CHOICE membership

Weights on Packaging

Whenever we buy such packaged meats or fish we always weigh the boxes in the shop since some will be heavier than others. We never ‘deconstructed’ the contents though. The boxes in the store were usually enough over the labelled weight to at least cover the packaging, but water and gravy?

Anomalies happen. Rob should be asking for a refund and a free one for his troubles.

6 Likes

Good news: Rob has received a helpful response from Coles and is resolving the issue with them now :+1:

4 Likes

This is enlightening! I always knew that prepacked meats and fish had some tolerance but thought it had to be on the upside for we consumers. Apparently not. It pays to weigh! And complain if one is found to be off like the example in the report.

We just checked our 1kg ‘e’ of Woolies mince and it came to 1.044kg inclusive of packaging.

6 Likes

Looks like she didn’t quite get her “Woollies worth”.

And Woolies comment in the article.

“Woolworths advises customers who are concerned about the weight of a products to return the item for a refund.”

They have overlooked the fact that Woollies guarantees satisfaction with all their Woollies branded products or the customer gets both a full refund and a free replacement.

I raised the matter of underweight Pepe’s Ducks from Woollies previously but did not get the info I was seeking.

5 Likes

When I have a problem at Woolies the local staff are nice but the management called to authorise something or other generally says something to the effect that ‘it is not our problem’ but takes care of it 98% of the time. The other 2% is said to be ‘Woolies Rewards’ problem and they fob me off to them. Funny how Woolies and Woolies are not the same company, when it suits.

It seems to be cultural since the article includes ‘the supermarket says it’s not to blame for the error.’ I recently had occasion to shop at a larger Woolies and encountered the same culture.

In contrast my Coles always takes care of problems with a smile and no worries. Guess where I prefer to shop.

I note reports on the forum suggest it is different in locales around the country, but.

4 Likes

Indeed - new to me!

Interesting they can advertise price per kilogram without an accurate weight … while they may get away with the ‘e’, to state a price per kilogram with the admission it may not be accurate (for some weight ranges the tolerance is nearly 10%?) seems potentially misleading - should there not be a caveat next to the unit pricing?

image

This applies to a lot more than just meat … seemingly half the store :wink:

More information on AQS here:

5 Likes

Does a product sample fail if the items measure more by the same margin as they would fail for being less?

5 Likes

I read it as all requirements tables show ‘tolerable deficiencies’ per package and the tested samples must meet or exceed the stated weight or volume for the aggregated samples.

Where I grew up in the USA the requirement was that every package had to be at or above the labelled weight, volume, or quantity.

Since increased globalisation it seems many laws and rules from such as automotive ADRs to packaging weight and everything in between has been tuned toward the lowest common denominator to make it easy for business, and often confusing for consumers.

5 Likes

The linked newscorp article above says yes:

The rules of the system state a “small number” of packages can exceed a “tolerable deficiency” — for prepacked products labelled 300 - 500g that’s 3 per cent of the total weight — but none can be over or under by more than twice the prescribed tolerable deficiency.

… but that’s not how I read it at a quick (caffeine deficient so far today) glance from HERE:

The average system

  • The average content in a sample of pre-packaged articles of the same measurement cannot be less than the stated quantity marked on the packages.
  • No pre-packaged article can have a shortfall greater than 5% of the stated quantity.

AQS

  • The average net content in a sample from the production run of pre-packed articles cannot be less than the stated quantity marked on the packages.
  • Allowance is made for a small number of packages to exceed a ‘tolerable deficiency’.
  • None of the packages in the sample can have more than twice the prescribed tolerable deficiency.

AQS provides a 97.5% assurance that goods are the correct quantity within the prescribed tolerances. These tolerances are proportional to the quantity of product and related difficulty of accurate filling.

Note: Australian AQS requirements align fully with OIML recommendations and may differ from those of other countries that do not fully implement the OIML recommendations. Importers should be aware of these differences when importing products using AQS.

There’s lots of talk about ‘shortfall’ … but I don’t see talk of the opposite …

Interestingly, Australia has adopted this standard for these reasons (reference)

The Average Quantity System (AQS) gives manufacturers and packers an opportunity to:

  • reduce compliance costs associated with packing substantially above the stated quantity to avoid rogue packages being included in the sample
  • align with international trading partners using the AQS e-mark — allowing for easier export
  • use statistical sampling methods providing greater assurance that the packaged goods they sell and buy contain the quantity stated on the label
  • have e-marked packaged goods to compete under the same rules as their international competitors in both domestic and international markets
  • have greater confidence that exported products will not be rejected due to quantity issues

yet from the Guide to the Average Quantity System pdf, page 4:

Note that the Australian AQS requirements align fully with OIML recommendations and may differ from those of some other countries that do not fully implement the OIML recommendations. Importers should be aware of these differences when importing products using AQS.

So anything labelled with the ‘e’ symbol originating overseas, or labelled overseas, who knows … importers and end consumers may need to know to what extent the originating country aligns with the international standard … not all e’s are created equal … even though every one is competing under the same rules (different, but same, apparently).

