PDA

View Full Version : product weights


July 6th 03, 10:33 PM
I've been noticing an increase in short-weighted and reduced portion products
recently. The worst offenders seem to be canned products, and I'm getting
annoyed with the problem. Supposedly, there is a Federal requirement that in a
random sample of 24 cans of a product, the average weight of the actual product
without canning liquor, water, or air must equal the weight stated on the
label. I have a very good postal scale, so I may just start posting names,
advertised weights, actual weights, and the lot number. Anyone else who wants
to join in, feel free. If trends begin to develop, there will be an on-line
record of the problem, and people can learn which products might not measure
up.

GatrGrad68
July 7th 03, 05:19 PM
>
>I've been noticing an increase in short-weighted and reduced portion products
>recently

I've noticed some brands of ice cream that still appear to be in half-gallon
containers...but the label indicates only 56 oz. of product

GatrGrad68
July 7th 03, 05:19 PM
>
>I've been noticing an increase in short-weighted and reduced portion products
>recently

I've noticed some brands of ice cream that still appear to be in half-gallon
containers...but the label indicates only 56 oz. of product

K. Reece
July 7th 03, 06:45 PM
"GatrGrad68" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >I've been noticing an increase in short-weighted and reduced portion
products
> >recently
>
> I've noticed some brands of ice cream that still appear to be in
half-gallon
> containers...but the label indicates only 56 oz. of product

This kind of thing has been going on for years now, one pound coffee cans
that are now 11.5 ounces, 7 ounce cans of tuna that are now 6 ounces are
just two examples. I'm sure you'll find dozens more products that have been
reduced in size but not price if you really look.

Kathy

K. Reece
July 7th 03, 06:45 PM
"GatrGrad68" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >I've been noticing an increase in short-weighted and reduced portion
products
> >recently
>
> I've noticed some brands of ice cream that still appear to be in
half-gallon
> containers...but the label indicates only 56 oz. of product

This kind of thing has been going on for years now, one pound coffee cans
that are now 11.5 ounces, 7 ounce cans of tuna that are now 6 ounces are
just two examples. I'm sure you'll find dozens more products that have been
reduced in size but not price if you really look.

Kathy

barb g
July 8th 03, 04:15 AM
lpogoda wrote:
>
> K. Reece wrote in message ...
> >
> >"GatrGrad68" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >
> >> >I've been noticing an increase in short-weighted and reduced portion
> >products
> >> >recently
> >>
> >> I've noticed some brands of ice cream that still appear to be in
> >half-gallon
> >> containers...but the label indicates only 56 oz. of product
> >
> >This kind of thing has been going on for years now, one pound coffee cans
> >that are now 11.5 ounces, 7 ounce cans of tuna that are now 6 ounces are
> >just two examples. I'm sure you'll find dozens more products that have
> been
> >reduced in size but not price if you really look.
> >
>
> ??? While I can believe that some product that used to be sold in units of
> one pound are now sold in units of 11.5 ounces, I've never heard of an 11.5
> ounce "pound". Even troy weights are 12 ounces to the pound.

The packaging is the same dimension as when the box or can contained 16
ounces of product, but now it contains less. Best example is the "1 lb"
sized coffee can. The can is no smaller than it was years ago, but it
doesn't hold 1 lb anymore. Andy Rooney reprised this on 60 minutes just
this past Sunday.

barb g
July 8th 03, 04:15 AM
lpogoda wrote:
>
> K. Reece wrote in message ...
> >
> >"GatrGrad68" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >
> >> >I've been noticing an increase in short-weighted and reduced portion
> >products
> >> >recently
> >>
> >> I've noticed some brands of ice cream that still appear to be in
> >half-gallon
> >> containers...but the label indicates only 56 oz. of product
> >
> >This kind of thing has been going on for years now, one pound coffee cans
> >that are now 11.5 ounces, 7 ounce cans of tuna that are now 6 ounces are
> >just two examples. I'm sure you'll find dozens more products that have
> been
> >reduced in size but not price if you really look.
> >
>
> ??? While I can believe that some product that used to be sold in units of
> one pound are now sold in units of 11.5 ounces, I've never heard of an 11.5
> ounce "pound". Even troy weights are 12 ounces to the pound.

The packaging is the same dimension as when the box or can contained 16
ounces of product, but now it contains less. Best example is the "1 lb"
sized coffee can. The can is no smaller than it was years ago, but it
doesn't hold 1 lb anymore. Andy Rooney reprised this on 60 minutes just
this past Sunday.

lpogoda
July 8th 03, 06:40 PM
barb g > wrote in message >...
>
> The packaging is the same dimension as when the box or can contained 16
> ounces of product, but now it contains less. Best example is the "1 lb"
> sized coffee can. The can is no smaller than it was years ago, but it
> doesn't hold 1 lb anymore. Andy Rooney reprised this on 60 minutes just
> this past Sunday.

