Weights on Packaging

Although this is an old topic I found some companies are fairly tolerant with their tolerances and stand behind AQS not behind customers.

We buy John West Barra from Coles most every week. It is labelled as 255g(e) and over time have never had a problem with any +/- until yesterday. Opening the packet it looked almost snack sized than dinner sized so I weighed it. 235g. There was more water than normal in the package.

I emailed Simplot (John West) with the details. Their web form has a character limit short enough suggesting they may not want to hear from consumers, but contact them I did. I was gobsmacked with their reply to my complaint about the underweight, as follows.

Thank you for your email regarding the weight of the John West Barramundi fillets.

The product you have purchased has been packed to AQS in Australia

Average Quantity System | Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources

Per the standard, the John West Barramundi 255g can have a tolerance (T1 T2) as set out below

T1 9g means pack allowance to 246g
T2 18g means pack allowance to 237g

The product with the weight of 255g is packed to tolerance of T1, indicating it was packed to specification.

The product with the weight of 235g seems to be under the tolerance of T2, however, if you include the liquid in the soaker pad it would be above T2 tolerance, otherwise the weight control system used in the factory would not apply a label to the product.

While I understand we don’t eat the soaker pad at the time of packing all liquid would remain inside the fish portions. Drip loss is a natural cause in pack over shelf life.

Based on the AQS the products are within specification.

Their attention to customer relationships seem pretty old school FU to this consumer. At about $47 a kilo that bit of water getting them over the ‘T2’ is pretty expensive, and not nearly as satisfying as a bite of fish.

We will be looking for an alternative product, on principle. This is the first time we have ever complained about a product at the margins where they cited chapter and verse of the AQS making it all OK in their corporate eyes.

2 Likes