__MOD NOTE/NOTE DE MOD__: NEW! Use code "FOODSECURITY" at OddBunch to receive 25% off your first produce box, and help support the boycott's efforts to create a charity.
If you are looking for product replacements, start [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/loblawsisoutofcontrol/comments/1cyf1h9/megathread_pc_product_replacements/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Please review the content guidelines for our sub, and remember the human here!
This subreddit is to highlight the ridiculous cost of living in Canada, and poke fun at the Corporate Overlords responsible. As you well know, there are a number of persons and corporations responsible for this, and we welcome discussion related to them all. Furthermore, since this topic is intertwined with a number of other matters, other discussion will be allowed at moderator discretion. Open-minded discussion, memes, rants, grocery bills, and general screeching into the void is always welcome in this sub, but belligerence and disrespect is not. There are plenty of ways to get your point across without being abusive, dismissive, or downright mean.
*********************************************************************************************************************************************
Veuillez consulter les directives de contenu pour notre sous-reddit, et rappelez-vous qu'il y a des humains ici !
Ce sous-reddit est destiné à mettre en lumière le coût de la vie ridicule au Canada et à se moquer des Grands Patrons Corporatifs responsables. Comme vous le savez bien, de nombreuses personnes et entreprises en sont responsables, et nous accueillons les discussions les concernant toutes. De plus, puisque ce sujet est lié à un certain nombre d'autres questions, d'autres discussions seront autorisées à la discrétion des modérateurs. Les discussions ouvertes d'esprit, les mèmes, les coups de gueule, les factures d'épicerie et les cris dans le vide en général sont toujours les bienvenus dans ce sous-reddit, mais la belliqueusité et le manque de respect ne le sont pas. Il existe de nombreuses façons de faire passer votre point de vue sans être abusif, méprisant ou carrément méchant.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/loblawsisoutofcontrol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is the 2nd “1 in a million” under weight products I’ve seen posted here in 2 days.
Amazing how you found another. You should play the lottery today with that luck.
Just so everyone thinks about this. They have to add the actual weight of the products in the system so the scale at the self checkout is able to determine if the product you scanned was the same as the one put on the scale.
"in the know".
The weight is either entered by someone somewhere who doesn't care enough to pay attention to the numbers they're pressing.
Or it's weighed and entered by an automated system when the items are first set up.
It's still note worthy enough to report, and still to keep an eye out for.
Huh?
They're saying that the product has to be intentionally improperly registered to not show up as an incorrect item when it's on the checkout scale.
It doesn't need to be *intentionally* set up that way.
Imagine a system where entering a new product just means scanning it, then putting it on the scale and letting the computer determine the weight.
It wouldnt have to display the weight in grams to the employee at all.
~~The computer is either hiding the weight from the employee, or it's been programmed to show the incorrect weight.... either way... intent....~~
I didn't explain myself very well here. The hypothesis that makes the most sense to me is that the registered weights aren't exact but are registered as a ***weight range*** in order for the product to be recognized as matching the SKU when it's put in the scale, and the amount printed on the bag doesn't match the actual weight. Programming a weight range while having a finite weight on the bag is evidence of intent.
Or the employee simply does not crosscheck the stated weight against the measured value, because *why would they* - their job is to weigh products and hit OK, not check the measurements.
My point is that programing a weight range on the machine while having a finite weight on the bag is potential evidence of intent. The machine has to know the weight of the actual item on the scale to know you're not stealing something more expensive that you've exchanged for the scanned item.
The scale must then be programmed to accept a weight RANGE, for each product to register it on the scale as the product with the same SKU, so that the ones that weigh less than what the bag says are still recognized as the correct product by the joint data of the SKU and the weight...
... or the undrained weight was exactly the same because any space was simply taken up by water.
Do you think that loblaws is xraying the cans to ensure you get your tuna?
It isnt "1 in a million". I saw a segment on the news about this. There have been a lot of complaints and they launched and official investigation into it. They really are ripping people off.
Speaking of, the assistant usually has to come and clear my screen because it wont let me continue because it thinks an item is missing.
This is the one from yesterday. This is not water weight.
Chicken strips.
Today I decided to weigh them and wow it wasn't even close. Packaging says 9 pieces 675g. I got 9 small pieces and they only weighed 426g.
https://www.reddit.com/r/loblawsisoutofcontrol/s/X0vwVChdoq
I believe that is frozen food packaging but this is hot/fresh(ish) food prepared in house.
Not defending this but it could very well be lazy staff just weighed that amount initially and is just making additional portions and averaging out the size of the strips by eye rather than individually weighing and pricing accordingly.
I remember at Home Depot I bought paint. I had to get assistance because it was saying the weight was wrong. Turns out the free paint stir stick was causing the problem.
I'm sure the contents of the can do weigh 120. The trouble is, you can do that by filling it with straight tap water. The weight of the *meat* is supposed to be 120.
So they use NCR machines like almost every other retailer. Used to work at co-op.. There are 2 things at play:
-new items that don't have a weight entered will automatically be registered when it's first "rung through"
-it can be changed (at least where I worked) at the store level manually
-it can be changed/entered at the HO level
BUT the scale to buy stuff (scanner) is tested by the government... So use that to weigh the can when you buy it... Is it just filled with water? Or is it a complete and utter lie?
Modern packing lines should be set up to detect the outliers as well. Though I’m not sure what the required accuracy needs to be here… I would think it’d be better than +/- 20%
Costco pays their workers the most of most grocers (factcheck me on this I just knew a cousin worked there for $22), offer the best savings, offer great quality services, decent fast food, and have the best customer care/return policy. They deserve all the business they can get!
As someone who's totally not a shill, tuna are well known for having eating disorders. It's impolite to bring up that your tuna is underweight because that might cause it psychological trauma.