I haven't bought coffee this way in some 20 odd years, so I wouldn't
know. You (and Andy Rooney) are telling me when you open a new can of
coffee for the first time, it's more than a quarter empty?

lpogoda
July 8th 03, 06:40 PM
barb g > wrote in message >...
>
> The packaging is the same dimension as when the box or can contained 16
> ounces of product, but now it contains less. Best example is the "1 lb"
> sized coffee can. The can is no smaller than it was years ago, but it
> doesn't hold 1 lb anymore. Andy Rooney reprised this on 60 minutes just
> this past Sunday.

I haven't bought coffee this way in some 20 odd years, so I wouldn't
know. You (and Andy Rooney) are telling me when you open a new can of
coffee for the first time, it's more than a quarter empty?

July 12th 03, 07:45 AM
wrote:

>I've been noticing an increase in short-weighted and reduced portion products
>recently. The worst offenders seem to be canned products, and I'm getting
>annoyed with the problem. Supposedly, there is a Federal requirement that in a
>random sample of 24 cans of a product, the average weight of the actual product
>without canning liquor, water, or air must equal the weight stated on the
>label. I have a very good postal scale, so I may just start posting names,
>advertised weights, actual weights, and the lot number. Anyone else who wants
>to join in, feel free. If trends begin to develop, there will be an on-line
>record of the problem, and people can learn which products might not measure
>up.

Libby's French Style Green Beans Ejotes (Habinchuelas) Verdes Estilo Frances
(Distributed by Seneca Foods Corp.)

On the can it says
NET WT. 14.5OZ
with the weight also given in grams. At first glance it looks like there is
more writing in spanish, but underneath it actually says
DRAINED WT. 7.4 OZ.
The actual measured weight of the product in can H2K242 16:12 3329K was only
6.8 OZ.

The use of the 14.5 OZ measurement on the can is legal according to FDA
requirements
<http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flg-3.html>
but IMO deceptive to the consumer since the consumer normally assumes this
means the net quantity or weight of contents, or the amount of food in the
container or package, as demanded in 21 CFR 101.105(a)

In this case the actual product weight was less than half of the first figure,
less than the amount commonly placed in that size can, and short weighted even
from the purported drained weight.

July 12th 03, 07:45 AM
wrote:

>I've been noticing an increase in short-weighted and reduced portion products
>recently. The worst offenders seem to be canned products, and I'm getting
>annoyed with the problem. Supposedly, there is a Federal requirement that in a
>random sample of 24 cans of a product, the average weight of the actual product
>without canning liquor, water, or air must equal the weight stated on the
>label. I have a very good postal scale, so I may just start posting names,
>advertised weights, actual weights, and the lot number. Anyone else who wants
>to join in, feel free. If trends begin to develop, there will be an on-line
>record of the problem, and people can learn which products might not measure
>up.

Libby's French Style Green Beans Ejotes (Habinchuelas) Verdes Estilo Frances
(Distributed by Seneca Foods Corp.)

On the can it says
NET WT. 14.5OZ
with the weight also given in grams. At first glance it looks like there is
more writing in spanish, but underneath it actually says
DRAINED WT. 7.4 OZ.
The actual measured weight of the product in can H2K242 16:12 3329K was only
6.8 OZ.

The use of the 14.5 OZ measurement on the can is legal according to FDA
requirements
<http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flg-3.html>
but IMO deceptive to the consumer since the consumer normally assumes this
means the net quantity or weight of contents, or the amount of food in the
container or package, as demanded in 21 CFR 101.105(a)

In this case the actual product weight was less than half of the first figure,
less than the amount commonly placed in that size can, and short weighted even
from the purported drained weight.

jitney
July 12th 03, 05:22 PM
I've been noticing an increase in short-weighted and reduced portion
products
recently. The worst offenders seem to be canned products, and I'm
getting
annoyed with the problem. Supposedly, there is a Federal requirement
that in a
random sample of 24 cans of a product, the average weight of the
actual product
without canning liquor, water, or air must equal the weight stated on
the
label. I have a very good postal scale, so I may just start posting
names,
advertised weights, actual weights, and the lot number. Anyone else
who wants
to join in, feel free. If trends begin to develop, there will be an
on-line
record of the problem, and people can learn which products might not
measure
up.

-Good idea, but have your scale calibrated and certified by your state
weights and measures bureau th protect yourself from lawsuits. State
the certification in the post, it will increase credibility. This is a
big problem, it's high time someone did something about it.-Jitney.

jitney
July 12th 03, 05:22 PM
I've been noticing an increase in short-weighted and reduced portion
products
recently. The worst offenders seem to be canned products, and I'm
getting
annoyed with the problem. Supposedly, there is a Federal requirement
that in a
random sample of 24 cans of a product, the average weight of the
actual product
without canning liquor, water, or air must equal the weight stated on
the
label. I have a very good postal scale, so I may just start posting
names,
advertised weights, actual weights, and the lot number. Anyone else
who wants
to join in, feel free. If trends begin to develop, there will be an
on-line
record of the problem, and people can learn which products might not
measure
up.

-Good idea, but have your scale calibrated and certified by your state
weights and measures bureau th protect yourself from lawsuits. State
the certification in the post, it will increase credibility. This is a
big problem, it's high time someone did something about it.-Jitney.

