Progesterone cream - should I call trading standards?

pulliptears

OP do you have a set of kitchen weights you could use to check your own scales?

gordikin

pulliptears wrote: »

OP do you have a set of kitchen weights you could use to check your own scales?

If you do, when were they checked for accuracy?

pulliptears

gordikin wrote: »

If you do, when were they checked for accuracy?

I think you are being a little pedantic here. The weight will be 'roughly accurate' which will be enough for OP to establish whether or not she needs to take the next batch in to TS for further testing.

gordikin

I'm not being pedantic. Part of my job involves weighing accurately, sometimes 100's of grams other times to 1/1000 of a gram. 'Roughly accurate' is not a term I'm familiar with. It's not like buying 10 fish fingers and when you open the pack you find there's only 8.

joyfull

pulliptears wrote: »

I think you are being a little pedantic here. The weight will be 'roughly accurate' which will be enough for OP to establish whether or not she needs to take the next batch in to TS for further testing.

But don't let that get in the way of your further trolling/baiting of people who just come here after a little advice now will you?

Have just tested the scales - 100% accurate.

Pulliptears - thank you for your support.

Frankly, I've been astonished at the unhelpful remarks a genuine question attracts from a few people who are obviously trying to fill a boring aftternoon.

My computer is behaving strangely, so I'm off to scan it.

Byeee!

dmg24

joyfull wrote: »

Have just tested the scales - 100% accurate.

Pulliptears - thank you for your support.

Frankly, I've been astonished at the unhelpful remarks a genuine question attracts from a few people who are obviously trying to fill a boring aftternoon.

My computer is behaving strangely, so I'm off to scan it.

Byeee!

How have you tested them?

pulliptears

gordikin wrote: »

I'm not being pedantic. Part of my job involves weighing accurately, sometimes 100's of grams other times to 1/1000 of a gram. 'Roughly accurate' is not a term I'm familiar with. It's not like buying 10 fish fingers and when you open the pack you find there's only 8.

roughly accurate will be enough to determine if OP should take things further. If her rough weight was 59 Grams then allowing for other factors such as un-calibrated scales would explain the 1 gram deficit, however, should the next pot be 6 or more grams out as well OP would be wise to have it double checked with TS.

jammydodger1000

It is worth contacting Trading Standards purely for the labelling issue. If the company have offered another Tub free, i would take it and think no more of it.

Assuming the figure of 54g is correct then the pot is 16g deficient. The absolute lowest amount in the tub should be 61g so assuming reasonably accurate scales were used it is likely (although not certain) that it is deficient.

I would not expect Trading Standards to look into your complaint as with the free tub you have suffered no detriment but i would expect that they will contact the supplying company and or packers local Trading Standards service to consider and probably advise on the labelling and possible weight issues.

Mankysteve

So your buying a medical product off the internet without the directions of your doctor?

I sniff a con and some marketing BS. Go speak to your doctor and get some proper medical advise.

pulliptears

Mankysteve wrote: »

So your buying a medical product off the internet without the directions of your doctor?

I sniff a con and some marketing BS. Go speak to your doctor and get some proper medical advise.

The product is irrelevant, it could be a tin of beans. What is relevant is the fact that the product is short measured.

What OP chooses to buy online is I suspect her business, and as you do not know whether she has sought medical advise you are not in any position to judge.

Seriously, what is it with people on this board lately that they have to find some way to try and abuse posters to 'point score'.