Woolworths also sold an Italian brand of OO flour a few years ago which I believe was Il Molino which I used to buy to make pizza bases.
As I always weigh the flour and water to get the dough exact, I noticed that on a number of occasions that the unopened flour weighed 1,000 gm or even less inclusive of the packaging.
Why on earth would an Italian flour manufacturer who exports internationally need to cheat customers on their product contents?
As I no longer deal with Woolworths, I do not know if this is still occurring.
Don’t forget meat contains about 60-70% water.
The natural ‘value added water’ is most likely from the meat.
This US article may also answer some of your questions you may have:
2 Likes
I should have taken photos. Imagine a tray that is about 10-20% deep in whatever. Is that a reasonable expectation?
1 Like
I possibly would say yes.
Chicken is processed/cut//deboned immediately after slaughter before the meat has had a chance to rest. It is then packaged, either in bulk bags or in individual retail packaging for sale. Unlike some other meats, it isn’t hung to allow fluid to drain before processing.
From my own anecdotal experiences…as a youngster, I was fortunate (or unfortunate 
) to work in a chicken fast food establishment (Big Rooster - the rotisserie and fried chicken type). The fresh chicken came in blue stackable crates, lined with plastic bags. From memory there were about 12 whole chickens per crate or 10-15kg of cut chicken pieces. The fresh whole chickens after a day or two produced about an 1/2inch (12mm) of fluid in the bottom of the bags, while the cut chickens would have about an inch of fluid. Sometimes we would have to wait for a new shipment to arrive fresh from the abattoir. These crates had little if no fluid. I remember this clearly as on a cold winter’s day, there was nothing like sticking ones hands into the fluid to recover chicken/chicken pieces when the fluid was at about 3-4°C.
I would expect that fresh chicken (and pieces) bought from a retailer would release similar volume of fluids.
If one wants to buy chicken which produces less fluid, maybe go to a retailer than has less turnover (or at the end of the day) when most some fluid has had the chance to be released from the meat, and buy from the loose deli section rather than prepacked containers?
I have also fixed the above link to the FSIS PDF.
If one buys frozen chicken and then thaws it, this information is relevant"
1 Like
It matters little how much the chicken/duck/beef/lamb/pig loses in water during storage at the producer or store. When it is sold to a consumer the net weight of the product must be at or above the minimum weight as labelled on the package. If 80g of water is expected to be lost the producer must ensure the meat has enough weight to address this loss and to be at or above the minimum weight for it’s entire shelf life.
Back to our bananas as an example. They are packed green without any treatment beyond a wash (and are touch dry before packing). The box must contain a minimum of 13 kg on sale to consumers. A box is packed to about 13.6kg (between 13.5 and 13.7kg) to account for transpiration losses, they lose roughly 500g during storage and ripening as fresh bananas. Any box underweight must be either repacked to weight or is discarded, and if found to be underweight at the ripeners they do throw underweight boxes out or repack them at cost to the producer (generally not worth the cost).
As I said above the ducks weights were in breach of the legislative requirements and the Store should have refunded the purchaser, and then removed the ducks from sale and informed senior management about the issue and ensured the remaining ducks met the required minimum weight and if they didn’t meet the weight they should have sought to return them to the producer or disposed of them or relabelled them with correct weights and resold at reduced pricing (most likely heavily discounted). The producer is also then required to inspect their machinery to ensure they are properly working, they have to ensure staff are properly trained and are sorting the ducks to ensure the weights comply with the requirements. This means the dry weight of the ducks needs to be at a suitable amount above 1.8kg each to take into account any loss of fluid did not make the ducks weight go below 1.8kg for the entire shelf life. If this means a duck needs to be 1.9kg or 2.0kg to comply that’s what they have to then select to pack them and sell as minimum net weight of 1.8kg. In these cases there is no allowance for deficiency in weights, it is straightforward and the steps needed are well spelt out.
As another example if you buy a bag of pre-packaged Apples that has a label of net weight of 1kg then the weight of apples without the packaging must be 1kg or more. If the apples weigh any amount less than the 1kg the seller has breached the legislation (even if it is less than a gram underweight), so most stores pack to about 50g overweight to ensure that 1kg net weight is met, some pack more to really ensure eg packing to 100g over the stated weight.