I just reported some cream cheese that was over 50 g underweight as well. I hope everybody starts weighing and reporting, because they recently had someone claim that underweight products are a “rare mistake”.
You know there is a Federal food inspection agency that will investigate any complaint. We have weights and standards which are enforced. Packaging standards. False advertising. Food safety laws. People act like it's the Wild West and the vendors have some power to evade all these things.
They don't have that power.
People are not going to go home and check every product and file complaints though. No one has that kind of time on their hands for black box complaints that are not realistically going to result in a significant change in circumstance for the customer. And Loblaws knows it. Even if they did have to effectively respond to every complaint, it would still cost them less than not cheating.
This sort of thing should be proactively checked and firmly handled by strong government agencies.
I have never thought to check the weight of packaged food but this sub has had me doing that out of curiosity. I don't buy any No Name products so I don't have any input to add, but recently I found three packages of Compliments cream cheese off by 3-5 grams. It doesn't seem like a lot but when they sell millions of packages a year, the weight shavings are real.
And if you call to complain, they will send you a voucher for a free product almost all of the time.
Premier Protein sent me a case where it was obvious they changed the hot glue on the cartons. 1 wasn't sealed at all and 2 following in the same pack weren't air tight.
They sent me a new 12 pack case but their chocolate tasted like crap so they took a long time to drink all 21 of them.
This has apparently become an instagram meme. My take is that people are doing it for likes/clicks/internet karma, because the countless millions of dollars it would cost for false advertising (seriously check the law - the fines are pretty nuts) many products in their store isn't worth the thousands of dollars they'll make by giving you 20g less.
If there's an amount you're legally allowed to be off the marked weight, any greedy/cheap person could fill their purchase order and have it cost them significantly less simply by skimming off the top.
Also, as we all saw with the bread price fixing scheme, it ultimately did not hurt those retailers at all to be held accountable for the scam.
You have more faith in the system than I do. It's not that I don't think they face fines that would be pretty significant if they weren't such a behemoth, it's that I think they factor them in and commit as much fraud as possible while keeping it worth their while. I bet they run a risk analysis and stay *just* this side of keeping it profitable to cheat, while counting on a certain degree of consumer complacency. Occasional fines are part of the cost of doing business, and they factor them in.
In any case, though, I skipped breakfast this morning and I was hungry. So your comment inspired me to check my own can of No Name tuna. I'm eating a tuna salad sandwich while typing this.
My can was 111 g. https://imgur.com/a/v9OfVXj
This has been discussed in the media, and it's unlikely the food inspection agency would really do anything. The consensus is that you should go to the store directly to complain.
Any company approaching monopoly status for essential goods or services absolutely does have influence in Parliament, exactly. It's more than plausible that Loblaws actively supports spending tax money somewhere other than regulation and oversight for their own industry. In this system, they'd be stupid not to.
It's naïve. People have *way* too much faith in the "inspection agencies" and "standards" and "safety laws" that candidates and voters have neglected for decades.
That's why we're in this situation.
As someone who has studied and worked in six sigma and manufacturing, companies would rather have a defect that benefits them. However as long the defects are like 1 in million which is six sigma or six standard deviations from the mean is covered
A one in a million defect doesn't in any way benefit the company. The effort to determine that the defect is one in a million or less cost WAY more than any benefit provided by a one in a million defect.
Well, kinda sorta.
A common way of packaging dry goods (candy, nuts, chips, other things like bolts, etc) is a multi-head weighing fill line.
One setup may be to dispense about 20% of the weight they need for the package, into 10 hoppers. The scales in the hoppers check to see if there are any 5 that get them very close to the weight on the package, without going under. If there are 5 that work out, those 5 hoppers dispense into the container and the line moves on. There's usually a "reject" path if hoppers end up too far away from the average to realistically be used - the goods are still usable, they just need to be returned to the "input" of the machine.
Here's a random YouTube video I found in a few seconds, I didn't listen to the audio so I have no idea if there is any: https://youtu.be/HDJGyQzLGZQ&t=146
I think this isn’t only loblaws.
I think this is a lot of food companies.
I’ve been saying for years that items seem smaller and less for more $.
Someone needs to weigh a bag of Oreos.
Nope, that would be illegal. The total weight listed on the can is required to be the weight of the fish inside the can after the salt water has been drained out:
"Some foods, such as canned shellfish and frozen glazed fish, are packed in brine, water or other liquid that is not normally consumed. The document entitled Units of Measurement for the Net Quantity Declaration of Certain Foods lists the prepackaged products that are required to show their net quantity by weight of the edible contents in the container (that is to say, drained weight) [231(a), SFCR]. This does not include the free liquid or glaze content."
https://inspection.canada.ca/en/food-labels/labelling/industry/net-quantity#s17c4
Loblaws is just like my coke dealer. They're out here selling us 0.7's. I've always wondered if there's a way to make the money we pay come up short for them. "My $100 bill is actually only $70 when they go to the bank" Lol
I work in food packaging so I'll go against the grain and say we shouldn't assume it's a scam as there are regulated procedures [(example)](https://www.fao.org/input/download/standards/105/CXS_070e.pdf) for determining the drained weight of the products. Not saying whether OP's can is underweight or not, just saying it's a bit more methodical than squishing out the water and weighing it. Personally I like my tuna dry and you can squeeze quite a bit of water from it.
Determination of Drained Weight (from the linked document):
* Maintain the container at a temperature between 20°C and 30°C for a minimum of 12 hours prior to examination.
* Open and tilt the container to distribute the contents on a pre-weighed circular sieve which consists of wire mesh with square openings of 2.8 mm x 2.8 mm.
* Incline the sieve at an angle of approximately 17-20° and allow the fish to drain for two minutes, measured from the time the product is poured into the sieve.
* Weigh the sieve containing the drained fish
* The weight of drained fish is obtained by subtracting the weight of the sieve from the weight of the sieve and drained product.
