I don’t believe the e symbol means the weight is estimated. What it is supposed to indicate is that average weight or quantity (ml for example) of the packages matches the nominal weight (net weight), that no more than a certain number of the packages can below the net weight by a Tolerable Negative Error (TNE), and that no packages can be below the net weight by twice the TNE. Typically the percentage or packages below the TNE permitted is no more than 2.5%. The actual TN\E varies depending on the weight or volume, but for 500g to 1000g it is usually 15 grams. The e symbol is also supposed to indicate that the packer complies with the rules and has systems and checks in place to prove it. It is really only of significance in the EU but you will see it on products here. If there is an E (upper case) symbol then my apologies as I’m not familiar with that. In any case if you can tell a package is low by holding it, and Coles is also saying it is low, then something is seriously wrong with whatever system is packaging the product in my opinion.
Being a price based on $/kg and not per unit/container, the supermarkets could get themselves into grief as the item price doesn’t refect the unit price on display…but based on a unit/container price.
Hopefully the supermarkets change the price to reflect the weight of the contents…so that one can made a purchase decision based on the weight…and then corresponding price.
Refer to the AQS system, referenced in this post, a few before it, and some after it, including salient links to the sources of information.
I am aware of these and the three rules used by inspectors to test compliance, namely…
Testing for compliance with the AQS involves testing
against the three AQS rules:
- The average contents of the packages in the
sample must not be less than the declared
quantity marked on the packages.- The number of ‘inadequate’ packages (that is,
packages with a deficiency greater than the
tolerable deficiency listed in Table 2) in the
sample does not exceed the number listed in
column 3 of Table 1.- There must be no inadequate packages with
a deficiency more than twice the tolerable
deficiency.
For a 500gm packet, the maximum acceptable to meet the AQS rules is 470gm, with the maximum numhernof packages being between 470gm and 500gm being 6% (maximum of 3 in 50 sample size).
The examples shown above indicate that these rules are not been met and would be in non-compliance with the rules.
As the weights of the packaging is below 470gm, the pricing should be based on the contents weight and not the packet persay…which is currently the case.
mark 3, no matter what the symbol means, when I buy a package of mince supposedly weighing 500gms I don’t expect it to only weigh 300gms INCLUDING PACKAGING!
Should also say prepackaged meat comes direct from the supermarket supplier and the supermarkets may not be aware of the problem/under-weighing by the supplier. Supermarket butchers no longer exist in the true sense.
It is important that if anyone picks up a light/underweight pack, the customer service counter is notified. Reporting the discrepancy is the only way to resolve the issue from the customer point of view. AQS testing will also pick up the discrepancy if a spot check is undertaken.
One can also contact the National Measurement Institute helpline to report a suspected breach of the trade measurements. The contact details are:
- Email infotm@measurement.gov.au
- Phone 1300 686 664
I absolutely agree with you. Sorry if you thought otherwise.
Not only mince with the estimated weight symbol. Noticed that Nescafe’s Black Roast coffee also has the E symbol.
Welcome to the forum @Eliza,
It seems the AQS system is becoming pervasive for everything pre-packaged, much like a ‘get out of jail free card’ to allow more mechanisation without recourse from consumers, does it not?
The AQS seems to be diluting expected standards to suit business needs; eg 1 kg is no longer required to be 1 kg as long as the average is 1 kg.
As in life there will be some winners and losers but has anyone seen a scale near the pre-packaged meats? I would punt if they put a scale there the shops would quickly build up stock of under-weight pre-packs they would need to sell at steep discounts as their use-by dates near and more consumers learnt what the ‘e’ means.
Ther is always a scale in the fresh produce section which is normally next to the meat department.
On occassion. I have taken items from the meat section to the F & V to weight them, particularly when they are sold as an item and not by weight, so as to get the best value.
I doubt that anybody would disagree. We are mixing up two issues here though.
One is, if it is acceptable to apply statistical rules that say packages must average the target weight and how much variation is acceptable. This is not the problem that you encountered however, your package is a system failure that would never be acceptable.
This leads us to ask if the move to a new standard has anything to do with your short weight or could that have happened anyway under the non-e system. Nobody has provided any evidence related to that question that I can see so at this stage it would not be right to assume that your problem was a consequence of the e system.
There is always a scale in F&V but as to how close to meats? Maybe close in FNQ, but not so often in Melbourne - usually 1/2 the shop away. Our shops might be larger than yours so although positioned similarly, yours might be closer 
We did that with specific products but have become more religious doing it
The pub tests suggests it would not since pre-AQS a product was weighed and the label printed from the weighing system, as it still is at most deli counters. There is always room for error, human or mechanical, but without the seeming wide scope of the ‘get out of jail free’ the AQS provides.
