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.

 

[Reynard]

This is exactly *why* I will weigh packets - particularly of fresh produce and dairy...

 

[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".

May have already been said, 'small number' iirc is 5%.
Add to that it's a rolling 5%, not 5% of the whole batch.(which may be tens of thousands of induvidual packs). By continually monitoring, the reject of underweight can be greater...which means fewer underweights that reach the customer.
In general it's a very robust and legally driven system.

 

[gbb]

I was going to post the other day...its actually
Cheaper to buy butter than 'premium ' spreads.
We generally buy Lurpak spreadable because my wife prefers that, i buy butter.

Lately its cheaper to buy butter...except, Asda have Breast Cancer Awareness pink tubs of Lurpak lightly salted spread, £2.98 for 600g packs. That's really cheap. Brought two, they'll keep in the fridge

 

[stephec]

I was going to post the other day...its actually
Cheaper to buy butter than 'premium ' spreads.
We generally buy Lurpak spreadable because my wife prefers that, i buy butter.

It's even cheaper to buy the Aldi knock off version of it, it's that good it should be called - I can't believe it's not Lurpak.

 

[Alex321]

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".

Yes, but the important line there is the first. They can't consistently produce 320g jars of peanut butter labelled as 340g.

And while we as consumers have no way to check the average, they will be inspected and checked by the authorities (though probably not as often as we might like).

 

[T4tomo]

It's even cheaper to buy the Aldi knock off version of it, it's that good it should be called - I can't believe it's not Lurpak.

To be fair, its so good, Lurpak should be called "I can't believe its not Norpak"

 

[BrumJim]

There's always an agenda at play somewhere; it's a ploy as old as the hills to invent a problem then sell you the "solution" - which often turns out to be unhelpful at best and sometimes actually worse.

Ultimately I don't think you'll go far wrong with the basic mantra of natural, minimally-processed, high-quality and balanced; while avoiding anything that claims to cheat nature / appears too good to be true.

It is much more profitable for the manufacturer to sell a branded product and convince the consumer that it is different to, and better than, any other food manufacturer's similar product, and then advertise it heavily as such, than to try to sell butter at a lower price than anyone else. And brand loyalty gives a lot more security of sales and less sensitivity to price.

And the key weapon in this is convincing people that a heavily manufactured item containing a number of ingredients that we have never heard of, is so much healthier than one made of milk. And maybe a bit of salt too.

 

[gbb]

Yes, but the important line there is the first. They can't consistently produce 320g jars of peanut butter labelled as 340g.

And while we as consumers have no way to check the average, they will be inspected and checked by the authorities (though probably not as often as we might like).

Checked by the authorities...like never
They (checkweighers) MUST be anually calibrated and certificated
by external sources.
More chance of the customer (M&S ,, Co-op etc) finding a problem during a site visit perhaps, and that would be rare to find a problem anyway.
The only time the authorities would likely check is if there'd been a complaint (imho)

 

[Dadam]

Grabbed a bag of salt and vinegar crisps from the box the other day. We usually buy multipacks of McCoys as my autistic son usually won't eat any other crisps than cheese and onion McCoys!

The bag felt heavier, like there were definitely more crisps in it so I weighed it. The nominal weight is 25 grams, this bag weighted 52 (!) so clearly a double dose went into that bag. I just hope no poor sod got a completely empty sealed bag in their multipack!