This was the case here until 2010 under UTML legislation - then along came AQS - currently there appears to be a choice with which to comply according to the same guide linked above …

So the ‘good news’ appears to be that business is saving money on compliance costs, we can export to other ‘e’ places, and on average we know that we are 97.5% assured that what we get is close to what they say we are getting, plus or minus some adjustment for whether the ‘e’ at the point of origin is as good as our Aussie ‘e’ …

7 Likes

Which was why I asked as my lack of caffeine and morning exercise with the chainsaw, 32C heat and humidity called rain left the grey matter deficient. I thought I had read the linked PDF as per your comments and as per @TheBBG.

“NewsCorp! should have gone to a reliable source. :wink:

Thanks

4 Likes

I am a bit dubious about the authenticity of this one…

But when she later weighed the meat on her kitchen scales at home, she discovered a big problem – the mince actually weighed just 262g.

It is expected that sny reasonable person would be able to determine a mince pack which is about half of the displayed weight when purchasing. If it was say 5, 10 or 20% under, this might be a different matter. A half filled container compared to other would stand out.

Also the mince pack had been opened prior to weighing. Any chain of custody of the mince pack is therefore indeterminable as there is opportunity for mince to go missing. I am not saying that mince has gone missing, but it would be hard to prove otherwise…the mince should have been weighed in the original unsealed packaging…and then the empty packaging weighed separately.

I have seen at our own local Woollies supermarket customers taking advantage of the fresh food guarantees. (the mickey?). A recent example was a customer returning a bruised banana requesting a full refund for the bunch (even though only one returned) due to a bruise. The banana did look a little old compared to the under ripe ones often sold, Didn’t wait to see the outcome as the manager was called for advice and had to leave).

3 Likes

Reports like this will always be a ‘he said she said’ once the sealed package is opened, but this would not be the first report of packaging failures on the internet.

More interesting than the claimed underweight was learning about the magical ‘e’ and AQS system.

A week ago when I got home from Woolies I only then realised everything that got weighed at the register weighed and was charged at 320g over actual weight. There had to be something on the scale since that was constant. The manager could not be bothered checking that register’s scale since I was the only complaint. That is not quite the same, but when many of us go shopping we just shop and not pay that much attention to what is happening in our trolleys until we do pay attention. It could happen as she claims.

7 Likes

I wasn’t aware of this either. I wonder if the news story was to highlight the ‘e’, whether or not the story could be substantiated.

Looks like the tare was out or not reset to zero…or something pushing down on the scales when weighing.

7 Likes

Like the many articles regarding the butchers of old who were claimed to “accidently” leave a fingertip on the scales when weighing the customer’s meat?

Obviously not any fingers that they had previously “accidently” lost in work related insurance claims but in either case, they were obviously “giving them the finger”.

5 Likes

I wouldn’t have accepted that/taken it lying down!! That is appalling customer service/care by the staff member, plus being ripped off by paying close to 1/3rd more for your purchases. This is definitely (IMO) worth kicking up to senior management; concurrently posting it to social media eg FB - this seems to be the quickest way to get a useful response!

4 Likes

I have more ‘interaction’ with those managers than most customers over a variety of issues and did not want to push buttons that would make our relationship more stressful. I received a full refund for all the ‘over weighed’ items without a hassle, probably because of the consistency in the error whereby one could not easily ‘make it up’ and that I am a known shopper.

The ‘inaction button’ was that I was the only complaint received according to them, so unless there was another on balance of probabilities it was a once off so no worries. If they had a second complaint they would be checking. In honesty I don’t know if they did check it after leaving me.

5 Likes

We buy packaged meat from the supermarket and then break it up into meal-sized chunks before freezing. So the mince, chicken thighs etc are all weighed out into portions. This provides the opportunity to check the total net weight of each pack. The result according to our kitchen scales, which are not laboratory quality, is quite accurate and precise in matching the labels. {In this context two different things}.

The mince is pre-packed in some central butchery, the thighs are weighed out in the shop. This suggests to me there are not big errors in either method of weighing for this vendor (regional Woolies).

5 Likes

I may have been too kind with Woolies. It could be a me too syndrome but it reflects an appalling laxity at the best of times, and ‘not good’ at the other times.

5 Likes

Have members noticed the E that has suddenly appeared on labels of packaged minced steak etc in Supermarkets. It actually means that the product is only an estimate of the weight on the label. Knowing about this I took the time to actually ‘weigh’ by judgement (holding two of the larger packages one in each hand and selecting the heavier) prior to selecting one. When I got home I weighed the entire package, including the packaging. I was told by the label that it was 500gms, however on weighing the entire package it only just reached 300gms!
So consumers, be alert! I’ve complained to Coles where I bought the mince, and will continue to do so. Be aware consumers we’re being ripped off yet again!

7 Likes

Well done picking that up @jezemeg8 :joy: (sorry couldn’t resist the pun).

May I suggest that you take a few of these prepackaged minces to the fruit & veg area in your Coles store and weigh them there just to check if 1) your scales are right & 2) to see if it is a systematic issue.

> Choice wrote about breaching weight measurements back in 2016.

The regulations relating to selling prepackaged meats

Both Choice and Dept of Industry state that if you’re concerned about short measures or incorrect measurement labels: contact the National Trade Measurement Hotline on
telephone 1300 686 664 or
email infotm@measurement.gov.au.

5 Likes