Is this supermarket selling its salmon underweight?

[gekkoa]

Is this supermarket selling its salmon underweight? On the packet it says "400g e" whereas contents regularly weigh 385g.

What does " e " mean beside the "400g". If it means 'estimate' then I guess they are off the hook. However I dont understand how they can get away with this (It's an error of about 4% ). Alternatively, if they are diddling us , what can I do about this? Help and advice please.

[barracad]

The symbol 'e' is used to show that the weight complies with the EU requirement for weight under the average system, i.e. the average pack is at least the weight declared.

[Rooster-UK]

Use of the 'e' Mark


The 'e' mark is used on a label to indicate that the product has been packed according to the requirements of the European Communities average weight rules. The following is an example of its use (taken from a Waitrose pack of 'Yogurt Coated Nuts and Raisins'):

So the "e" indicates that it is an average weight. In practice, it could be slightly higher or slightly lower than the marked weight.

In practice, it avoids having to use little bits of "make-weight" to attain an exact weight. The alternative would be to mark each pack exactly which, if each pack has to be individually marked with its exact weight and price, would result in a dearer product.

Regards, Rooster.

[gyzmo]

And near impossible!

BTW - how are yo determining that they contents weigh 385 g? It could be that the weighing instrument used is not giving a true value.

By what you say, however, given that all measurements are correct, an offence may have been committed under the weights and Measures Act 1985 by virtue of the Packaged Goods Regs 2006. The negative allowance, from the top of my head, is 3% for a package of taht weight, meaning taht the contents cannot weigh less than 387 g. But there are statutory defences and also allowances i terms of the number of defective products.

However, I cannot recall whether the produce would fall under these regs. They are a nightmare.
In terms of what to do, contact your local trading standards (aka Weights and Measures Authority) who will, if necessary, investigate

[gekkoa]

Using my home digital scales
Gross Weight: 494g
Contents: 385g
Packaging: 109g (just)

Using the scales in my local Post Office the packet weighs 108g. (This would mean the salmon contents would register as weighing that little bit less).

Well the discrepancy between advertised net weight and actual net weight on the basis of my home scale measurements is 3.8961% according to my calculations. And when I look at the other packets they look similarly underweight.

gyzmo, if your 'top of the head' figure of 3% is right then there is a case for Trading Standards to take up. However, my instinct is to approach this in a less confrontational way. I thought perhaps I might approach Customer Services and see what they can offer to correct the situation. And then of course I will go to Trading Standards afterwards. Any advice on how to approach Customer Services?

[gyzmo]

Well if the packer is selling underweight goods then it is a serious issue that affects us all. Believe it or not, underweight produce can be quite lucrative, and that is the traditional function of Trading Standards - weights and measures.

however be careful before proceeding. You may thik weighing something is straightforward, but you have linearity issues, hysteresis, eccentricity, threshold discrimination - and that just the scales. Then there's the regulations and the Act to consider. Believe me, they are complicated (and hopefully soon disappearing) - the definition of a packaghe is not that straightforward!

I would suggest that you approach Trading Standards about it rather than customer services. However, an approach would be simply to say that the weight stated is below the negative tolerable limit (bearing in mind what I said about the scales) and you have, in effect, being ripped off? I don't know - I wouldn't approach Customer services, I'd just go to Trading Standards myself.

whichever, please do update us on this as its quite interesting (in that we don't get many weight and measures stuff at all!) - well I think it is, but I would!

[gekkoa]

gyzmo, ive sent you a pm

[Rooster-UK]

Just to throw a spanner in the works.....

How do you know that the marked price is correct for the e-weight marked?
It could be the price for the lowest possible weight in the average range. In which case, if you get an average or above average pack you would be getting it at a reduced price.

[gyzmo]

Right, just dug me notes up. When tests are done, approx 2.5% of packages can be under the tolerable negative error and still be sold.

However, if the package has a negative error greater than twice the tolerable negative error, then an offence is committed.

