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

  • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    • 1111@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      When was the last time OP performed a guage R&R with a traceable calibrated mass standard? 😂

      • PennyAndAHalf@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Last year this claim went around for the Loblaws No Name brand in Canada so I went shopping with my kitchen scale, preparing to be outraged. Everything was a solid 10% over the advertised weight.

      • 0xD@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        “Always” is a really strong word that you should not be using in this context since it’s just not true.

        • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          For example, there once was more than indicated on a package of lentils in 1958. So it’s clearly not always.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            That’s an absurd take, how can a company know anything about whatever random crappy scale you bought second hand?

            We have standards for a reason.

      • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

          • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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.

            I’m not sure if I’m missing a joke here, but are you asking for some alternative-metrology here?!

            Weight is a well-defined standard, and a properly calibrated scale > your kitchen scale.

            • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Yeah this guy is pure comedy at this point tbh. Are you of the “our standards” team or “their standards” team (very evil, probably eat childs too)

          • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            You aren’t shit. They scales do meet standards that are tested periodically to ensure they aren’t false advertising. Do you really think these corporations don’t have audits?

            Calm down, touch grass, try to get in touch with reality and stay off the tankie portions of the internet that feed these delusions.

  • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

  • skeeter_dave@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • books@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

  • ISometimesAdmin@the.coolest.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    http://www.foodconsulting.com/q&a.htm

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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

  • supercriticalcheese@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    🤔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?

      • scoobford@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        More likely shrinkflation. Same as how a pint of hagen-daz is 14oz now, instead of a full pint.

        • grozzle@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          americans really just have to remember a long list of random numbers like how many ounces a full pint is supposed to be, huh.

          i’m imagining a whole day of school like, “when people say nickel, they mean 5 cents, a dime is 10 cents, 12 inches is a foot, 3 feet is a yard, water freezes at 32F and boils at 212F…” and the children just crying into their notebooks by the time they get to miles and tons and acres.

          • Pohl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            When I first read your comment I wanted to say that managing with these units isn’t really all that difficult. But, then I remembered that I have a magnet on my fridge that converts teaspoons to cups to quarts etc. I don’t know anyone who keeps that info in memory. Doubling or halving an American recipe can be an exciting math project

            It’s fun to see what metric conversions an American has memorized. If a person can quickly convert miles to Kilometers, they are probably a runner. If you ask a group of colleagues how many grams are in an ounce, the dude who quickly say “28.3 give or take” is a pothead.

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              A cup is 32 teaspoons, 3 teaspoons per tablespoon, ergo 1 cup is 16 tablespoons. I know this offhand because:

              1. I cook
              2. I can count

              It’s a base 2 measurement system for the most part. Also highly inefficient and imperfect, but so is metric for cooking.

              • Pohl@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                Well… a tablespoon is 3 teaspoons and a cup is 48 teaspoons. You did get the 16Tbsp per cup right though.

                This was a good try!

  • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Compensating for the stem.

        Ain’t nobody want the stem. The floret…now that’s the good shit. Motherfuckers go HAM for the floret.

  • wellee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

      • BossDj@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I really hope you read and considered the top reply to your post. Science is a good thing

        • wellee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Holy shit dude. Did you ever see me contradict their statements? No. I’m purely talking about the pathetic amount of effort people are taking to take the side of corporations. Like someone already posted a comment about water. But no someone else has to make a paragraph long post about it. Whole fucking cares. Go do something useful with your time. Go to a conservative sub and convince people their wrong about racism and welfare. Don’t waste your time debating fucking noodle weight.

    • abracaDavid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.