Examples include Lurpak butter going from blocks of 250g to 200g, Yeo Valley 1kg yoghurts whittled down to 950g, and even the hole in New York Bagel Co. bagels getting bigger. In fact, 2,259 products have been reduced in size since 2012. All this whilst the cost of the average grocery shop is going up and up – by 14.6% in the last year, to be precise.
Companies justify shrinkflation by saying it is relatively painless and imperceptible for the consumer at a time when inflation is making it necessary to cut costs. And indeed, production, energy and labour costs for manufacturers have gone up, thanks to a perfect storm of Brexit, international war and government economic mismanagement. It’s true that supermarket profits have recently declined.
Production, energy and labour costs for manufacturers have gone up, thanks to a perfect storm of Brexit, international war and government economic mismanagement.
It’s not really a new technique; crisp companies have been filling their packets with air to make them look bigger for decades. Margaret Thatcher is famous for unscrupulously injecting more air into ice cream – and of course, using cheaper ingredients in products is also a sneaky form of shrinkflation. But now more than ever, amid a full throttle cost of living crisis, it’s hard not to feel angry at these underhand tactics.
When so many are struggling to make ends meet, can these devious changes be justified?
At a time when families are being forced to choose between eating or heating, when more people than ever are going to be relying on winter food banks, when so many are struggling to make ends meet, can these devious changes be justified? And actually, despite raised production costs, supermarket bosses have taken home millions of pounds in salaries and bonuses, according to recent figures. Millions of pounds. Whilst their companies record losses. Whilst some customers can barely afford to eat. The rage I feel is indescribable. Perhaps we should be talking about greedflation instead.
Even if it was necessary, the practice is manipulative and hence immoral.
So for starters, shrinkflation is unnecessary; if the shops themselves saw more of the profits they’re making they might not need cost-cutting measures. But even if it was necessary, the practice is manipulative and hence immoral. They may not be actively lying (this would be illegal), but they’re deliberately withholding information that impacts customer choices, since people tend to look out for price, not quantity. Consequently, it’s much harder for the customer to navigate the maze towards the best purchase, setting us on the dangerous path of individualism when we should really be cooperating during these difficult times. It’s only “imperceptible” at the time of purchase because it’s misleading, and it’s definitely not “painless” at all, because people have less to eat, they just don’t realise it. Let’s also note that shrinkflation is bad for the environment; the same packaging for less actual product is pretty wasteful. Overall, shrinkflation seems to me like another method for big companies to profiteer off the public, albeit more surreptitiously than before. Some food for thought, right?