Comments on: Eggs by the kilo

By: Ken Cooper

Ken Cooper — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 21:41:31 +0000

Just by chance, I came across an old Weights & Measures handbook today (1976 edition).

It contained a copy of the Egg Grading Machines Regulations 1964 & went into some detail regarding the use of poises to test those machines.

It also defines the weight bands for egg grading in 1964. Obviously, back then, the grades were set out in Imperial (From memory, Large eggs had to be over 2 and 5/8ths ounces)

This proves quite conclusively that eggs have been sold by weight in the UK for at least 45 years.

By: Robin Paice

Robin Paice — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:19:38 +0000

Responding to Mike P, I think the point is that marking the weight will enable the unit price (i.e. price per kg) to be calculated (presumably “large shops” will have to give the unit price on a shelf label). This will reveal whether “medium” eggs are better value for money than “large” etc. Probably won’t affect many purchasing decisions, as you may want a large boiled egg for your breakfast anyway. However, for consistency and in principle, I think it right that the information should be given.

By: philh

philh — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 08:35:42 +0000

It does seem a logical step to mark egg packaging with the total weight since that is required for everything else where mass rather than volume is the most appropriate way to quantify it.

If the packaging process has to weigh eggs to grade them then why not just do that rather than use an esoteric classification scheme?

Recipies may not traditionally quote egg sizes in grams but authors tend to be informal on this point anyway (medium sized etc) even if they bother to indicate size at all.

By: Mike P

Mike P — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:22:04 +0000

As much as I like to able to make an informed decision when spending money, I’m not sure how seeing the weight on the eggs would help me do that.

I’ve yet to come across a baking recipe that asks me to add eggs in grams.

Admittedly I would be annoyed if one egg was significantly smaller than it’s eleven companions, however setting minimum weights for eggs within their class (ie small 45g, medium 55g, large 65g etc.) would let consumers know what they can expect and when there is cause for complaint.

Putting weight on the pack doesn’t help if you have 11 eggs overweight and a single hollow shell, however this would still be grounds to complain. Then you’ll be asking for the weight printed on each egg and I don’t know about you, but I like to be surprised by a double yolker every now and then. It’s like winning the lottery at breakfast.

By: Jeremiah

Jeremiah — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:45:58 +0000

It would be interesting if Han can report on the effects of the metric sign change in Ireland 5 years now after it was implemented. I am curious to know how many cars on the roads now have full metric speed/odometer displays compared to old ones still with miles.

By: Han Maenen

Han Maenen — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 18:38:13 +0000

I am in Ireland at present and last week I read this nonsense in the ‘Irish’ Daily Mail. There was also and anti-metric and anti EU commentary in that paper. The change to kilometres in Ireland was deplored as well.

By: Ken Cooper

Ken Cooper — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:48:00 +0000

As far as I can recall, eggs have always been graded by metric weight. Most Trading Standards Departments will have an old set of poises used for checking egg grading machines. Like the old imperial standards, they are now quietly gathering dust.

Offhand, I cannot remember exact dates, but in 1985, when I first took an interest in the subject, the weight bands were as follows:

Size 1: over 70g
Size 2: 65 to 70g
Size 3: 60 to 65g
Size 4: 55 to 60g
Size 5: 50 to 55g
Size 6: 45 to 50g
Size 7: under 45g

Large (L): 63 to 73g
Medium (M): 53 to 63g
Small (S): under 53g

A new size (Size 0) was added for extra large eggs (over 75g) at some point in the late 80′s/early 90′s.

The whole system was then revamped in the mid-90′s, resulting in the four weight bands currently in use:

Very large (XL): over 73g
Large (L): 63 to 73g
Medium (M): 53 to 63g
Small (S): under 53g

As far as I am aware, there are no plans to change these current sizings, or to ban the marking of numbers of eggs in a box.

Yet again, the Daily Mail is promoting a non-story based upon a half-truth. Unfortunately, they have an audience who consider a Mail journalist's uninformed speculation based upon a cursory reading of proposed legislation to be a gospel truth. Look forward to this becoming another "straight bananas" myth.

By: Ezra Steinberg

Ezra Steinberg — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 03:03:20 +0000

I presume egg producers will be allowed to add a supplementary indication of “weight” in ounces, but would it be a safe bet that they’ll likely just put the weight in grams?

By: M

Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:05:28 +0000

The key point is that food that is sold by number will also have to show the weight. This should put an end to the practice of some market traders who have been selling by quantity alone, or bowlfuls, without weighing items.

It is a shame that the EU has to be the one to sort this out for us. Why aren’t our national consumer bodies keeping up with events and lobbying government for clearer and more consistent Weights and Measures legislation?

By: Jonathan Miles

Jonathan Miles — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:08:35 +0000

And now the rebuttal:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10461548.stm

This contains a fairly carefully (and sensibly) worded statement that
items that can easily be seen and counted can be sold by number (read
between the lines – dozen eggs – yes, bowlfuls of peas – no).