This is kinda what I thought was going on. It's much easier to do this on products where there's no room for misinterpretation.
That being said, I'm also sure they cut every possible corner they can and take advantage of any loophole they've somehow worked into the legislation. I don't give this a pass because who likes mushy wet tuna? But I'm betting they'll tell you:
"Why, in fact, everyone!"
Exactly. It's still a scam. Who wrote the rules about how they're supposed to determine the drained weight? Who had been lobbying them? We are all being cheated: here's my 111 g can, drained the way a normal person drains it. https://imgur.com/a/v9OfVXj
I'm no expert but this could explain inflated margins, extra profits and millions paid in bonus.
There has to be a way to report this to a degree that would cause a major audit and conclude what we all are thinking - the whole enterprise is built on a fraud.
Show it better. Whole tin in picture and on scale. This shows absolutely nothing. Likely holding the bowl with the other hand because why else would you hide it? I only want real rage induction, so don’t leave areas for criticism
I immediately ran to the pantry and did the same thing with a 85g can of tai chilli tuna no name brand. It came out to 88g. Guess I'm not winning the lottery today.
If the contents number is too far off this can be a case. 120g to 96 is an insane decrease especially factoring in the bowls weight. This is classic false advertising which would apply for each and every product they false advertise. Someone should check each and every can they sell.
I highly doubt this is unique to Roblaws. I do the majority of my shopping at Walmart and a local produce market but I’m going to start checking all the products I buy and start reporting any discrepancies. Sad that this world has driven me to be completely untrusting 🥺🤙🏼🇨🇦
This is the first time I heard of canned goods being underweight, but their beef and pork has *always* been underweighted. I first noticed more than a decade ago when I bought some ground beef and discovered that I couldn't divide it into the expected number of equal sized paddies.
At first I thought there was a problem with my kitchen scale, but I've bought a few different scales over the years and Loblaw's meat always ends up short. It's never underweighted by a consistent amount, but in general the larger the size you buy, the larger the inconsistency between the weight on the scale and what's on the label.
I had this problem with a clover leaf can of tuna. I emailed them to complain and they gave me the following reply
“The net weight of each can includes the fish, the liquid and all other ingredients listed on the label. For this reason, the drained weight will always be less than the net contents. Drained weight is not a good measure of the amount of fish in the can because of the difference in bulk density of the different pack styles and of the oil or water retained after draining. Some people use a great deal of pressure to squeeze out the juices, while others simply empty the contents into a strainer.
Federal regulations have been established to control the amount of fish contained in a given size can, and we assure you we follow stringent quality control procedures to meet the standards.
Please be assured that we make it our priory to ensure all our products comply with our high standards of quality. Stringent quality control procedures are carried out by qualified personnel and thorough inspections are carried out to provide you with a consistent product every time.
We certainly regret your disappointment. We value your business and are most conscientious in our efforts to maintain the highest standards of quality. Please accept the coupon that will be mailed to you in the hope they will restore your confidence in our brand.”
I got some coupons out of it but seems like BS to me still.
By drained I assume they mean you poured the water out. Yours kind of looks like you squeezed every last drop of moisture out of the fish. I don't know if that's what it usually looks like but it looks awful compared to what I buy.
This is a fun game. I have time. Does anyone want to give me products for a list of “100 things that were underweight? At LOBLAWS. The BOYCOTT company….fair and balanced”? I’m somewhat retired but good at this kind of thing. Throw me a product, I’ll do a spreadsheet.
I was talking to a lawyer about this recently! I believe you can make a claim to whatever regulating body applies to misrepresenting food in your country (in this case Canada). As long as you have adequate proof, I believe you can get a full refund and keep the product (depending on the circumstances). Note, I am not a lawyer myself, this is NOT legal advice
No. I am more curious on how the tuna weighed with the water, and how the liquid was drained. If you pour the tuna into a strainer, and dont give it a squeeze, it will probably weight the 120g. I normally use the top of the can to squeeze the tuna, releasing more of the water, which will make it lighter. I will be making pasta salad tomorrow, I will weight up all three stages to just to see how it works out! This has got me curious now.
Ok internet guy. Believe what you want, I'm just saying that's how it was done 4 years ago and I doubt it's changed. Have fun with your know it all life.
I have this issue with a yogurt I buy, but it’s not a Loblaws brand. The tub says it’s 500 grams. The serving size is 175 grams. There is definitely not 2.8 servings in the tub.
If you want to be conscientious about what you eat, watch seaspiracy on Netflix. Seafood should've been boycotted a long time ago for the sake of all of us and the planet.
From the Canadian government website:
Drained weight
Some foods, such as canned shellfish and frozen glazed fish, are packed in brine, water or other liquid that is not normally consumed. The document entitled Units of Measurement for the Net Quantity Declaration of Certain Foods lists the prepackaged products that are required to show their net quantity by weight of the edible contents in the container (that is to say, drained weight) [231(a), SFCR]. This does not include the free liquid or glaze content.
This is not the first post I’ve seen with goods from that brand that were significantly underweight. DON’T BUY FROM THEM and maybe they will get the message.
Thanks for sharing this. 🙏
This is not the first post I’ve seen with goods from that brand that were significantly underweight. DON’T BUY FROM THEM and maybe they will get the message.
Thanks for sharing this. 🙏
What you see on any cartoon can or packaging of some sort is the total weight of the product and container... no where anywhere says weight of contents...
did you also weigh the water? Legally that counts as the food in the can. Might not be the "spirit" of the labelling, but i'm sure their lawyers will be able to tell Measurement Canada that it meets the criteria :(
I for one am shocked! Said no one anywhere ever! Shrinkflation and corporate price goughing! I thought Pierre Poilievre said it was all due to the carbon tax?
