Two reasons
On this page12
The requirement
Regulations effective to prevent the nonfunctional-slack-fill of packages containing consumer commodities.
And the statutory definition
A package shall be deemed to be nonfunctionally slack-filled if it is filled to substantially less than its capacity for reasons other than (A) protection of the contents of such package or (B) the requirements of the machines used for enclosing the contents in such package.
Two reasons
Protection, and the machines. Nothing else appears in the statute.
The FDA regulation gives six
21 CFR 100.100(a), which the pet food and treats property quotes in full, adds unavoidable settling, a specific package function, a reusable container of independent value, and inability to reduce the package further.
So the statutory list is the narrow one
Which is the opposite of the usual relationship, where a regulation tightens a statute rather than loosening it.
And settling is the reason that is missing
Which for a dry powder is the reason that matters most. A product that packs down in transit is relying on something the statute does not name.
Substantially less than its capacity
Is the statutory threshold, and substantially is doing work that no number does. The regulation uses the same framing and supplies more exceptions rather than a figure.
Which means neither definition gives you a percentage
There is no permitted fraction of empty space anywhere in either. The test is the reason, not the amount.
Our capacity figure is the reference point for both
Filled to substantially less than its capacity. Capacity is the field we publish, on 169 of 171 containers here.
Substantially is the word doing the work
Which is a judgment rather than a fraction, and it is the same framing in both texts. Neither one tells you how much empty space is too much.
And the fill is the number you measure
After settling, in the container you will ship. The pet food property sets out the six-reason version of this analysis in detail.