying meat.
-
see, capitalism works!
- sell 10million packages each with missing 2% of contents.
- sell those 200000 extra packages with the contens you "saved" (no, not 204000 with again missing 2%, see below why)
- do not pay taxes on extra packages you sold as you can "proof" you sold all 10million paying those taxes.
- receive 200000 * price of package as personal taxfree extra income.
- write that one guy who complained about missing 8grams of pasta a sorry letter
- complain about time loss and costs writing a single sorry letter and pay paper and stamp out of "marketing" campaigns budget
- complain about the world not trusting companies
- complain about people using badly adjusted scales
- complain about someone selling none-genuine products on market with your logo faked.
- assume that those packages with missing contents could be just those fake products.
done a full circle.
but... kitchen scales are really bad. most other scales as well. i tried to find (electronic) scales that are actually precise:
for low weights i ended up with a scale with 0.01 gram precison, but it could only measure a bit more than 100grams (and also included a 100gr calibration weight)
for higher weigths i only found a scale for post offices measuring packages. the only thing the vendor "really" promised was that multiple times measuring the same thing would be showing the same weight (nope the best "affordable" scale on the market here did not promise to measure correctly, just to measure over and over the same...)
i guess the options for accurate measuring of more than 100gr are:
- old style mechanical scales daily adjusted
- high priced industry/laboratory scales with warranties
fun fact:
after i bought that 0.01gr precicion scale, amazon showed me small plastic clip bags with green leaf signs on it as "recommended" products for month, while i used the scale to mix just small amounts of 2-component epoxy resin in projects.
-
That would be outright illegal. It's more likely that op lives in lower humidity areas and non air tight food looses some water weight, or that op needs to calibrate their scale or buy a new one.
-
Yeah, uh… you realize there are net weight tolerances, right? Companies aren’t expected to get exactly the same weight for every single item they put out. And it’s not really possible for certain products.
This though, is likely pushing the limit.
-
-
Typical Big Noodle theft tactics
-
See also: 2x4s
(how is lumber measured in Europe? Are 2x4s called 2x4s? or 50x100s?)
-
Not surprising but: metric units, and they are the units of the finished product not some arbitrary historical size lumber used to be
-
47 x 100 as I recall from my days working in a Builders Merchant, still referred to as 'four by two' by builders though
-
-
They reverse it in England, 4x2s
-
-
OP, are you American?
-
I weighed wet cat food packets and they're supposed to be 85g net weight but it's gross weight. Kind of convenient, isn't it.
-
I'll take blatant consumer fraud for $500, Alex
-
I'm starting to see some drinks and packages of food even have calories varied. For example, I'll buy a monster java drink of the irish blend flavor. One can will be 190 and another can will be 180. They'll both have the same nutrients.
We are seriously now beginning to slip in keeping this shit consistent and it worries me.
-
Oh boy, you better not look into how much caffeine and vitamins are allowed to vary if you are worried about calories (it's a lot).
-
280 comments