What this property does not cover
On this page13
Not the guaranteed analysis
The minimum and maximum percentages of crude protein, fat, fiber and moisture that a pet food label carries. Not described here.
Not the nutritional adequacy statement
Which is the claim about whether a food is complete and balanced for a life stage, and the substantiation behind it.
Not feeding directions
Nor the ingredient list, nor ingredient definitions, nor the naming rules that govern what a product may be called.
And none of those are federal
They come from state feed laws and the model regulations those laws adopt. A pet food label is governed state by state, which is a different research problem from a CFR citation.
Which is why this property is narrow on purpose
21 CFR 100.100 is one federal section about misleading containers, and it is the one that bears on a container choice.
Net quantity of contents is also not here
It has its own formatting rules and it is a third number alongside the two in the slack-fill arithmetic.
Nor is the food or drug question
A pet product making a therapeutic claim is assessed differently, and nothing on these pages addresses it.
What is here is the container analysis
Actual capacity from our data, fill volume from yours, and six reasons to check the difference against.
Which is genuinely useful on its own
Because a container is a long lead time and the slack-fill question is answerable before the first case is ordered.
And the container is where federal and state meet
Reason six says a package may be larger than its contents where some minimum package size is necessary to accommodate required food labeling. The labeling that sets that minimum here is mostly state labeling.
Which is an odd and useful crossing
A federal section about empty space is satisfied by reference to requirements that come from somewhere else. Both have to be read to answer either.
The label research belongs with the state
And with whoever can read the applicable feed law. We can tell you how big the container is.