Consumer organisation has had enough of shrinkflation and is taking the matter to court
It’s downright irritating, that shrinkflation we keep coming across in the supermarket. But no matter how many conversations the Consumer Organisation has with those involved, nothing seems to change. The country’s best-known consumer association has had absolutely enough. And so they’re taking serious action: they’re going to court.
Inflation, greedflation, shrinkflation… I understand that it makes your head spin. Just to be clear: shrinkflation is when manufacturers adjust the contents of their packaging while keeping the price the same. So you get less for the same money. Less pasta, less detergent, less granola—the Consumer Organisation has received countless reports from consumers about shrinkflation in the supermarket.
Getting less for the same (or sometimes even a higher) price is already pretty lousy. But what’s even more lousy is that manufacturers don’t communicate the change to the packaging. If the packaging is bigger and you get more, it’s practically written on it in glitter and neon letters. The other way around, that isn’t the case—and that isn’t fair to consumers.
Backroom dealings and lame excuses
Food watchdog Foodwatch recently issued a serious warning: manufacturers must stop that sneaky shrinkflation now. The Consumer Organisation has also been trying for some time to hold discussions with industry associations, supermarkets and manufacturers. But as it turns out, everyone is pointing fingers and the excuses are downright weak. The supermarket industry association, CBL, tells the Consumer Organisation that ‘they are not responsible for what supermarkets do’.
And what does a supermarket such as Jumbo do? It doesn’t communicate changes in the quantities of products. That isn’t legally required, the company says. Only the exact quantity has to be stated on the packaging and on the shelf—not necessarily that a change in contents has taken place.
Then there’s the industry association for manufacturers, FNLI. It tells the Consumer Organisation that supermarkets set product prices themselves. It also says that manufacturers themselves decide to make packaging smaller. Those manufacturers are good at selling the idea too. Some blame high energy and labour costs that need to be covered, while others invoke sustainability.
Liquorice manufacturer Klene, for example, says it ‘used the packaging change as an opportunity to use less packaging material per kilogram of product.’ Sure, let’s hear a few more of those. Did you know that shrinkflation is actually not sustainable at all? Your product runs out faster, so you have to buy a new one sooner. And that means more waste.
Fine
Enough talking, the Consumer Organisation thinks. If people refuse to listen, they’ll have to feel the consequences. The consumer association believes this constitutes ‘unfair commercial practices’, which are prohibited by law. If the court agrees with the Consumer Organisation, things could turn out rather badly for the parties involved. The fine can amount to as much as €900,000.
Would that be deterrent enough to finally put an end to shrinkflation? I’m not holding my breath. But we’ll see.
Also read:
- 9 expensive mistakes you make when grocery shopping
- 15x packaging so misleading it’s almost criminal
- This TikTok shows how we’re being misled in the supermarket
Sources: RTL Nieuws, NU.nl, Consumer Organisation
