Last month, France made it compulsory for retailers to notify shoppers of shrinkflation – the practice of when products shrink in size without a proportionate price reduction.

From July 2024, French retailers will now have to display for two months when food and consumer goods have been shrunk, as French finance minister said that the country’s consumers deserved “transparency” and described shrinkflation as a “rip-off”.

In recent months other countries have followed suit, implementing regulations around shrinkflation or banning it altogether.

However last month, in a British parliamentary inquiry into fairness in the food supply, leading UK retailers and brands denied the need for any further shrinkflation regulations, and instead justified the practice.

But are they right? And should brands and retailers be more transparent to consumers?

Back in March at the DEFRA Committee inquiry into fairness in the food supply Chain, MPs accused brands like Heinz and Unilever of “gauging, greedflation and profiteering”.

MP Cat Smith said that 77% of consumers had experienced shrinkflation and “felt like it is a con”.

Which? highlights product shrinkflation

Kraft Heinz UK head of supply chain Dominic Hawkins denied the accusation of shrinkflation, claiming “we haven’t engaged in downsizing of those products whilst maintaining price”.

He also refuted accusations of “skimpflation” whereby recipe changes mean a product ends up with less of a key ingredient. He said a drop in volume of beans in a can, which had dipped 4g reduction from 51% to 50% beans, was not a “deliberate reduction”, but instead a taste-led recipe change to “improve the quality of its products”.

Which? highlights skimpflation

However, in recent months, many brands have be caught out using shrinkflation or skimplation, with the consumer watchdog Which? documenting some of the worse cases.

They include Yeo Valley Organic Salted Spreadable, which dropped from 500g to 400g, McVitie’s Digestives Dark Chocolate Biscuits, cut from 433g to 400g and PG Tips the Tasty Decaf, which was reduced from 180 to 140 tea bags.

Earlier this month, Mondelez-owned Ritz was also accused of reducing the cracker per box by up to 30%, with packs weighing 150g and 140g compared to its original 200g packs, despite its price remaining the same.

Most brands are quick to distance themselves from the practice yet during the parliament fairness inquiry, Arla Foods – whose Lurpak Slightly Salted Butter Box was slimmed down from 225g to 180g – took responsibility for its decision.

Emphasising that production costs, such as labour, raw materials, transport and packaging, had all risen, Bas Padberg, managing director of Arla Foods UK also pointed out that in many cases it had reduced the size of its product and had been honest with consumers by adjusting the price as well.

“We reduced our Lurpak spreadable from 500g to 400g, but we have equally reduced the price of that. It was purely an adjustment of the out-of-pocket price – what consumers actually pay for,” said Padberg.

“So it is really trying to serve consumers that are tightening their belts at the end of the month and try and allow them to continue to get access to Lurpak. And it was effective.”

Consumer expert Kate Hardcastle suggests it’s not always shrinkflation that is the issue, but instead brands and retailers not being transparent about these changes.

She says that shoppers are increasingly vigilant and informed about pricing.

“The vibrant and busy atmosphere of grocery stores may once have dazzled shoppers into overlooking the subtleties of product pricing and sizing, but this is changing. Consumers are now armed with information about practices like shrinkflation,” says Hardcastle.

“They are not just seeking products; they are looking for honesty and integrity from brands. Transparency is becoming a crucial factor in consumer decision-making.

“Customers today are better at detecting when product sizes are tweaked or when prices subtly creep up. This enhanced awareness is prompting a demand for clearer and more respectful transactions.”

Which? data supports this argument. A Which? survey conducted last October revealed three-quarters (75%) of consumers “don’t think shrinkflation is transparent”.

In a inflationary environment, there is also some understanding that prices may be forced to rise.

However, there is divided opinion on how brands and retailers should deal with this. According to the Which? survey, 45% of those surveyed would prefer the product to remain the same size and the price to increase, but 36% prefer the product to get smaller and the price to stay low.“

A Which? visualisation on shrinkflation using a chocolate bar.

How brands approach reducing the size of products could also be more transparent.

Which? senior editor for money and shopping Ele Clark cites research which shows a visualisation of a chocolate bar.

If it was reduced by a quarter of the length of the bar neing chopped, consumers found it visually noticeable.

However, if that same bar was instead reduced by its depth, and height – “an approach more manufacturers take,” according to Clark– consumers found it “barely visually noticeable”.

This makes the reduction seem like it was being hidden, something which shoppers did not like.

“Transparency is the biggest issue here – it’s not like there’s ever anything mentioned on the label, that ‘this product is now small’. This is something that we would like manufacturers and retailers to work on,” says Clark.

Some retailers have already taken a step in this direction. In February, Tesco rolled out unit pricing across its Clubcard products to make prices clearer to customers.

However, Clark points out that Which?’s research has shown that not all retailers are consistent in using unit pricing and applying to using a standardised label.

Hardcastle argues that this means traditional ticket labelling is not the only transparency measure that should be used.

“Initiatives such as digital labels and enhanced shelf tags that offer more than just pricing but also include information on changes in product quantity or composition might further empower consumers,” she says. “These measures not only respond to the demand for transparency but also foster a sense of respect and fairness in consumer transactions.”

Discussions of brands justifying shrinkflation by publicly documenting how and why their manufacturing costs have risen, or temporary packing stickers indicating a size change – similar to new-recipe stickers –  are potential solutions mentioned by some experts in the industry.

Another potential idea is even adopting similar regulations to France – posters on shelves and mid-aisle that announce if a product has been shrunk.

“Ultimately, the shift towards greater transparency is not just a moral imperative but a strategic one. In a marketplace where consumers are just a few clicks away from sharing their experiences and opinions with thousands of others, maintaining consumer trust is more crucial than ever,” adds Hardcastle.

Hardcastle argues that in a digital age, where product adjustments can be easily documented and discussed on social media platforms, companies are under increasing scrutiny.

“Brands and retailers that prioritise transparency are likely to engender greater trust and loyalty among their customer base, potentially securing a competitive advantage in the long run,” she adds.

The Which? survey suggests that consumers think that responsibility lies with the retailer, not the brand.

A third (32%) said that manufacturers should be responsible for flagging size-related product change to consumers, yet more than half (53%) said supermarkets should do so.

Only 9% believed that they themselves should be responsible for noticing.

However, BRC director of food and sustainability Andrew Opie argues that any responsibility for further signposting produce size and price changes lies with the brands, not the retailers.

“Retailers are doing everything they can to offer great value to their customers despite rising costs in the food supply chain.

“For branded goods, changes to size and pricing are largely determined by the brands themselves, reflecting the costs of production they face. Prices and sizes of all products are clearly labelled so that customers can make informed decisions about their purchases.”

If they want to ‘shrink’ their products it needs to be transparent to be fair, but also safe.” – MP Smith

Yet for Cat Smith MP both brands and retailers should act to ensure that consumers shouldn’t have bear the consequences of shrinkflation.

She says: “I don’t think they are being transparent at all. They seemed to think that customers would have all the time in the world to read small print and shelf labels, which for most people is not a luxury they have.”

“More often than not people have a tight window of time to get around the shop and they reach for products they recognise and don’t realise they might have got smaller until they come to use the products. If they want to ‘shrink’ their products it needs to be transparent to be fair, but also safe.”

With consumers becoming more clued on about the best value for money, it is in the best interests of both brands and retailers to be transparent about changes to their products to retain the trust of shoppers and set themselves apart from their rivals.