- cross-posted to:
- mildlyinfuriating
- cross-posted to:
- mildlyinfuriating
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/11612572
I bought 175 g pack of salami which had 162 g of salami as well.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/11612572
I bought 175 g pack of salami which had 162 g of salami as well.
Is 410g the gross weight perhaps?
no, product weight
if it is liquid it should have gross and net. packaging never counts as product weight…yet
How do you know?
At least in the US, federal regulation requires the net weight printed on the packaging
How do you know the packaging was printed for the US market?
It’s actually more likely that it wasn’t printed for the US market (pasta in the US is most commonly sold in packages of 1 pound/453g), but that brand of pasta does sell to a US market which subjects them to US regulations. It seems weird to me that they would go through the effort of cheating on packaging only in some markets.
It’s a lot more likely that the pictured disparity is caused by a combination of (1) the 410g figure being a nominal value with an accepted error margin, and (2) home kitchen scales not being the most precise instruments.
The English-French bilingual packaging suggests this particular box was sold in Canada (although the brand isn’t familiar to me). I’m sure we have some similar law, though.
Because
The FPLA relates to the net quantity of contents information on packages, goods, or commodities that are sold on the basis of weight or measure (i.e., it does not apply to such products as electronic or industrial equipment that have contents sold by the quantity of their contents and appliances
https://www.nist.gov/standardsgov/compliance-faqs-packaging-and-labeling-us#2
Not trying to be snarkey but it literally was a 2 second search. There are laws against this, and it used to be standard practice to put a small amount more than actual weight (volume) listed bit now it seems they stopped giving a shit and dare you to question or sue them into compliance.