2 Likes
Went to our local/usual butcher this morning and asked the question if they allow for fluid loss from their pre-packed products…most of the products are pre-packed. The answer was no.
The butcher indicated that they tare the package, then weigh the fresh meat…and then dispense a barcode/price label, then wrap in cling film. The weight is based on the weight of the product on packing and not how much of the ‘solid stuff’ is there then the customer buys it. This packaging then has a best-before date (BBD) added…ad can be sold until this best-before date (they rarely have products which each the BBD as they have high stock turnover.
They also said that some meats/cuts produce more fluid than others. The fellow we spoke to didn’t know how much would be produced, but guesses that it would be up to 10%. Many of the packs of meat in the butchery had minor quantities of fluid…guessing that it would have been less than 5% of the total weight of the product.
He also worked for a major supermarket before his current job and said this practice of packing (taring the package before packing) was standard practice.
He also said that if they had to allow say 10% extra meat to cover any fluid loss, this would eat considerably into their profits and would make their prices 10% higher, potentially affecting their competitiveness and business profitability.
He also commented that the fluid was from the meat and not added fluid, and as such it is believed part of the product.
Maybe for meat, the standard practice industry wide is different to say fresh fruit and vegetables.
If it is supposed to be the same (weight on purchase and not packaging), then it could be possible that the (whole?) meat retail industry currently is not doing the right thing. If it does change, it is likely the consumer would be hit with price hikes to cover any fluid/blood loss after packaging and before purchase.
After leaving, I realised that I hoped to ask what the butchery pays for…the contents weight or the meat solid weight (assuming there is fluid generation). Maybe next time if I remember.
3 Likes
I can only point you to the relevant section which states for these items “The legislation does not allow a deficiency for ‘desiccating’ goods, other than those identified that might dry out and lose weight. If the article is likely to lose weight over time through evaporation, dehydration or other means, the packer must make allowances for any expected losses in the measurement when packaging the product for the entirety of its shelf life”. Whether your butcher does or does not comply is of little impact to the legislation, it is a random weight product ie it is a product that is of the same type eg Rump Steak but each piece has a random weight when cut or packed. They must take into account loss UNLESS it is a type that is allowed for desiccation (these are soap and mushrooms as per Division 4.6 of the Act).
But if we take the argument that some loss is allowed then the Act states in those cases where deficiency is allowed, the deficiency allowed is 1.5% of the weight between 1,000 grams and 10, 000 grams so for the duck the maximum permissible loss is 1,800 grams X 1.5% = 27 grams a figure far less than the substantial loss in the ducks. But as these are random weight prepackaged items and they state a minimum net weight they are in breach regardless.
Fish are particularly mentioned in the Act if they are frozen with visible ice…they must be weighed in a sieve after the ice has been melted off in a container of water at a temperature of 25ºC ± 5ºC and then drained at an angle of “about 20 from the horizontal for at least 2 minutes but not more than 2 minutes 15 seconds to allow water to drain from the fish; and
(e) if practicable, remove excess water from the fish by using a cloth or a paper towel” (I think this is to stop the old practice of selling ice as fish 
)
2 Likes
I suppose it could be argued that the fluid hasn’t been lost and the fluid loss is not desiccating in the true sense of the word…like in water desiccating from product. The fluid is still there in the packaging and hasn’t ‘disappeared’. It is possibly more of a byproduct of storage.
The fish example is possibly also different as the ice is possibly added…either through direct addition of ice to rapidly chill the fish or from ‘frosting’ from the freezing atmosphere (condensation freezing on the surface of the fish. Fish also will continue to ‘leak’ fluids with storage so I would expect that after the weight is measured under the Act, more fluid could be potentially lost through storage.
2 Likes
The regulation states by other means not just desiccation or evaporation. I am guessing this is partly to stop plumping but would also cover desiccation by freezing which occurs as they still lose moisture while frozen, to ensure the consumer gets what they paid for in product. But the main point is the ducks had a minimum stated weight of 1.8 kg and even if they lost a non permissible but for your take on loss, of 1.5%, a duck after unpacking should be no less than 1,773 grams yet the purchaser received ducks at fair less weight than that and so even by that standard they failed the test. Mushrooms are allowed 5% on the day they are packed and a maximum 18% over their entire shelf life, but meat is not covered by that generous deficiency allowance and thus to have a duck 90 grams and more underweight is even outside any allowance under the Regulation and the Act that empowers that Regulation.
