Invisible increases of up to 200%. Here’s how the missing packaging trick works. But now a law promises to bring this unfair practice to light.
There is an English term to indicate the phenomenon that has alarmed consumers. Is called shrinkflation translated as “sgrammatura” in Italian. It is a neologism that combines the English verb “to shrink” with the term “inflation”. Beyond linguistic creativity, on closer inspection this is yet another clever ploy by companies to hide the increase in the cost of ingredients but which a law now wants to bring to light.
Let’s get to the point. How many times, returning home after shopping and opening a package, do you have the impression that the contents will run out in fewer days than usual. Then comes the suspicion that greed has taken over, that the product runs out immediately because it is good, if it is a food or, if it is another product category, such as a detergent, that we have not been careful in its use.
The invisible mechanism that empties the packages
But the reality is different and simpler: same packaging, same price but less content. This means that, although the receipt at the checkout remains unchanged, the packaging has become lighter. This is a ploy used by producers to absorb the increase in raw material costs caused by the war events of recent years and to be able to adjust price lists in a hidden way, without running the risk of a drop in sales and damage to their image.
A discussion that applies above all to those companies that address a medium-low range of consumers and have made price stability their flagship commercial policy. So here is the deception of reducing the content by keeping the packaging unchanged or making small changes, knowing that the buyer is unlikely to take the time to read the instructions on the packaging, thus discovering that the weight of the product has decreased. Furthermore, the design often manages to suggest a greater content than the real one.
And this gives the impression of being able to continue to fill the shopping cart despite the increase in inflation, without noticing a decrease in the purchasing powerwhich is not as immediately apparent as it would be with an absolute price increase.
Increases per kilo of up to 200 percent in carts
Second Altroconsumo this strategy, thanks to the rising cost of living, increases costs per kilo or per liter by up to 200 percent. Let’s take an example: a 500 gram pack sold for 5 euros costs 10 euros per kilo. If the package drops to 450 grams and the price remains at 5 euros, the actual cost rises to 11.11 euros per kilogram: the increase is 11.1 percent, even if the consumer continues to see the same 5 euros on the price tag.
The Codaconsanother consumer advocacy association, estimated that shrinkflation would produce average hidden increases of between 10 and 18 percent, with peaks of 40 percent, especially for packaged foods, detergents, household paper and personal hygiene products which are the items for which demand is highest.
From dish detergent, to beer, from the packet of biscuits, to toothpaste, from bubble bath, to ham, no product is saved. Sometimes, the deception is even double: not only does the content decrease but the price increases. In fact, in an analysis, Altroconsumo found cases of reduction in grams or milliliters of product contained in the package, together with a reformulation of the product itself. Which makes the “deception” less detectable.
Now, however, a new regulation that came into force in July promises an operation of transparency and of bringing the phenomenon to light even if Brussels has had a hand in it, weakening its effectiveness.
The tug of war between Rome and the European Commission
Italy, in fact, had already intervened on shrinkflation with the annual law for the market and competitionapproved in December 2024. Article 23 had inserted in Consumer Code a clarification, 15-bis, dedicated to the «re-portioning of pre-packaged products». The rule concerned items which, while retaining the previous packaging, underwent a reduction in quantity and a consequent increase in the price per unit of measurement. In these cases, according to the law, the manufacturer should have indicated on the packaging, also via an adhesive label, that it “contains a product less than (…) compared to the previous quantity”.
The rule should have been applied starting from 1 April 2025, but was then moved to 1 October of the same year to avoid the infringement procedure by the European Commission. According to Brussels, the mandatory “anti-shrinkflation” labels would have violated EU rules on the free movement of goods. In the letter of formal notice, the Commission explained that ‘while recognizing the importance of informing consumers about these changes, the obligation to display this information directly on each affected product does not appear proportionate. National labeling requirements – according to Brussels – represent a significant obstacle to the internal market and seriously compromise the free movement of goods”. The letter ended by saying that “other, less restrictive options are available.”
Signs in shops and the crux of controls
The government therefore had to revise the law and its entry into force was postponed until July of this year. In the new text, producers and distributors should communicate to sellers the reduction in quantity and the percentage increase in price. It would then be up to traders to inform consumers at the point of sale, with signs or notices. The communication would remain visible only for three months, instead of the six in the previous version of the rule, from the marketing of the product in the new quantity. «A law that has transparent information as its objective should be appreciated. We hope that those involved will do so, but it is difficult to carry out checks”, he comments Antonella Borrometiexpert at Altroconsumo, and underlines that «it would have also been useful to include the net weight or volume of the product, highlighted on the front of the package so that the consumer can more easily notice any change».
Borrometi then also highlights another phenomenon. «We often see a sort of declination of shrinkflation. It happens that producers slightly change the formulation of a product which therefore becomes technically different from the previous one, consequently eliminating the obligation to inform the consumer, in addition to the fact that the price-format comparison becomes more difficult”.
Codacons underlines the weak point of the new system: «It depends on the correct transmission of data along the entire commercial chain and on how each seller will present them to the public». And as often happens when Brussels gets involved, things get complicated by making consumers’ needs take a back seat.
