7 replies to this topic

[GMO]

I was super fortunate that the first job I had, my manager was MEGA passionate about weight control and knew the legislation on average weight, sampling and checkweighing like the back of his hand.  I actually have a copy of the packers' guide (out of print yet bizarrely still referenced in guidance) and have picked up SO many issues over the years of sites not understanding what they're doing, not knowing their process variability, not correcting for sampling error if not using a checkweigher, not conducting zone of indecision checks etc.

 

So how would you rate your knowledge of weight control?  Is it an area of strength or weakness?  What about auditors?

 

On the latter, I'm often the first person to raise issues on accuracy of checkweighing when a trading standards officer has been on site and approved the same practices.  Even then, ask anyone in the food industry in the UK when you last saw trading standards and it will be at least 5 years.  So what is the push to ensure sites are following the law?

[kfromNE]

Our customers demand it. We do mostly foodservice. We'll get at least a few complaints a year about underweight items - never overweight. Most don't know it is about the average per container vs each item. So if one item is a few ounces under but the others are a few ounces over - it's fine. 

 

We are strong. My QCs know the weights. We monitor them. They inform management when they are off - too light or overly heavy. 

 

One way for cost saving - not giving too much away. A reason I think it is looked at. 

[GMO]

Legislation is different in the US, we have average weight control but bizarrely considering how non prescriptive the UK legislation is on food safety, it's SUPER prescriptive for weights.  So for example, checkweighers will not weigh accurately every time so if you control is through checkweighers, you must undertake a measurement of the variability of that machine and adjust if it's too far out.  Likewise you need to do packaging tare variability if you are weighing in pack.  Yet ask most quality teams about stuff like this in the UK and their mouth goes slightly slack and you get a "huh?"

[kfromNE]

We do ranges for items for our QC paperwork and production. Then the package says an exact number. 

They do know about tare weight for boxes etc. Depending on when the weight is taken - the weight of the box may be part of the weight on the QC sheet - I adjust it accordingly. 

 

There has been a lot of confusion in the past - many conversations about weights. However, whenever a new product is developed - I make sure R & D gives us a range. 

 

For better or for worse - my QCs don't want to be blamed if we get complaints. Plus many are perfectionists. So they do speak up. 

 

Now to ask them why we do it the way we do it - they would say it's regulatory. They can't get more specific than that. But we don't require that either. Our company teaches them that if there is a discretion or confusion - ask management. 

[GMO]

Yeah as I say, UK legislation is mega different.  That's not what I'm saying.  For example, it's not just taking off the tare but knowing how much the packaging tare varies from pack to pack to ensure that the weights are NOT super variable so it can be treated as a constant.  If it varies too much, an additional weight needs to be added to target to account for that.

 

Told you it's something people just don't understand.  Even in the UK.

[Scampi]

Canada would never allow an average per container across a pack run.  there is an allowable tolerance for under/over and you must stay within that---even on catch weight items

 

Weights and measures has always been the most prescriptive legislation---a harken back to when stores used to use scales that were----not accurate   

And it applies to everything

gas pumps, # of bandages in a box, the correct number of diapers per pack and whether or not your can of hairspray has 240 ml 

 

It keeps the peace ultimately----there would be mass riots if all of the sudden people weren't getting what they paid for 

[kfromNE]

Canada would never allow an average per container across a pack run.  there is an allowable tolerance for under/over and you must stay within that---even on catch weight items

 

Weights and measures has always been the most prescriptive legislation---a harken back to when stores used to use scales that were----not accurate   

And it applies to everything

gas pumps, # of bandages in a box, the correct number of diapers per pack and whether or not your can of hairspray has 240 ml 

 

It keeps the peace ultimately----there would be mass riots if all of the sudden people weren't getting what they paid for 

 

I should have clarified what I meant by that. The ones that were under - a little under. And not more than the percentage allowed by law. 

[GMO]

Canada would never allow an average per container across a pack run.  there is an allowable tolerance for under/over and you must stay within that---even on catch weight items

 

Weights and measures has always been the most prescriptive legislation---a harken back to when stores used to use scales that were----not accurate   

And it applies to everything

gas pumps, # of bandages in a box, the correct number of diapers per pack and whether or not your can of hairspray has 240 ml 

 

It keeps the peace ultimately----there would be mass riots if all of the sudden people weren't getting what they paid for 

 

UK legislation even on a basic level is more complex than that.  The average weight has to be greater than nominal but there are also tolerances for individual packs which vary upon the overall pack weight (with percentage tolerance decreasing as the weight increases).  This is called the tolerable negative error and one deduction "T1", you are permitted 1 pack under this weight in 40 or 2.5% and none under twice the tolerable negative error "T2".  If you don't run to that on foodstuffs, then you're at risk of nutritional being wildly out.  I think we moved from a minimum to average weight when we joined the EU.  But that wasn't what I was talking about.  TNEs are pretty well understood.  It's things like the accuracy of your equipment, process variability of your fill, variability of your packaging, having a Qt not Qn to adapt to all that.  It's HUGELY prescriptive in UK law.