Just to be clear. I hate the price gouging of these grocery chains, but I don’t think this is the smoking gun you think it is. You can’t remove all the water and compare the weight to the weight of salmon that was packaged which probably came out of the fish with more water content than what is present in this picture. It’s like squeezing out the water from a lemon before weighing it. The water is part and parcel of the food.
Best thing to do
Is call the company and tell them
That their product is wrong
And that you have proof
The next time you try this out
Buy a can, and film the process
Once you have the footage
You can tell the company that you have video
Proof, pure footage of the underweight
Where does one find the marketing labelling laws to get the facts. Then products can be checked to those facts by everybody. Reporting by the many will then put an unrelenting pressure to get compliance.
Tuna packed water could possible weigh the amount on the can. Tuna that has been drained of water could also weigh the number on the scale. 🤷♀️ just throwing that out there.
This holds no weight (pun intended). I don't doubt the post, but anyone can take away some of the tuna, have a bad scale, or edit the image. I'm not saying its fake. It's also not sufficient proof to make a change.
I didn't realize there is a both a drained and undrained weight. I did locate the US FDA standards for canned tuna and how they weigh it. [It's located on this site](https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXS%2B70-1981%252FCXS_070e.pdf).
>The drained weight of all sample units shall be determined by the following procedure:
(i) Maintain the container at a temperature between 20C and 30C for a minimum of 12 hours prior to examination.
(ii) Open and tilt the container to distribute the contents on a pre-weighed circular sieve which consists of wire mesh with square openings of 2.8 mm x 2.8 mm.
(iii) Incline the sieve at an angle of approximately 17-20 degrees and allow the fish to drain for two minutes, measured from the time the product is poured into the sieve.
(iv) Weigh the sieve containing the drained fish.
(v) The weight of drained fish is obtained by subtracting the weight of the sieve from the weight of the sieve and drained product.
So squeezing the tuna dry is not how they determine what the "drained" weight is. They let it sit on a sieve for two minutes, so there's still going to be water in the fish. That is likely where the 24 missing grams are - they don't squeeze the fish dry to weigh it.
I use to always get 2 fat sandwiches and a bite or two left over when using a can of the no name tuna now I noticed I’m just getting my two sandwiches and not even as overflowing as they use to be 😢
__MOD NOTE/NOTE DE MOD__: NEW! Use code "FOODSECURITY" at OddBunch to receive 25% off your first produce box, and help support the boycott's efforts to create a charity. If you are looking for product replacements, start [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/loblawsisoutofcontrol/comments/1cyf1h9/megathread_pc_product_replacements/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). Please review the content guidelines for our sub, and remember the human here! This subreddit is to highlight the ridiculous cost of living in Canada, and poke fun at the Corporate Overlords responsible. As you well know, there are a number of persons and corporations responsible for this, and we welcome discussion related to them all. Furthermore, since this topic is intertwined with a number of other matters, other discussion will be allowed at moderator discretion. Open-minded discussion, memes, rants, grocery bills, and general screeching into the void is always welcome in this sub, but belligerence and disrespect is not. There are plenty of ways to get your point across without being abusive, dismissive, or downright mean. ********************************************************************************************************************************************* Veuillez consulter les directives de contenu pour notre sous-reddit, et rappelez-vous qu'il y a des humains ici ! Ce sous-reddit est destiné à mettre en lumière le coût de la vie ridicule au Canada et à se moquer des Grands Patrons Corporatifs responsables. Comme vous le savez bien, de nombreuses personnes et entreprises en sont responsables, et nous accueillons les discussions les concernant toutes. De plus, puisque ce sujet est lié à un certain nombre d'autres questions, d'autres discussions seront autorisées à la discrétion des modérateurs. Les discussions ouvertes d'esprit, les mèmes, les coups de gueule, les factures d'épicerie et les cris dans le vide en général sont toujours les bienvenus dans ce sous-reddit, mais la belliqueusité et le manque de respect ne le sont pas. Il existe de nombreuses façons de faire passer votre point de vue sans être abusif, méprisant ou carrément méchant. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/loblawsisoutofcontrol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is the 2nd “1 in a million” under weight products I’ve seen posted here in 2 days. Amazing how you found another. You should play the lottery today with that luck. Just so everyone thinks about this. They have to add the actual weight of the products in the system so the scale at the self checkout is able to determine if the product you scanned was the same as the one put on the scale.
I never thought of this. So they are truly fully in the know, not like I doubted it but this is pretty indisputable.
"in the know". The weight is either entered by someone somewhere who doesn't care enough to pay attention to the numbers they're pressing. Or it's weighed and entered by an automated system when the items are first set up. It's still note worthy enough to report, and still to keep an eye out for.
Huh? They're saying that the product has to be intentionally improperly registered to not show up as an incorrect item when it's on the checkout scale.
It doesn't need to be *intentionally* set up that way. Imagine a system where entering a new product just means scanning it, then putting it on the scale and letting the computer determine the weight. It wouldnt have to display the weight in grams to the employee at all.
~~The computer is either hiding the weight from the employee, or it's been programmed to show the incorrect weight.... either way... intent....~~ I didn't explain myself very well here. The hypothesis that makes the most sense to me is that the registered weights aren't exact but are registered as a ***weight range*** in order for the product to be recognized as matching the SKU when it's put in the scale, and the amount printed on the bag doesn't match the actual weight. Programming a weight range while having a finite weight on the bag is evidence of intent.
Or the employee simply does not crosscheck the stated weight against the measured value, because *why would they* - their job is to weigh products and hit OK, not check the measurements.
My point is that programing a weight range on the machine while having a finite weight on the bag is potential evidence of intent. The machine has to know the weight of the actual item on the scale to know you're not stealing something more expensive that you've exchanged for the scanned item. The scale must then be programmed to accept a weight RANGE, for each product to register it on the scale as the product with the same SKU, so that the ones that weigh less than what the bag says are still recognized as the correct product by the joint data of the SKU and the weight...
