6 replies to this topic

[JES]

I have a question here. We exporting finished product to many countries eg Taiwan, Hong Kong, USA, Palestine, Libya etc. For the finished product net weight tolerance for different country, do i need to check each country regulation on the acceptable net weight tolerance or have any other method? Thank you..

[Charles.C]

I have a question here. We exporting finished product to many countries eg Taiwan, Hong Kong, USA, Palestine, Libya etc. For the finished product net weight tolerance for different country, do i need to check each country regulation on the acceptable net weight tolerance or have any other method? Thank you..

Dear JES,

i presume you mean foods. Not exactly a small scope.

I can recall certain specific-product organisations used to offer packaged mini-encyclopedias of country-by-country data for their members but i invariably found it was incomplete.

My guess the general answer to yr query is Yes but with exceptions, for example the EC countries have a unified scheme for retail packaging via display of their weight control "mark" on the box.

Rgds / Charles.C

[JES]

Thanks Charles. C for the reply, it is hard to search the regulation one by one as we are exporting to almost 20+ counties. Any quick method to find out their tolerance? Is it possible some country do not mention the weight tolerance at all?

[williamw]

In the US much of the enforcement of weights and measures is at the state level, however most states have adopted NIST Handbook 133 as the basis of their net weight control systems. Most companies design net weight control systems so that sampling of the product by state agencies in the field will not result in violations when the testing methods in handbook 133 are applied. A common approach to this is to require that a lot averages the label stated weight with no containers below the maximum allowable variance (MAV) as defined in NIST handbook 133. Since most inspection look at a small subset of a production lot there is still the possibility of being below the label weight in the average of a small sample so some people adjust targets to give a higher confidence that any random sample of 10 units will average above the lsw. Of course, this increases the overfill and thus the cost of the product so many companies accept the risk of the occasional fine for a weight violation to avoided this overfill because it is more economical in the long run.

Here is a link to handbook 133 http://www.nist.gov/...bs/hb133-11.cfm

[Charles.C]

Thanks Charles. C for the reply, it is hard to search the regulation one by one as we are exporting to almost 20+ counties. Any quick method to find out their tolerance? Is it possible some country do not mention the weight tolerance at all?

Dear JES,

I think the previous post illustrates the difficulties you may expect in your quest.

In many cases of exports, even to EC countries, i have found it necessary to get weight control information from the customer due to aspects like local variations, potential rejections and sometimes rules specific to one category of produce. It's a minefield of possibilities IMO.

But certainly interested if you get some success !

Rgds / Charles.C

[Charles.C]

In the US much of the enforcement of weights and measures is at the state level, however most states have adopted NIST Handbook 133 as the basis of their net weight control systems. Most companies design net weight control systems so that sampling of the product by state agencies in the field will not result in violations when the testing methods in handbook 133 are applied. A common approach to this is to require that a lot averages the label stated weight with no containers below the maximum allowable variance (MAV) as defined in NIST handbook 133. Since most inspection look at a small subset of a production lot there is still the possibility of being below the label weight in the average of a small sample so some people adjust targets to give a higher confidence that any random sample of 10 units will average above the lsw. Of course, this increases the overfill and thus the cost of the product so many companies accept the risk of the occasional fine for a weight violation to avoided this overfill because it is more economical in the long run.

Here is a link to handbook 133 http://www.nist.gov/...bs/hb133-11.cfm

Dear williamw,

Many thanks for this compilation. The document contains a lot of rare and useful information.

My only criticism is that for frozen seafood, either ice-block encased or IQF, the proposed sampling plans for net weight determination are IMEX out of touch with (quantity) reality. The net weight procedures are also in some aspects highly debatable IMO, and in others unworkable for certain types of product (this possibility is indicated in the text).
I'm not suggesting that fully satisfactory, alternative solutions for general use are readily available to the above comments, far from it. It's a tricky topic, both conceptually and compliance-wise.

Rgds / Charles.C

[chilly]

Just posted a similar request but now I know first hand Info from the US customer is the only sure way. The MVA in NIST HB 133 was too wobbly for my liking because inspection lot/sample is invariably smaller and hardly related to a "homogenous" production lot/sample.