July 12th 03, 06:45 PM
(jitney) wrote:

>I've been noticing an increase in short-weighted and reduced portion
>products
>recently. The worst offenders seem to be canned products, and I'm
>getting
>annoyed with the problem. Supposedly, there is a Federal requirement
>that in a
>random sample of 24 cans of a product, the average weight of the
>actual product
>without canning liquor, water, or air must equal the weight stated on
>the
>label. I have a very good postal scale, so I may just start posting
>names,
>advertised weights, actual weights, and the lot number. Anyone else
>who wants
>to join in, feel free. If trends begin to develop, there will be an
>on-line
>record of the problem, and people can learn which products might not
>measure
>up.
>
>-Good idea, but have your scale calibrated and certified by your state
>weights and measures bureau th protect yourself from lawsuits. State
>the certification in the post, it will increase credibility. This is a
>big problem, it's high time someone did something about it.-Jitney.

**** 'em. I'm just reporting what is there. The scale I use is a Pelouze
digital one that cost me enough to make me cringe. It is supposedly accurate
and I'm rounding in favor of the product to the next tenth. (FWIW, I just
weighed a 16.9 fl oz bottle of Coca-cola in at over 19 OZ, which is about right
when you figure sugar content and bottle weight.)

If one of these companies wants to sue, I'll buy 24 cans of the product in
question, open them up in front of a judge, and let the **** hit whichever fan
is spinning fastest. However, I think I will keep a couple of cans of any
product I list just in case it gets pulled from store shelves and then they try
to sue. I don't list on the basis of a single opened can, since accidents can
happen. It is usually at least the third can when a go
"wait-a-friggin'-minute! I'm going to measure this."

The can of green beans I mentioned actually crossed the line. Product
ingredients are supposed to be listed in order of weight. The fill was
supposed to get the product weight just barely above the halfway mark but it
didn't. WATER was the greatest ingredient in the can, not beans, which makes
that can label a violation of the labeling guides.

I have a can of "Read Three Bean Salad" can number 864R9/D185C 2113 that I
think is equally out of spec. The can label says NET WT. 15 OZ. There is no
drained weight, presumably because some people serve the canning liquor as part
of the bean salad. I'm not complaining about the proportion of product to
water in this UNOPENED can. The problem is that the can weighs in at 13 OZ
including the can weight. Since I haven't even opened the can, I don't think a
suit is much of an option for the company.

I thought there were triplines at canning plants that tossed underweight or
damaged cans off the production line, and fill was automatic according to
settings on the canning machine. Either I was mistaken or someone has been
fiddling with the controls.

July 12th 03, 06:45 PM
(jitney) wrote:

>I've been noticing an increase in short-weighted and reduced portion
>products
>recently. The worst offenders seem to be canned products, and I'm
>getting
>annoyed with the problem. Supposedly, there is a Federal requirement
>that in a
>random sample of 24 cans of a product, the average weight of the
>actual product
>without canning liquor, water, or air must equal the weight stated on
>the
>label. I have a very good postal scale, so I may just start posting
>names,
>advertised weights, actual weights, and the lot number. Anyone else
>who wants
>to join in, feel free. If trends begin to develop, there will be an
>on-line
>record of the problem, and people can learn which products might not
>measure
>up.
>
>-Good idea, but have your scale calibrated and certified by your state
>weights and measures bureau th protect yourself from lawsuits. State
>the certification in the post, it will increase credibility. This is a
>big problem, it's high time someone did something about it.-Jitney.

**** 'em. I'm just reporting what is there. The scale I use is a Pelouze
digital one that cost me enough to make me cringe. It is supposedly accurate
and I'm rounding in favor of the product to the next tenth. (FWIW, I just
weighed a 16.9 fl oz bottle of Coca-cola in at over 19 OZ, which is about right
when you figure sugar content and bottle weight.)

If one of these companies wants to sue, I'll buy 24 cans of the product in
question, open them up in front of a judge, and let the **** hit whichever fan
is spinning fastest. However, I think I will keep a couple of cans of any
product I list just in case it gets pulled from store shelves and then they try
to sue. I don't list on the basis of a single opened can, since accidents can
happen. It is usually at least the third can when a go
"wait-a-friggin'-minute! I'm going to measure this."

The can of green beans I mentioned actually crossed the line. Product
ingredients are supposed to be listed in order of weight. The fill was
supposed to get the product weight just barely above the halfway mark but it
didn't. WATER was the greatest ingredient in the can, not beans, which makes
that can label a violation of the labeling guides.

I have a can of "Read Three Bean Salad" can number 864R9/D185C 2113 that I
think is equally out of spec. The can label says NET WT. 15 OZ. There is no
drained weight, presumably because some people serve the canning liquor as part
of the bean salad. I'm not complaining about the proportion of product to
water in this UNOPENED can. The problem is that the can weighs in at 13 OZ
including the can weight. Since I haven't even opened the can, I don't think a
suit is much of an option for the company.

I thought there were triplines at canning plants that tossed underweight or
damaged cans off the production line, and fill was automatic according to
settings on the canning machine. Either I was mistaken or someone has been
fiddling with the controls.

Google