I bought 175 g pack of salami which had 162 g of salami as well.

  • FuglyDuck
    link
    English
    2610 months ago

    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.

    • @CleoTheWizard
      link
      English
      2510 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        410 months ago

        If it weren’t obscenely expensive to do so, it would make sense for all scales to be calibrated to a NIST traceable standard, with periodic recalibrations at preset intervals.

        • @CleoTheWizard
          link
          English
          310 months ago

          Most kitchen scales could be easily calibrated with a measuring cup and water if they really wanted to do this. Just have a few included cups for 25,50,100ml of water and then fill them on the scale and tell it what the volume is.

          That will easily get you within a gram of error for most common food weights.

      • PlantObserver
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        If I’m reading table 2-9 right this package would be allowed to be under by 28.3g

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          310 months ago

          Yeah that seems to be how it reads.

          Weird that heavier packages are allowed a smaller tolerance ? Like a 198g package can be 28g under, but in the last row anything over 4.5kg needs to vary by less than 1%