Butter

[wafter]

Yes
they also cherry pick research and then point out how their product is so much better becuase of - andthen quote sections of the research out of context

for example
research shows too much saturated fat is bad for you
Our Great new spread does the same thing as butter - whicj is TOTALLY SATURATED FAT - but has much less saturated fat
THEREFORE out product is better for you diet if you are trying to reduce saturated fat


which sounds great - except that teh ersearch says "too much" and not "any"
and they did not look at what else in in the spread

very clever
but......

....disingenous, cynical, deceitful and manipulative...?

Disgusting what the marketeers are apparently allowed to get away with.

 

[presta]

Be outraged at coffee too: since metrication, they've got away with selling 8oz (227g) bags of coffee "cos we're British and measure in Imperial!!" (as opposed to the 250g standard in the EU), but they're starting to sneak in metric 200g bags now it suits them to make the packs smaller for the same price. I only looked, as the bag of Taylors coffee I bought was literally inflated to an unusual degree, and I wondered why.

Just checked, and Aldi's own label is still 227g here.

I wonder how long before pints of milk (268ml) suddenly become a metric 250ml, but at the same price.

I'd pass a law saying that downsized packs, where there's been a long-standing standard size, should carry a label saying "Smaller pack size".

And don't get me started on Curly Wurlies.

If that winds you up, I suggest you read the weights & measures legislation. If you thought that the weight marked on the pack is the minimum allowed you're in for a disappointment, your bag of coffee's allowed to be as little as 209g as long as the batch average meets 227g. Of course, you as the consumer have no way of knowing or proving what the rest of the batch weighed. It's donkey's years since I first noticed food was coming in under weight, and that that's permitted, but it got no interest at all when I made a noise about it on MSE. The 340g jars of Tesco peanut butter I buy are 320g: the minimum limit they can get away with. Years ago I noticed their tuna was also underweight, but I haven't checked it lately.

Average system
"You can pack your products to an average measurement that is on the label. You must check your packages to make sure a random sample is packed to meet all these rules - known as the ‘three packers’ rules’:

• the contents of the packages must not be less, on average, than the weight on the label
• only a small number can fall below a certain margin of error, known as the ‘tolerable negative error’ (TNE)
• no package can be underweight by more than twice the TNE"

Note the absence of a definition of "a small number".

 

[stephec]

If that winds you up, I suggest you read the weights & measures legislation. If you thought that the weight marked on the pack is the minimum allowed you're in for a disappointment, your bag of coffee's allowed to be as little as 209g as long as the batch average meets 227g. Of course, you as the consumer have no way of knowing or proving what the rest of the batch weighed. It's donkey's years since I first noticed food was coming in under weight, and that that's permitted, but it got no interest at all when I made a noise about it on MSE. The 340g jars of Tesco peanut butter I buy are 320g: the minimum limit they can get away with. Years ago I noticed their tuna was also underweight, but I haven't checked it lately.

Average system
"You can pack your products to an average measurement that is on the label. You must check your packages to make sure a random sample is packed to meet all these rules - known as the ‘three packers’ rules’:

• the contents of the packages must not be less, on average, than the weight on the label
• only a small number can fall below a certain margin of error, known as the ‘tolerable negative error’ (TNE)
• no package can be underweight by more than twice the TNE"

Note the absence of a definition of "a small number".

If it's European average weight law then 2% is the total of the whole production run that's allowed to be underweight, although in the UK 2.5% was normally used.

 

[T4tomo]

I wonder how long before pints of milk (268ml) suddenly become a metric 250ml, but at the same price.

what I call the big (plastic) bottles of milk are usually 4 pints, or 2.27 litres, but some are only 2 litres. however I actually prefer these as they fit in my fridge door much better (I have the door pocket quite short as it has to go over an extended salad compartment which is full depth).

 

[CXRAndy]

Has anyone noticed that the size of most packs of butter are now 225 grams rather than 250 grams. Is this a government plot to try and reduce the nations cholesterol or just another rip off.

There's no direct cholesterol increase to eating butter or eggs

 

[gbb]

If that winds you up, I suggest you read the weights & measures legislation. If you thought that the weight marked on the pack is the minimum allowed you're in for a disappointment, your bag of coffee's allowed to be as little as 209g as long as the batch average meets 227g. Of course, you as the consumer have no way of knowing or proving what the rest of the batch weighed. It's donkey's years since I first noticed food was coming in under weight, and that that's permitted, but it got no interest at all when I made a noise about it on MSE. The 340g jars of Tesco peanut butter I buy are 320g: the minimum limit they can get away with. Years ago I noticed their tuna was also underweight, but I haven't checked it lately.

Average system
"You can pack your products to an average measurement that is on the label. You must check your packages to make sure a random sample is packed to meet all these rules - known as the ‘three packers’ rules’:

• the contents of the packages must not be less, on average, than the weight on the label
• only a small number can fall below a certain margin of error, known as the ‘tolerable negative error’ (TNE)
• no package can be underweight by more than twice the TNE"

Note the absence of a definition of "a small number".

Having worked in the food industry for most my life, on checkweighers for 20 years, its a couple edged sword with lots of factors...and ultimately, I long since learned as soon as you introduce humans into the equation, you may as well not bother.

(For the wider audience) A checkweigher is effectively a CCP (critical control point..it MUST be right)...but lots of technology comes before it to ensure the product weight is correct BEFORE it gets there, dosing, weighing etc etc that's usually designed to achieve the most efficient legal weight. To fail before the CCP is a complete waste of time and money...and the customer will.pay.
The LAST thing a manufacturer wants is excess rejects, in our grape packing factory, they would often UP the giveaway to avoid repacking product, its costly and time consuming.
There's a final reality check though, one I failed to solve in those 20 years...
Sadly, lots of fthe food industry is staffed by agency staff...they often don't understand, or occasionally don't care...and will circumvent entire systems in the.name of 'getting the job done'...which occasionally meant I'd witness staff taking underweight out the reject bin...and.placing them on the final product conveyor (

Im glad I've retired, having standards just doesn't seem to be as important anymore, I can't tell you the times I raised this in meetings, with staff, with QC...a week later...you're seeing the same thing again

But...a.small amount of.'acceptable' underweights will smooth the production process...therefore keep cost down to a degree.