Most likely, it's an EDI transfer on the pallet net weight, divided by the number of units the pallet has, plus or minus some fudge factor.
absolutely comes from the manufacturer, and if it's wrong the manufacturer is fined and/or delisted.
The manufacturer here happens to be Loblaws though
it's someone who puts the loblaw name on the product
sounds like it's "working as intended" then.
Sure. That's what an EDI transfer is. But only delisted if it's something the end user cares about.
... or the undrained weight was exactly the same because any space was simply taken up by water. Do you think that loblaws is xraying the cans to ensure you get your tuna?
Ok but youre talking a 70g difference of water in that tiny can which is 70 ml of water.
Which is more water than that bloody can can even hold.
I truly love these, please everyone keep posting them so we can have a lot of samples to send to CBC for a full on media investigation
It isnt "1 in a million". I saw a segment on the news about this. There have been a lot of complaints and they launched and official investigation into it. They really are ripping people off. Speaking of, the assistant usually has to come and clear my screen because it wont let me continue because it thinks an item is missing.
My reusable PC bag can't even be added without an employee zeroing out the scale AFTER I've pressed the "add bag" button. Infuriating.
Huge influx of shill accounts in here lately trying to disprove hard evidence of this fuckery too
Yeah but it would be easy to bring it up to weight with water. Especially if it is consistently lower in weight for tuna and topped up with water.
This is the one from yesterday. This is not water weight. Chicken strips. Today I decided to weigh them and wow it wasn't even close. Packaging says 9 pieces 675g. I got 9 small pieces and they only weighed 426g. https://www.reddit.com/r/loblawsisoutofcontrol/s/X0vwVChdoq
FYI, if the chicken comes with a sauce they include the sauce as part of the total weight 🥲
I believe that is frozen food packaging but this is hot/fresh(ish) food prepared in house. Not defending this but it could very well be lazy staff just weighed that amount initially and is just making additional portions and averaging out the size of the strips by eye rather than individually weighing and pricing accordingly.
Oooh yeah I was thinking frozen. For hot food that’s wild! Definitely someone just eyeballing it and half assing the labeling
And they started giving 2 sauce packs instead of 1.
Next time weight the tuna in the can, empty it, then weigh the empty can and subtract. I’d be curious about the result.
And those scales are damn sensitive, if I put a shopping bag on it it’ll freak out.
I remember at Home Depot I bought paint. I had to get assistance because it was saying the weight was wrong. Turns out the free paint stir stick was causing the problem.
I'm sure the contents of the can do weigh 120. The trouble is, you can do that by filling it with straight tap water. The weight of the *meat* is supposed to be 120.
If you read the label, the "contents of the can" should be 170g.
So they use NCR machines like almost every other retailer. Used to work at co-op.. There are 2 things at play: -new items that don't have a weight entered will automatically be registered when it's first "rung through" -it can be changed (at least where I worked) at the store level manually -it can be changed/entered at the HO level BUT the scale to buy stuff (scanner) is tested by the government... So use that to weigh the can when you buy it... Is it just filled with water? Or is it a complete and utter lie?
I had this problem with Selections tuna too. Kirkland cans are over weight and have 133g instead of "120g"
Yup. Kirkland tend to have more than advertised.
Modern packaging equipment should be very accurate. So if something is consistently under, it is on purpose.
Modern packing lines should be set up to detect the outliers as well. Though I’m not sure what the required accuracy needs to be here… I would think it’d be better than +/- 20%
I love me a good Costco run
Costco pays their workers the most of most grocers (factcheck me on this I just knew a cousin worked there for $22), offer the best savings, offer great quality services, decent fast food, and have the best customer care/return policy. They deserve all the business they can get!
22 bucks in Canadian or us dollars?
All hail Costco!
On behalf of team at Roblaws: You squeezed the tuna too hard and lost weight.
More input from Robbers: Also, you didn't tare the bowl at zero. But team at Roblaws in that linkedin post, always tared it correctly.
Didn’t know I needed to videotape my tuna. 🤦🏻♂️ my bad! Next time I will definitely do better and video every step
Yeah and the part where you are buying the scale, then verify the calibration with standardized weights
Even if it isn’t calibrated properly, a 24% variation is unreasonable, no?
I'm just pulling your leg but if it's damaged or something, entirely possible
I don’t think it is damaged. It seems to measure the weight of water pretty accurately.
Yeah I should've added the /s 🤣
As someone who's totally not a shill, tuna are well known for having eating disorders. It's impolite to bring up that your tuna is underweight because that might cause it psychological trauma.
Tuna has suffocated and the customer has committed a crime.
Quick!!! Surround them with plexiglass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Fraud Professor: What even is 'weight'?
I just reported some cream cheese that was over 50 g underweight as well. I hope everybody starts weighing and reporting, because they recently had someone claim that underweight products are a “rare mistake”.
Link to where to report?
https://nowtoronto.com/news/1-in-10-million-chance-of-packaging-mistakes-loblaw-responds-to-underweight-product-claims/
You know there is a Federal food inspection agency that will investigate any complaint. We have weights and standards which are enforced. Packaging standards. False advertising. Food safety laws. People act like it's the Wild West and the vendors have some power to evade all these things. They don't have that power.
People are not going to go home and check every product and file complaints though. No one has that kind of time on their hands for black box complaints that are not realistically going to result in a significant change in circumstance for the customer. And Loblaws knows it. Even if they did have to effectively respond to every complaint, it would still cost them less than not cheating. This sort of thing should be proactively checked and firmly handled by strong government agencies.
I have never thought to check the weight of packaged food but this sub has had me doing that out of curiosity. I don't buy any No Name products so I don't have any input to add, but recently I found three packages of Compliments cream cheese off by 3-5 grams. It doesn't seem like a lot but when they sell millions of packages a year, the weight shavings are real.
