Shrinking pack sizes means reduced value

FOOD manufacturers often get away with quietly shrinking pack sizes without a concurrent drop in price and consumers making a fuss about the reduced value for money.

But every now and then, a savvy consumer who has taken the trouble to check prices gram for gram, or in this case litre for litre, highlights the reality that we are getting less for our money at the tills.

Nomasonto Nkosi said she has bought Halls Orange Nectar concentrate for the past 20 years, but was unhappy when she recently noticed a sudden change in the fruit juice’s concentration. “The ‘old’ juice was diluted 1:6, resulting in 35 litres in total, and the ‘new’ juice is diluted 1:4, resulting in 25 litres in total but the price remains the same,” she said.

“The new juice has been on the shelves for the past few months,” she said.

Nkosi said she is also concerned that although the Department of Health has passed regulations to reduce salt intake in processed food, the new concentrate now has 0,05 g of salt highlighted as an ingredient, while the older packs claimed “0% salt” content.

Nkosi said she always bought the orange concentrate because it was better value for money, diluted at 1:6, compared to other Halls fruit nectars that were less concentrated.

She asked me to investigate the matter with the manufacturer, Tiger Brands.

Tiger Brands spokesperson Nevashnee Naicker said it is “common retailing practice globally to change product packaging and sizes from time to time”.

“The reality of low disposable-income levels places limitations on consumer spending, and as the price of raw materials, manufacturing and transportation increases, manufacturers continually investigate ways in which products can be produced in the most cost-effective way,” she said.

“In this environment, maintaining price points remains key to retaining customer satisfaction and meeting consumer needs.”

However, when consumers do notice the shrinking packs, “satisfaction” is not exactly part of the shopping experience in my view.

Naicker added that the product and packaging of the Halls Orange Nectar five-litre and one-litre bottles changed in late 2014. “The main reason for the change was to ensure that consumers did not have to pay more for the product,” she said.

“The product was reformulated in order to minimise the impact of raw-material cost increases. The new formulation meant that the company was able to absorb the increase in recipe cost, therefore minimising the impact on consumers,” she said.

“If we had not reformulated the product, the price increase would have been well above inflation. This was our way of keeping the price within the inflation rate,” she said.

Consumers may not fork out more at the till but they are still in effect paying more, litre for litre, for the orange juice.

Naicker added that beverages are not subject to the government’s new salt reduction regulations that come into effect in 2016 as the levels are minimal, and the level of sodium from preservatives in the concentrate would qualify for a “low sodium” claim in accordance with labelling regulations.

“No salt (sodium chloride) is added to the product at all. The 0,05 g of salt noted on the packaging is a result of the sodium contained in the preservatives which are added to the juice. These are sodium benzoate (E211) and sodium metabisulphate (E223),” she said.

She said that since some consumers are not necessarily aware of the term sodium, the company converted the sodium to salt and noted its content on the packaging to inform consumers. She added that 0,05 g equates to one percent of an adult’s salt GDA.

“We retain a team of internal and external experts to substantiate our product claims. Misleading or exploiting our consumers is not in the company’s interest and is not the company’s intention in any way,” she said.

It was with interest then that I noticed a pack of Tiger Brands’ Enterprise Bacon marketed on special for R22,99 at Checkers this weekend, with the payoff line: “Don’t get short-baconed. Rather get 250 g of truthful mouthfuls.”

Clearly, in my view, a shot at some bacon producers who dropped pack sizes from 250 g to 200 g a number of years ago, forcing savvy consumers to make sure they do a double take to compare prices gram for gram, before accepting a “special offer” at face value. It will be interesting to see if competitors respond with an increase in pack sizes.

• Send your consumer complaints and compliments to consumer@3i.co.za