So in the scenario above, the package is 400 g. The tolerable negative error is therefore 3% of 400 g which is 12 g. now a pack needs to be under twice the tolerable negative error (12 g) which is 24 g before an offence if committed. This means the package can weigh no less than 376 g.

statistically, it is unlikely that more than one pack meeting the criteria in the last sentence would be a "one off", and so TS may prosecute. If it is just this one pack then probably no action would be taken. Again, all this depends on whethe the package constitutes a package under part 4 of WMA85.

unless this shops has dozens of these packages, it seems that there is little wrong.

[Isiris]

Am i right in thinking you took a salmon wrapper to your post office and asked to use their scales to weigh it.

[gekkoa]

I didnt ask to use the scales, just went ahead and weighed said wrapper.

Bought another (randomly selected) packet yesterday - the net weight was 391grams and therefore within the 2.5% error threshhold. I was going to go to Trading Standards my previous two purcheses weighing a net 385g against an advertised 400g e. As the item is a promoted item it will be going off the shelves this week. Ive decided to wait until it comes round again, probably in the next 4 or 5 months and then take another look.

I'm convinced the 400g is not the avarage and that all packets weigh less than this. Thanks for everyones advice and comments - its been a learning curve.

[ncf355]

No intention of hijacking, but had an interesting experience Friday night

Staying in a hotel and ordered a Baileys at the bar - "£4.70 please"

£4.70! for a Baileys?! I havent even paid that in London !

(this was in Gloucestershire)

Told that was the right price, I looked at the price list and then found it was a double measure (50ml) so happier, until......

I realised they had a 25ml optic and had given me a signle measure

Called the manager and went spare, read him the riot act about what would happen if Trading Standards saw this and he tried saying normally I would have been given 2 shots and that thr price hadnt been up long

Me -

1) if you advertise 50ml, 2 x 25ml is not acceptable, it HAS to be dispensed in a 50ml (baloon) optic

2) price not up long? oh, that'll be why the price list says "March 2007" at the bottom, idiot

[gyzmo]

Originally Posted by ncf355

1) if you advertise 50ml, 2 x 25ml is not acceptable, it HAS to be dispensed in a 50ml (baloon) optic

There is no such requirement in the intoxicating liquor order which governs the sale of alcohol. Unless specified otherwise, a measure can be made of an aggregate of smaller (legal) measures if necessary so long as the correct measure is given to the consumer, or unless the seller specifically requests a specified amount which is not a prescribed amount.

incidentally, Optric is trademark and should not be used unless it is actually an optic. Otherwise, "spirit measuring instrument" (SMI) should be used.

When bar staff use SMIs, the "window" should be clearly visible and measurealso visible. When dispensing the liquid, it should be done in full view of the customer so that they can see the hold chamber is emptied. If a capacity serving measures is being used (the metal measuring things) then the liquid should be poured into it in full view of the customer.

The purpose is so that the customer can see taht they are getting the liquid they ask for in the quantity specified. You are entitled to refuse a drink if it is not poured in this manner (but don't expect to be allowed to stay or be welcomed back any time soon!).

[bmoynihan]

Originally Posted by gekkoa

I didnt ask to use the scales, just went ahead and weighed said wrapper.

Bought another (randomly selected) packet yesterday - the net weight was 391grams and therefore within the 2.5% error threshhold. I was going to go to Trading Standards my previous two purcheses weighing a net 385g against an advertised 400g e. As the item is a promoted item it will be going off the shelves this week. Ive decided to wait until it comes round again, probably in the next 4 or 5 months and then take another look.

I'm convinced the 400g is not the avarage and that all packets weigh less than this. Thanks for everyones advice and comments - its been a learning curve.

I really do think you need to get out more!!

The scales you use at home to weigh the salmon will have a tolerance that depending on how much you paid could be upto +/- 5%.

So lets say your scales are 3% out, that would mean that although your scales say its 385g, it could actually be anywhere between 373 g and 396.5 g.

Even if the tolerance was 1% (very good) the range would be 381g to 389g, even in this case the salmon could well be with the legal limit!

[gyzmo]

I think this has already been covered (some time ago) and answered (correctly I might add).