It’s my understanding, that Woolworths Group/Ltd is a company that owns several companies, one of which is Woolworths Supermarkets and another company being Woolworths Rewards. Our Brands
Also on a slightly different tangent, if a supermarket offers a financial product, like a credit card, it is illegal for supermarket staff to give any advice about it. The most they can do is refer you to the leaflet in store or tell you to ring the phone number listed.
The scales are suppose to be measured for accuracy every morning before the store opens. Supermarkets reordering systems are also linked to what is scanned at the checkout, so in that case it would result in too much stock being ordered into that store, causing issues
That is indeed the case and what they hung their hat on. However when one receives an offer from Woolworths Rewards with the Woolies logo emblazoned, for a product in a Woolworths grocery one might reasonably expect it to be honoured. When it is not honoured and the grocery management disavows any store responsibility as ‘not us’ it is quite off-putting.
Meltam, I experimented some years ago, choosing at random 12 items from Coles and 12 from Woolworths, sold under their “house brands”. I have no doubt their intentions are worthy - trying to hold down costs/prices to consumers. Unfortunately in doing so there is an inevitable temptation to cut back on ingredients**. And my 24 test items convinced quite clearly that their house brands are not for me. So these days I avoid them, whenever possible.
** [there’s a pandemic of that, world wide, in the super market industry - it’s part of the story of how the super markets in England and here sent Rosella broke - but that’s a longer and worse story]
That said - I have on odd occasions purchased 500 gm packs of mince from both of them, to incorporate into my dog’s food. Usually not - usually my dog also avoids their house brands, for the same reason. But necessity is the mother of something, so I have done it.
And to be fair to both of them, the 500 gm packs of mince that I have purchased from them have always been within 2-3 grams of the 500 gm weight claimed on the package. NEVER over 500 gm. But under by only 2-3 grams is of no consequence.
However. And there’s almost always one of those, in my comments. While I normally buy ALL our meat (including the dog’s meat) from a “proper butcher”, I also occasionally take advantage of the convenience of buying my dog’s mince in Coles or Woolworths. NOT their house brands, now. But they do also usually have premium brands.
And what I have found, with some of the premium brands, is that they SAY there’s 500 gm of mince in the packet. But I often find there’s 40-50 grams MORE than that in the packet. Now THERE’S a reason for giving them my business. Coles & Woolworths will just have to live with it. I will insist on my right to choose, till the day I die. And when their shelves no longer offer me the choices that I want, I will leave Coles & Woolworths to their fate, and shop elsewhere. Just as I usually do now, for all my meat - fish - fruit & vegetables - most of my cheese & smallgoods - liquor - etc.
Frankly, it’s never in the whole of human history been more true to say “you are what you eat”. Processed food (most of which is sold in super markets) and fast food sold in America, Australia, the UK and elsewhere has resulted in a pandemic of morbid obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. A survey in France showed that 87% of the French regard quality as the most important consideration, when buying food. That is why - when I was examined by two different doctors last year, and they BOTH asked me “how come you’re so healthy, at your age?” - I told them it was because (being part French) I am fussy about what I eat.
The fact the package is below weight by more than double allowable deficiency it would seem proper that all the meat in that lot should be removed from sale until the issue has been remedied according to the rules as described in the AQS examples from the guide at https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/guide-to-the-average-quantity-system-in-australia/average-quantity-system-requirements
“While a large proportion of the packages in a group may be compliant, if a shortfall has occurred then the whole group of packages cannot be sold and the packer must take remedial action.”
So it would no longer just be a single item removed from sale but perhaps a whole display of that particular item until remedy had been made.
With strawberries being so cheap at the moment I decided to stock up & freeze some for later. The packaging stated that it was 250g net. Imagine my surprise when I weighed both the product in the packaging & the The actual weight of the fruit & discovered that the fruit in the packaging weighed 106g & without the packaging weighed only 98g. Unless I’m misunderstanding “net” weight I think I have been ripped off!. I understand that they were very cheap however the correct weight should be given. Maybe they had labelled it incorrectly! I don’t seem to be able to find any contact details for the growers. I have taken photos as proof. Anyone else noticed this? The brand I bought is Twin View Berries in Qld.
I suggest you take your photos back to the shop where you bought them. You should receive a full refund & replacement from Woolies and a refund from Coles or IGA. If it was an independent F&V shop, shop dependent.
It should be for the shop to follow up with Twin View Berries, but it never hurts for the end consumer to do so directly but I could not find an authoritative contact either. The shop may be able to provide that information.
Thanks I’ll follow up.
I moved your topic to this older related one.
This government page may be helpful. (as posted by @phb on 24 Feb)
Depending on whether this is a once off or if it happens again, it would be good to make a formal complaint.
