10 replies to this topic

[Weebus90]

So i recently came across some smoked salmon that we purchase that says it's Net weight is 4 oz. 

We weighed samples and found some products underweight some were 3.92, some 3.85, etc. 

Is there an allowable % that a product can be underweight compared to its Net Weight Declaration?

Also, say the salmon was at 4 oz during the time of packaging, and during transit and holding, oil and water are absorbed into the packaging, therefore when weighing the actual salmon, the fillets are no longer 4 oz. 

Shouldn't the manufacturer determine the average lost during this time and modify their 4 oz salmon to say 4.25 ounces to compensate for this loss? Otherwise its misleading to the consumer?

 

Thank you

Weebus

 

[Slab]

Hi, Weebus;

 

Yes there are standards to be met, however as convoluted weights and measures are with U.S. commerce and labeling laws. Personally I find the practice distasteful at best and unacceptable in regards to international commerce.

 

This attachment may help answer your question (table A-5):

 

 NIST Handbook 133.pdf   175.25KB   94 downloads

 

[RG3]

Sooo according to the chart they are within spec just can't be at 3.744oz or below. There's another regulation that says you need to meet your declared weight at 55% or some majority percentage of the total sold, the other 45% is "allowed" to be at MAV to declared weight. I'll look for it, because I know Charles will ask for it.

 

 

Shouldn't the manufacturer determine the average lost during this time and modify their 4 oz salmon to say 4.25 ounces to compensate for this loss? Otherwise its misleading to the consumer?

 

That would be a good idea. Hey! I don't want to pay $32.08 for these Ribe Eye Steaks because after I cook it, it's going to weigh less and I only want to pay that amount.

 

With fish you are going to have an amount of drip. At least you're not paying that extra water they brine chicken and other proteins.

[Charles.C]

Dear Weebus,

 

You have stumbled in to another super-grey area.

 

I noticed the attachment has no hits for "frozen"  or thawed net weights. A minefield of legislative uncertainty. With tinges of fraud possibilities via glazing (ice is cheap).

 

To answer yr query over loss of weight in transit etc, the standard "recommendation"  is to put in some appropriate extra % at packing stage. This Involves statistics, good intentions/fear and control routines. Another financial minefield.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[MWidra]

There's another consideration in this, and that is the shipping weights.  Adding some to one little filet has no impact, but add some to thousands of filets could potentially make the truck be overweight as it leaves the dock.  The rules for truck drivers are more strict for being overweight than having a product be a little underweight, they just can't.  If putting in a "little more" puts the trucker overweight, he will be forced to leave a pallet behind when he pulls out.

 

Most states have mobile scales to check trucks in between the mandatory scales on the roads, so most truckers will not take the risk.

 

Martha

[Slab]

Dear Weebus,

 

You have stumbled in to another super-grey area.

 

I noticed the attachment has no hits for "frozen"  or thawed net weights. A minefield of legislative uncertainty. With tinges of fraud possibilities via glazing (ice is cheap).

 

To answer yr query over loss of weight in transit etc, the standard "recommendation"  is to put in some appropriate extra % at packing stage. This Involves statistics, good intentions/fear and control routines. Another financial minefield.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

 

Per FDA labeling regulation net weight may include water loss as long as water is declared as an ingredient (i.e. IQF glaze e.g. "fish fillet, glaze"). AOAC has established methodology for determining this for frozen goods. Can't recall the standard nor find anything in my library on this however.

It is indeed a "super-grey area", and serious problem with weights and measures in commerce (at least in my experience with seafood).

[Slab]

For some strange reason I cannot edit my post. I would like to add this section from the above linked page:

 

(q) The declaration of net quantity of contents shall express an accurate statement of the quantity of contents of the package. Reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice will be recognized. Variations from stated quantity of contents shall not be unreasonably large.

 

 

This is where FDA may defer to NIST, or other contingent sections of the code. 

[Simon]

Many apologies Slab, due to malicious abuse of the edit post function we have had to remove it from all members.

I will edit your post when I get a minute and I will be putting a note out to let all members know...unfortunatley I am still dealing with the outcome of the attack, so it may take a little while to get that note out. 

 

For some strange reason I cannot edit my post. I would like to add this section from the above linked page:

[MWidra]

Many apologies Slab, due to malicious abuse of the edit post function we have had to remove it from all members.

I will edit your post when I get a minute and I will be putting a note out to let all members know...unfortunatley I am still dealing with the outcome of the attack, so it may take a little while to get that note out. 

So this means that I'll have to loosen the reins on my OCD and make sure that everything is included and is spelled correctly before hitting "Post".  

 

Martha

[Charles.C]

Dear Slab,

 

An interesting consequence of the legal aspects is the appearance of terms like deglazed weight and thawed weight. Procedures for both are in AOAC for seafood. Both techniques are subjective, sometimes highly so, when implemented ( either +or- ). A guaranteed source for inter-QA arguments.

 

The concept of including glaze in the legal net weight also offers an inviting route ("good" glazing) to increasing profit margins, an early  example of  economic fraud.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[Slab]

Many apologies Slab, due to malicious abuse of the edit post function we have had to remove it from all members.

I will edit your post when I get a minute and I will be putting a note out to let all members know...unfortunatley I am still dealing with the outcome of the attack, so it may take a little while to get that note out. 

 

No worries, Simon. I thought I was losing my mind (once again) 

 

Dear Slab,

 

An interesting consequence of the legal aspects is the appearance of terms like deglazed weight and thawed weight. Procedures for both are in AOAC for seafood. Both techniques are subjective, sometimes highly so, when implemented ( either +or- ). A guaranteed source for inter-QA arguments.

 

The concept of including glaze in the legal net weight also offers an inviting route ("good" glazing) to increasing profit margins, an early  example of  economic fraud.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

 

I agree. A good reason why investigators are reluctant to pursue regulatory action is because of either widespread abuse, subjective criteria for analysis, or confusion as to what would be an action level.