As I would assume these are not AQS marked then the Act has this following Section for the Seller:
"18JU Shortfall offence—possession, offer or exposure for sale
Offence requiring fault element—marking on package
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person possesses an article for sale, or offers or exposes it for sale; and
(b) the article has been packed in advance ready for sale; and
(c) the package is not marked with an AQS mark; and
(d) the package is marked with:
(i) a measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package; or
(ii) a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; and
(e) there is a shortfall in the measurement of the article contained in the package.
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
Strict liability offence—marking on package
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person possesses an article for sale, or offers or exposes it for sale; and
(b) the article has been packed in advance ready for sale; and
(c) the package is not marked with an AQS mark; and
(d) the package is marked with:
(i) a measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package; or
(ii) a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; and
(e) there is a shortfall in the measurement of the article contained in the package.
Penalty: 40 penalty units.
Offence requiring fault element—marking on receptacle containing package
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person possesses an article for sale, or offers or exposes it for sale; and
(b) the article has been packed in advance ready for sale; and
(c) the package is not marked with an AQS mark; and
(d) the packed article is contained in a receptacle; and
(e) either of the following is marked on or near the receptacle:
(i) a measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package;
(ii) a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; and
(f) there is a shortfall in the measurement of the article contained in the package.
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
Strict liability offence—marking on receptacle containing package
(4) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person possesses an article for sale, or offers or exposes it for sale; and
(b) the article has been packed in advance ready for sale; and
(c) the package is not marked with an AQS mark; and
(d) the packed article is contained in a receptacle; and
(e) either of the following is marked on or near the receptacle:
(i) a measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package;
(ii) a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; and
(f) there is a shortfall in the measurement of the article contained in the package.
Penalty: 40 penalty units.
(5) Subject to subsection (6), subsections (2) and (4) are offences of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(6) Absolute liability applies to subparagraphs (a)(i) and (ii) of the definition of shortfall in section 18JR as applied for the purposes of paragraphs (1)(e), (2)(e), (3)(f) and (4)(f).
Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2 of the Criminal Code.
(7) Section 15.2 (extended geographical jurisdiction—category B) of the Criminal Code applies to offences against subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4).
…//…
18JV Shortfall offence—seller
Offence requiring fault element—marking on package
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person sells an article; and
(b) the article has been packed in advance ready for sale; and
(c) the package is not marked with an AQS mark; and
(d) the package is marked with:
(i) a measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package; or
(ii) a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; and
(e) there is a shortfall in the measurement of the article contained in the package.
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
Strict liability offence—marking on package
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person sells an article; and
(b) the article has been packed in advance ready for sale; and
(c) the package is not marked with an AQS mark; and
(d) the package is marked with:
(i) a measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package; or
(ii) a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; and
(e) there is a shortfall in the measurement of the article contained in the package.
Penalty: 40 penalty units."
If there is an AQS mark on the package they would still be outside permissible limits for the seller and subject to:
"18JO Shortfall offence—possession, offer or exposure for sale
Offence requiring fault element
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person possesses an article for sale, or offers or exposes it for sale; and
(b) the article has been packed in advance ready for sale; and
(c) the package is marked with an AQS mark; and
(d) the package is marked with:
(i) a measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package; or
(ii) a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; and
(e) the package is one of a group of packages of the same kind that, at the time of possession, offer or exposure, are on the same premises or in the same vehicle; and
(f) the number of packages in the group equals or exceeds the AQS threshold; and
(g) a sample of the group, selected in accordance with AQS sampling procedures, fails testing in accordance with AQS test procedures.
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
Strict liability offence
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person possesses an article for sale, or offers or exposes it for sale; and
(b) the article has been packed in advance ready for sale; and
(c) the package is marked with an AQS mark; and
(d) the package is marked with:
(i) a measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package; or
(ii) a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; and
(e) the package is one of a group of packages of the same kind that, at the time of possession, offer or exposure, are on the same premises or in the same vehicle; and
(f) the number of packages in the group equals or exceeds the AQS threshold; and
(g) a sample of the group, selected in accordance with AQS sampling procedures, fails testing in accordance with AQS test procedures.
