I bought 175 g pack of salami which had 162 g of salami as well.

  • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s far more likely that this is just weight variation which is allowable per the Food Safety and Inspection Service

    However, I would sooner blame the scale itself as it doesn’t look like a scientific scale. So it’s likely not calibrated and will drift over time. Plenty of things could explain an 8g difference as measured by the average joe.

    • Gork@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      If it weren’t obscenely expensive to do so, it would make sense for all scales to be calibrated to a NIST traceable standard, with periodic recalibrations at preset intervals.

      • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Most kitchen scales could be easily calibrated with a measuring cup and water if they really wanted to do this. Just have a few included cups for 25,50,100ml of water and then fill them on the scale and tell it what the volume is.

        That will easily get you within a gram of error for most common food weights.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah that seems to be how it reads.

        Weird that heavier packages are allowed a smaller tolerance ? Like a 198g package can be 28g under, but in the last row anything over 4.5kg needs to vary by less than 1%