There's probably some % tolerance that's deemed acceptable
And if you call to complain, they will send you a voucher for a free product almost all of the time. Premier Protein sent me a case where it was obvious they changed the hot glue on the cartons. 1 wasn't sealed at all and 2 following in the same pack weren't air tight. They sent me a new 12 pack case but their chocolate tasted like crap so they took a long time to drink all 21 of them.
https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/accuracy-requirements-net-quantity-declarations#sched-1 There is. Between 6 and 600g you are allowed 6g.
This has apparently become an instagram meme. My take is that people are doing it for likes/clicks/internet karma, because the countless millions of dollars it would cost for false advertising (seriously check the law - the fines are pretty nuts) many products in their store isn't worth the thousands of dollars they'll make by giving you 20g less.
If there's an amount you're legally allowed to be off the marked weight, any greedy/cheap person could fill their purchase order and have it cost them significantly less simply by skimming off the top. Also, as we all saw with the bread price fixing scheme, it ultimately did not hurt those retailers at all to be held accountable for the scam.
How easy would it be them to argue it is an anomaly? And if things aren’t reported or caught, the fine doesn’t occur.
You have more faith in the system than I do. It's not that I don't think they face fines that would be pretty significant if they weren't such a behemoth, it's that I think they factor them in and commit as much fraud as possible while keeping it worth their while. I bet they run a risk analysis and stay *just* this side of keeping it profitable to cheat, while counting on a certain degree of consumer complacency. Occasional fines are part of the cost of doing business, and they factor them in. In any case, though, I skipped breakfast this morning and I was hungry. So your comment inspired me to check my own can of No Name tuna. I'm eating a tuna salad sandwich while typing this. My can was 111 g. https://imgur.com/a/v9OfVXj
This has been discussed in the media, and it's unlikely the food inspection agency would really do anything. The consensus is that you should go to the store directly to complain.
Probably that agency is funded by Robbers too. Who knows.
Any company approaching monopoly status for essential goods or services absolutely does have influence in Parliament, exactly. It's more than plausible that Loblaws actively supports spending tax money somewhere other than regulation and oversight for their own industry. In this system, they'd be stupid not to. It's naïve. People have *way* too much faith in the "inspection agencies" and "standards" and "safety laws" that candidates and voters have neglected for decades. That's why we're in this situation.
Funny how it's always *less* than the package and never more, aye?
As someone who has studied and worked in six sigma and manufacturing, companies would rather have a defect that benefits them. However as long the defects are like 1 in million which is six sigma or six standard deviations from the mean is covered
A one in a million defect doesn't in any way benefit the company. The effort to determine that the defect is one in a million or less cost WAY more than any benefit provided by a one in a million defect.
Well, kinda sorta. A common way of packaging dry goods (candy, nuts, chips, other things like bolts, etc) is a multi-head weighing fill line. One setup may be to dispense about 20% of the weight they need for the package, into 10 hoppers. The scales in the hoppers check to see if there are any 5 that get them very close to the weight on the package, without going under. If there are 5 that work out, those 5 hoppers dispense into the container and the line moves on. There's usually a "reject" path if hoppers end up too far away from the average to realistically be used - the goods are still usable, they just need to be returned to the "input" of the machine. Here's a random YouTube video I found in a few seconds, I didn't listen to the audio so I have no idea if there is any: https://youtu.be/HDJGyQzLGZQ&t=146
That is not how we spell "eh"
Just 24 grams, but when you multiply those grams by millions of cans....
Daylight robbery
I think this isn’t only loblaws. I think this is a lot of food companies. I’ve been saying for years that items seem smaller and less for more $. Someone needs to weigh a bag of Oreos.
The “newly designed” Kraft dressing bottles are now 25g less than the previous. I’m starting to lose it with this nonsense.
I'm guessing they count water weight as part of the total? Such bs
170g total weight, 120g drained is what it's supposed to be.
To be fair, OP's tuna looks like it was drained overnight in the sun. My mouth is dry just looking at it
I think they used to do this but then they started separating the total weight from the drained weight quite a few years ago.
These scams have been going on for years.
Nope, that would be illegal. The total weight listed on the can is required to be the weight of the fish inside the can after the salt water has been drained out: "Some foods, such as canned shellfish and frozen glazed fish, are packed in brine, water or other liquid that is not normally consumed. The document entitled Units of Measurement for the Net Quantity Declaration of Certain Foods lists the prepackaged products that are required to show their net quantity by weight of the edible contents in the container (that is to say, drained weight) [231(a), SFCR]. This does not include the free liquid or glaze content." https://inspection.canada.ca/en/food-labels/labelling/industry/net-quantity#s17c4
Loblaws is just like my coke dealer. They're out here selling us 0.7's. I've always wondered if there's a way to make the money we pay come up short for them. "My $100 bill is actually only $70 when they go to the bank" Lol
I work in food packaging so I'll go against the grain and say we shouldn't assume it's a scam as there are regulated procedures [(example)](https://www.fao.org/input/download/standards/105/CXS_070e.pdf) for determining the drained weight of the products. Not saying whether OP's can is underweight or not, just saying it's a bit more methodical than squishing out the water and weighing it. Personally I like my tuna dry and you can squeeze quite a bit of water from it. Determination of Drained Weight (from the linked document): * Maintain the container at a temperature between 20°C and 30°C for a minimum of 12 hours prior to examination. * Open and tilt the container to distribute the contents on a pre-weighed circular sieve which consists of wire mesh with square openings of 2.8 mm x 2.8 mm. * Incline the sieve at an angle of approximately 17-20° and allow the fish to drain for two minutes, measured from the time the product is poured into the sieve. * Weigh the sieve containing the drained fish * The weight of drained fish is obtained by subtracting the weight of the sieve from the weight of the sieve and drained product.