Penalty: 40 penalty units.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), subsection (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(4) Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1)(e), (1)(f), (2)(e) and (2)(f).
Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2 of the Criminal Code.
(5) Section 15.2 (extended geographical jurisdiction—category B) of the Criminal Code applies to offences against subsections (1) and (2).
18JP Shortfall offence—sale
Offence requiring fault element
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person sells an article; and
(b) the article has been packed in advance ready for sale; and
(c) the package is marked with an AQS mark; and
(d) the package is marked with:
(i) a measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package; or
(ii) a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; and
(e) the package is one of a group of packages of the same kind that, at the time of sale, are on the same premises or in the same vehicle; and
(f) the number of packages in the group equals or exceeds the AQS threshold; and
(g) a sample of the group, selected in accordance with AQS sampling procedures, fails testing in accordance with AQS test procedures.
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
Strict liability offence
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person sells an article; and
(b) the article has been packed in advance ready for sale; and
(c) the package is marked with an AQS mark; and
(d) the package is marked with:
(i) a measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package; or
(ii) a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; and
(e) the package is one of a group of packages of the same kind that, at the time of sale, are on the same premises or in the same vehicle; and
(f) the number of packages in the group equals or exceeds the AQS threshold; and
(g) a sample of the group, selected in accordance with AQS sampling procedures, fails testing in accordance with AQS test procedures.
Penalty: 40 penalty units.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), subsection (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(4) Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1)(e), (1)(f), (2)(e) and (2)(f).
Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2 of the Criminal Code."
Now to the packers:
For AQS lablled: products
"18JM Shortfall offence—packer
Offence requiring fault element
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person packs an article; and
(b) the article is packed in advance ready for sale; and
(c) the package is marked with an AQS mark; and
(d) the person:
(i) marks the package with a measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package; or
(ii) marks the package with a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; or
(iii) otherwise, by any document or statement, represents the measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package, or makes a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; and
(e) the package is one of a group of packages of the same kind that, once packed, are on the same premises or in the same vehicle; and
(f) the number of packages in the group equals or exceeds the AQS threshold; and
(g) a sample of the group, selected in accordance with AQS sampling procedures, fails testing in accordance with AQS test procedures.
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
Strict liability offence
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person packs an article; and
(b) the article is packed in advance ready for sale; and
(c) the package is marked with an AQS mark; and
(d) the person:
(i) marks the package with a measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package; or
(ii) marks the package with a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; or
(iii) otherwise, by any document or statement, represents the measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package, or makes a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; and
(e) the package is one of a group of packages of the same kind that, once packed, are on the same premises or in the same vehicle; and
(f) the number of packages in the group equals or exceeds the AQS threshold; and
(g) a sample of the group, selected in accordance with AQS sampling procedures, fails testing in accordance with AQS test procedures.
Penalty: 40 penalty units.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), subsection (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(4) Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1)(e), (1)(f), (2)(e) and (2)(f).
Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2 of the Criminal Code.
(5) Section 15.2 (extended geographical jurisdiction—category B) of the Criminal Code applies to offences against subsections (1) and (2)."
If not AQS marked products:
"18JS Shortfall offence—packer
Offence requiring fault element
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person packs an article; and
(b) the article is packed in advance ready for sale; and
(c) the package is not marked with an AQS mark; and
(d) the person:
(i) marks the package with a measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package; or
(ii) marks the package with a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; or
(iii) otherwise, by any document or statement, represents the measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package, or makes a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; and
(e) there is a shortfall in the measurement of the article contained in the package.
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
Strict liability offence
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person packs an article; and
(b) the article is packed in advance ready for sale; and
(c) the package is not marked with an AQS mark; and
(d) the person:
(i) marks the package with a measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package; or
(ii) marks the package with a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; or
(iii) otherwise, by any document or statement, represents the measurement or minimum measurement of the article contained in the package, or makes a representation (including a statement as to price) by which the measurement of the article contained in the package can be worked out; and
(e) there is a shortfall in the measurement of the article contained in the package.
Penalty: 40 penalty units.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), subsection (2) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(4) Absolute liability applies to subparagraphs (a)(i) and (ii) of the definition of shortfall in section 18JR as applied for the purposes of paragraphs (1)(e) and (2)(e).
Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2 of the Criminal Code.
(5) Section 15.2 (extended geographical jurisdiction—category B) of the Criminal Code applies to offences against subsections (1) and (2)."
Your Butcher could if they had shortfall products be then prosecuted both as a Seller and a Packer and even be prosecuted for even having the products on the premises for sale, in all at least 3 counts of liability. And the penalty units would be onerous when converted to the current fine amounts. The current rate of conversion is $210 per penalty unit.
The AQS mark referred to avove is a styled lower case E placed near the weight as you see on some cans eg “e 300 g” see the image below for the actual e shape.
4 Likes
Just found this website:
It states:
Does your business measure up?
If you are buying or selling meat by weight, you need to know about Australia’s trade measurement laws.
For example, you must make sure:
packages are correctly labelled – with weight statements and packer identification
the net contents (excluding packaging material) of the package are not less than the stated weight
measuring instruments used for sales direct to the purchaser are approved and have been verified by a licensed technician (servicing licensee).
…
Meat is any part of a dead animal including any attached bone or bone marrow, connective tissue, fat, rind, nerves, blood or skin.
…
All pre-packed meat, with some exceptions (see below), must be sold by weight and must be marked with a statement of the weight (excluding packaging material) on the principal display panel.
I would suggest one could easily argue that the fluids fall under the definitions of meat…as they could blood or other fluids directly resulting from the meat.
Regulation 1.5(6) also does not exclude fluids from meat.
There is nothing which says that a packer of the meat needs to account for fluid loss from the meat over the prospective life of storage.
I suppose the other problem is that time impacts on the amount of fluid lost. If packaged soon after slaughter, the loss could be high if a product is bought at the end of its shelf life, if it is packaged after a few days, then the loss in the packed meat would be considerably less. What would a packer do and how would the packer know what losses could be expected. Maybe this is why meat may be dealt with differently and they have included potentially the fluids in the definition of meat?
It has been quite an eye opening discussion…will be able to sleep tonight as I have learnt something (new).
3 Likes
Since the human body is up to 60% water and that water is included on our weight charts through our lifetimes, does that reasonably imply that a tray of poultry that is labelled at 1 kg including the 15mm of liquid it is swimming in, in the tray, and included in the net weight sold is ‘correct’?
Consider whether after a good workout when we are down a kg or few and weigh less, is that our true weight, or are we required to add the sweat from our clothing back in? (/satirical but possibly relevant comment)
4 Likes
This is what jockeys and boxers do (for handicaps and weight grades), loose mainly fluids to achieve a nominated weight threshold. After the weigh in, (boxers in particular) can return to normal weight (replace and regain the lost fluids).
Maybe one could try the same with the 15mm chicken fluids. …but if the same was done in sport (injecting sweat), I expect the ASADA would get involved.
.
1 Like
After I bought a tray of 3 prepacked fresh steaks at our local Supa IGA yesterday, I weighed the 3 steaks which were 20 gm greater than the stated weight on the label.
They always exceed the stated weight on all their prepacked fresh meat products.
Better to err on the side of generosity or caution than to be named and shamed.
2 Likes
The other thing to consider is domestic/kitchen scales can have a range of accuracies…from being okay to not that good.
If one wants to check the weight of bought goods, one needs to realise than the scales used at home may not be as accurate or calibrated like those required to be used for retail purposes.
Choice recently reviewed kitchen scales (member content):
This review included accuracy when the scales were new (immedistely after purchase).
3 Likes
I used our Breville The Little Genius BSK500 scales as tested by Choice.
Both it and our other digital kitchen scales display identical weights when I have used them both to weigh something.
4 Likes
Rob got in touch with us on Facebook to report his disappointing experience with a Coles slow cooked lamb shoulder product. The package states that it weighs 550g but when unwrapped the meat only weighed in at 320g! He reassembled the package to see how much it weighed all together and found it lacking at only 440g. That’s a lot of missing product!
Has anyone else come across pre-packaged products that significantly fell short of their advertised weight?
5 Likes
Has he contacted Coles for reimbursement?
4 Likes
Yep, he’s contacted Coles. I’ll update the thread if he reports back on how it went.
3 Likes
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 
4 Likes
