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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1279 months ago

    -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.

    • @danciestlobster
      link
      English
      56
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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

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

      Hopefully it’s got to average. If they’re cutting 2% off all the time that’s no good

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

        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.

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

          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.