This is kinda what I thought was going on. It's much easier to do this on products where there's no room for misinterpretation. That being said, I'm also sure they cut every possible corner they can and take advantage of any loophole they've somehow worked into the legislation. I don't give this a pass because who likes mushy wet tuna? But I'm betting they'll tell you: "Why, in fact, everyone!"
Exactly. It's still a scam. Who wrote the rules about how they're supposed to determine the drained weight? Who had been lobbying them? We are all being cheated: here's my 111 g can, drained the way a normal person drains it. https://imgur.com/a/v9OfVXj
How much of that pile is even tuna?
walmart is currently paying out cash in a class-action for that exact trick…
I'm no expert but this could explain inflated margins, extra profits and millions paid in bonus. There has to be a way to report this to a degree that would cause a major audit and conclude what we all are thinking - the whole enterprise is built on a fraud.
That's the weight including the water, the can, and your hand tho. /s
Opened a can. 110 g drained.
~~One~~ *Two* in a million! Edit: **Three** in a million! https://imgur.com/a/v9OfVXj
The regulators are asleep at the while in Canada.
The label DOES say “Light”
Why is The government doing literally nothing about this?
Where is the water it comes in.
Show it better. Whole tin in picture and on scale. This shows absolutely nothing. Likely holding the bowl with the other hand because why else would you hide it? I only want real rage induction, so don’t leave areas for criticism
lesson learned , dont buy packaged , canned food . they are all underweight ...
That's a *lot* of water weight.
This company is disgusting
Beginning to feel intentional ….
I immediately ran to the pantry and did the same thing with a 85g can of tai chilli tuna no name brand. It came out to 88g. Guess I'm not winning the lottery today.
Shhh! Galen's goons are going to come after you and shake you down for those 3 grams of tuna (or its cash equivalent). Better be ready for some pain!
If you look closer and squint just right, it says right beside it that it is the suggested serving size not the actual weight. /s
If the contents number is too far off this can be a case. 120g to 96 is an insane decrease especially factoring in the bowls weight. This is classic false advertising which would apply for each and every product they false advertise. Someone should check each and every can they sell.
That’s interesting
Only 20% under. Cough.
This is worse then selling 0.8s as 1 gram
This is happening way too much...
I highly doubt this is unique to Roblaws. I do the majority of my shopping at Walmart and a local produce market but I’m going to start checking all the products I buy and start reporting any discrepancies. Sad that this world has driven me to be completely untrusting 🥺🤙🏼🇨🇦
This is the first time I heard of canned goods being underweight, but their beef and pork has *always* been underweighted. I first noticed more than a decade ago when I bought some ground beef and discovered that I couldn't divide it into the expected number of equal sized paddies. At first I thought there was a problem with my kitchen scale, but I've bought a few different scales over the years and Loblaw's meat always ends up short. It's never underweighted by a consistent amount, but in general the larger the size you buy, the larger the inconsistency between the weight on the scale and what's on the label.
Don't see any fluid that you normally get. If it was drained before measuring, that is the difference in weight.
It literally says on the label that it’s supposed to be 120g drained.
Where is the water?
Did you weigh it with the liquid
How much water did you drain off ?
Lol you removed the water content. Of course it’s ‘underweight’
They count the water. In theory, you could cook with it.
You took out the water
Shouldn’t the government be checking this crap
I had this problem with a clover leaf can of tuna. I emailed them to complain and they gave me the following reply “The net weight of each can includes the fish, the liquid and all other ingredients listed on the label. For this reason, the drained weight will always be less than the net contents. Drained weight is not a good measure of the amount of fish in the can because of the difference in bulk density of the different pack styles and of the oil or water retained after draining. Some people use a great deal of pressure to squeeze out the juices, while others simply empty the contents into a strainer. Federal regulations have been established to control the amount of fish contained in a given size can, and we assure you we follow stringent quality control procedures to meet the standards. Please be assured that we make it our priory to ensure all our products comply with our high standards of quality. Stringent quality control procedures are carried out by qualified personnel and thorough inspections are carried out to provide you with a consistent product every time. We certainly regret your disappointment. We value your business and are most conscientious in our efforts to maintain the highest standards of quality. Please accept the coupon that will be mailed to you in the hope they will restore your confidence in our brand.” I got some coupons out of it but seems like BS to me still.
By drained I assume they mean you poured the water out. Yours kind of looks like you squeezed every last drop of moisture out of the fish. I don't know if that's what it usually looks like but it looks awful compared to what I buy.
This is a fun game. I have time. Does anyone want to give me products for a list of “100 things that were underweight? At LOBLAWS. The BOYCOTT company….fair and balanced”? I’m somewhat retired but good at this kind of thing. Throw me a product, I’ll do a spreadsheet.
But what does with weigh with the water packaged with it?
I was talking to a lawyer about this recently! I believe you can make a claim to whatever regulating body applies to misrepresenting food in your country (in this case Canada). As long as you have adequate proof, I believe you can get a full refund and keep the product (depending on the circumstances). Note, I am not a lawyer myself, this is NOT legal advice
Would have been interested in seeing total and drained weight to see if they were always under or if they topped up with water.
I opened tuna the other day that was labeled 100g drained. I would guess that yours could be a victim of shrinkflation without updated packaging.
As someone who used to work for the packaging wearhouse, the weight on the objects at lablaws includes the container it comes in.
That would be illegal.
They're scum, what do you expect?
So where do I sign for the class action lawsuit? Bury these cockaroshes!
Put the can on the scale also. I bet it weighs
No. I am more curious on how the tuna weighed with the water, and how the liquid was drained. If you pour the tuna into a strainer, and dont give it a squeeze, it will probably weight the 120g. I normally use the top of the can to squeeze the tuna, releasing more of the water, which will make it lighter. I will be making pasta salad tomorrow, I will weight up all three stages to just to see how it works out! This has got me curious now.
