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

      • PennyAndAHalf@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 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
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 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
          4
          ·
          11 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
      6
      ·
      11 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
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 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
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          11 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
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            11 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.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          missing 8 grams of spaghetti in a 410 gram package

          It’s more likely that the scales are inaccurate.

      • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 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
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          11 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.

          • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 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.

          • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 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
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 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)

          • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            You sound like an angry oldman not wanting to accept reality.

            So you want companies to put excess product because you don’t know how to measure correctly (or don’t have good equipment). Well ask them. For the price of 410g, too? No? And maybe a paycheck supplement too.

            I want a lot of things too.

            The point is that it isn’t false advertising if you don’t know how to measure well. Is not a standar or whatever you think it is. It’s reality.

            Outside the kindergarten where everything seems so simple and easy to understand. In real life you don’t have ideal things. You don’t have an ideal measuring place.

            Sources of error when measuring:

            • The material cut tolerance.
            • Your house not being perfectly smooth leveled.
            • (for electronic scales) RF noise.
            • (for electronic scales) Tolerance on electronic components.
            • The scale subjection points not perfectly pressed.
            • (for electronic scales) discretization error.
            • Components degradation.
            • Humidity.
            • Gas denisty near the scale.
            • Gravity fluctuations in the region of measurement.
            • Surface of the sample not resting completly in the scale plate. Etc.

            And you are ranting about evil and “our” standards or whatever for a 2% error in the measurement? I would expect a 5% error given all that. That scale must be an exceptional good one.

            It’s not standards it’s reality. Why do you think measuring labs are so expensive? Evil companies?

            Try measuring your height more than once and see if results change. Hey if they change, you work for the evil companies, and you probably live in our “standards zone”.

            Our/Yours standards was pure comedy. It’s getting better and better.

      • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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

        The measuring error is on OP’s end, not the manufacturer.

    • 1111@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

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

  • Numhold@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    When did shrinkflation become acceptable for pasta? Even though it‘s been legal for a while to sell more individual package sizes, I would never accept a package of pasta that doesn‘t say 500g or more on it.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I am half tempted to buy a pasta making machine. The more and more food I make myself the angrier I get at the food production world.

      A dumbass like me shouldn’t be able to make better tasting products for lower cost than food factories.

  • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    There are different factors. One being accuracy of the scale, then there is loss of weight due to moisture loss, and also there are greedy companies. It can be any of theese(or a combination of theese)

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

      While companies are greedy, there’s no need to misrepresent their product when they can just do shrinkflation instead without a lot of consumers noticing.

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

    I worked on a manufacturing line for 4oz pepper cans

    They had a machine that weighed them and kicked out underweight ones.

    The tolerances were horrible.

    McCormick was 3.9 I think

    Black and white can 3.5. !!!

    Yes both were made on the same exact line

    • Xcf456@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Aren’t the figures on the package meant to be net weight though?

      • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I believe so too.
        But maybe that’s not a legal requirement everywhere.
        From the packagings I remember, wherever the package weight is significant, “Net Weight” is explicitly stated. So, when I see it not written, I don’t assume.

  • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 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.

    • PutangInaMo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Your sound logic side, 8g of pasta is hardly shrinkflation and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s an accepted rounding error in plant packaging.

  • ɔiƚoxɘup@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    They all have legally allowed margins of error.they use it to their full advantage.

    Record profits is just code for “the successful fleecing of the 99%”… It has a better ring to it.

  • skeeter_dave@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 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
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 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.

      • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        You would presumably use a higher precision scale for that purpose. I know my kitchen has a large scale that’s only 1 g precision but can go up to 8 kg, and one that’s .01g precision but only goes up to 500g.

      • chimasterflex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        8g sure but this is only within 2% error. most scales would probably be within 3% so this isn’t surprising

      • bluewing@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Unless you were using a certified scale and checking it with certified check weights every time you used it, you were just guessing and hoping your dealer wasn’t randomly or purposely off. And density of the material weighed matters also. Weed is far less dense than pasta so a discrepancy can be more noticeable since it takes a larger volume of weed to reach a particular weight than pasta does.

        Understand that a digital kitchen scale is made with the cheapest load sensors a manufacturer is willing to pay for. Nor do they come with any kind of traceable certification as to accuracy class. In fact you get no guarantee that your shiny new kitchen scale is fit for even that purpose - just that it turns on, lights up, and displays something when you place a load upon it.

        Accuracy is a cruel and VERY expensive mistress to chase. And most people don’t understand it anyway.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 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.

      • Danitos@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Your comment doesn’t make sense, since home tools are not precise enough and that is not the manufacter fault. I suggest you read about Metrology

      • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Scales used for commercial purposes, such as weighing the amount of product in a package, are regularly calibrated and checked. Messing with the calibration is considered an economic crime and comes with very harsh penalties.

      • frogfruit@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I remember being in school 20 years ago and being taught about scale inaccuracies and the importance of frequent calibration. The thing about weight loss is that you will lose weight if you’re in a deficit. Your daily calorie needs are going to fluctuate a little bit, regardless. Most people don’t keep activity the exact same, sleep the exact same, take exactly the same steps everyday, plus hormones fluctuate, etc. Your measurements don’t have to be precise, just close enough. People have also lost weight with sloppy volumetric measurements, counting out chips, or even eyeballing the amount of space taken up on their plate. MyPlate.gov was rolled out after consumer research found that it works.

      • Bgugi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think you’re a bit off track. scale accuracy has been a subject of careful scrutiny for millenia. You absolutely have to use the right tool for the job. A kitchen scale is not the right tool for the job. It would be like complaining that you can’t take your car’s lug nuts off with a pipe wrench.

      • RandomLegend [He/Him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        This just doesn’t make sense.

        You wouldn’t say the same when talking about other products. If you buy ibuprofen for example you wouldn’t say “it can’t be packaged to scientific standards, it has to be packaged to ours” if you try to weigh a single pill with your kitchen scale.

        Stuff HAS to be packaged to scientific standards. Period.

        If your tools at home aren’t accurate enough or simply aren’t properly calibrated for a specific job, it can’t be the fault of the producer.

        If you use a 2€ kitchen scale that is 10 years old you can’t blame the producer if your measurement is off by 10%.

        The producer cannot make sure YOUR equipment is proper for the task, and they can’t make sure EVERYONES scales see the exact same. So of course they have to weigh with their own scales and surprise surprise they use extremely precise scales that are properly calibrated and tested regularly.

        • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          If you read his comments to my comments he states that following “their” (?) standards, the producers have to put much more product in order to “”““adjust””“” for the tolerance error of random consumers. Clueless.

    • abracaDavid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 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.

      • QTpi@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Well how do we know that any scale at all is right?

        My lab has weights that get calibrated against a NIST standard annually. We use those weights to perform daily quality control that our scale is accurate (to +/- 0.01g). If the quality control fails then we recalibrate the scale.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 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.

      • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Taring isn’t the same as calibration. Every scale should have instructions on its tolerance (± x grams) and a calibration weight. You’ll have to buy the calibration weight separately.

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Also just as plausible that there’s still some broken noodle crumbs and fragments stuck in the bottom flaps of the box.