Ok internet guy. Believe what you want, I'm just saying that's how it was done 4 years ago and I doubt it's changed. Have fun with your know it all life.
Thats including the plate!
Vanity sizing. I wish I could just squeeze my own meat and be under weight.
I have this issue with a yogurt I buy, but it’s not a Loblaws brand. The tub says it’s 500 grams. The serving size is 175 grams. There is definitely not 2.8 servings in the tub.
If you're not in Quebec: https://inspection.canada.ca/en/food-safety-consumers/where-report-complaint/report-food-related-concern
If you want to be conscientious about what you eat, watch seaspiracy on Netflix. Seafood should've been boycotted a long time ago for the sake of all of us and the planet.
This is standard practice for Roblaws...
Be careful. They'll fill it up will "harmless pulp" just to make the weight
You drained it too much
Make sure you send a complaint every single complaint matters. Let’s annoy the shit outta em
Did you squeeze the water out of it?
Did you weigh the water before you drained it?
No water that adds a lot of
Is someone documenting all of these? Anyone care to start a spreadsheet? I will gladly go into the store with my kitchen scale and start documenting.
You gotta report this. This ain't cool. If I want fish, Roblaws better give me my damn fish
OP, please open and weigh all your cans of tuna so we have more data to work with 😬
96g WITH the bowl, no?
Report the fraud
It's been like this for a while now. I buy chunk tuna instead, usually you get close to the amount it says.
sigh...
With water?
Now add the water.
Not to be devil's advocate, but what's the weight with water/unemptied can?
It’s in the picture. 170g, drained is 120g.
I've always thought the weight is with the water/oil included
Look at the can
From the Canadian government website: Drained weight Some foods, such as canned shellfish and frozen glazed fish, are packed in brine, water or other liquid that is not normally consumed. The document entitled Units of Measurement for the Net Quantity Declaration of Certain Foods lists the prepackaged products that are required to show their net quantity by weight of the edible contents in the container (that is to say, drained weight) [231(a), SFCR]. This does not include the free liquid or glaze content.
I have that too! Jerks
This is not the first post I’ve seen with goods from that brand that were significantly underweight. DON’T BUY FROM THEM and maybe they will get the message. Thanks for sharing this. 🙏
This is not the first post I’ve seen with goods from that brand that were significantly underweight. DON’T BUY FROM THEM and maybe they will get the message. Thanks for sharing this. 🙏
Plus the weight of the can?
I suspect you just squeezed it more than they did when they determined that drained weight.
That is weight with water. You have clearly drained the water out of that dry tuna.
Report. It. Every. Time. https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/contact-competition-bureau-canada/complaint-form
I bought a 20KG bag of soil.... it was 20 pounds. Very disappointed
What about the water?
What you see on any cartoon can or packaging of some sort is the total weight of the product and container... no where anywhere says weight of contents...
did you also weigh the water? Legally that counts as the food in the can. Might not be the "spirit" of the labelling, but i'm sure their lawyers will be able to tell Measurement Canada that it meets the criteria :(
I for one am shocked! Said no one anywhere ever! Shrinkflation and corporate price goughing! I thought Pierre Poilievre said it was all due to the carbon tax?
[удалено]
Thinking it's the water that brings it up to weight. There's nothing saying it's xxxgrams of strictly tuna.
…did you read the label?
Just to be clear. I hate the price gouging of these grocery chains, but I don’t think this is the smoking gun you think it is. You can’t remove all the water and compare the weight to the weight of salmon that was packaged which probably came out of the fish with more water content than what is present in this picture. It’s like squeezing out the water from a lemon before weighing it. The water is part and parcel of the food.
They’re beginning to use the same methods as the local plug Underweighing everything to skim money off the top 😂😂😂
Best thing to do Is call the company and tell them That their product is wrong And that you have proof The next time you try this out Buy a can, and film the process Once you have the footage You can tell the company that you have video Proof, pure footage of the underweight
Where does one find the marketing labelling laws to get the facts. Then products can be checked to those facts by everybody. Reporting by the many will then put an unrelenting pressure to get compliance.
I’m waiting for someone to go to the store with a scale and post a video of them weighing all the products
Just checked mine. 105g here.
Tuna packed water could possible weigh the amount on the can. Tuna that has been drained of water could also weigh the number on the scale. 🤷♀️ just throwing that out there.
Did you drain the water before you weighed it?
Send this to the news
This holds no weight (pun intended). I don't doubt the post, but anyone can take away some of the tuna, have a bad scale, or edit the image. I'm not saying its fake. It's also not sufficient proof to make a change.
I didn't realize there is a both a drained and undrained weight. I did locate the US FDA standards for canned tuna and how they weigh it. [It's located on this site](https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXS%2B70-1981%252FCXS_070e.pdf). >The drained weight of all sample units shall be determined by the following procedure: (i) Maintain the container at a temperature between 20C and 30C for a minimum of 12 hours prior to examination. (ii) Open and tilt the container to distribute the contents on a pre-weighed circular sieve which consists of wire mesh with square openings of 2.8 mm x 2.8 mm. (iii) Incline the sieve at an angle of approximately 17-20 degrees and allow the fish to drain for two minutes, measured from the time the product is poured into the sieve. (iv) Weigh the sieve containing the drained fish. (v) The weight of drained fish is obtained by subtracting the weight of the sieve from the weight of the sieve and drained product. So squeezing the tuna dry is not how they determine what the "drained" weight is. They let it sit on a sieve for two minutes, so there's still going to be water in the fish. That is likely where the 24 missing grams are - they don't squeeze the fish dry to weigh it.
Did they include weight of can?
That’s a huge difference!!
I use to always get 2 fat sandwiches and a bite or two left over when using a can of the no name tuna now I noticed I’m just getting my two sandwiches and not even as overflowing as they use to be 😢
So what kind of recourse action can we take? Do we go class action or just file a complaint?