How brands fool customers on quantity in packs

It is not even two years since the government removed size restrictions on packed goods, mandated under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities or PC) Rules. But already, pack size manipulations and price opacity in some sectors have distorted price comparison and made informed purchases extremely difficult for consumers.Nowhere is this distortion in the quantity and price of pre-packed goods as pervasive as in the edible oil industry. For example, I looked at identical-sized 1-kg capacity pouches of eight oil brands and was horrified to find how they were short-changing on quantity, and thereby the price too. While one pouch had only 750 gm of oil, others had varying amounts such as 800 gm, 810 gm, 825 gm, 840 gm, 850 gm, 870 gm and 910 gm. Most consumers generally assume from the pouch sizes that they all contain the same quantity. As the net quantity is not always prominently displayed, there is every likelihood of consumers buying the most expensive brand selling the lowest quantity (750 gm) among them.There is more. Since the PC Rules allow edible oil companies to declare the quantity either by weight or volume, many packages indicate the volume, but here again, there are pouches and bottles that look like 1-litre packages, but contain only 855 ml, 833 ml and so on, thereby hoodwinking consumers, who usually go by the package size. Under the PC Rules, if you are showing the content in volume, you must also indicate the weight, but while some brands do it, others do not.If you are buying edible oil online, it can be even more confusing because you do not see the displayed weight on the package and the website describes the weight as “870 gm/800 gm” and says in brackets that the “weight may vary”. For another oil, it shows the weight as “900 gm/825 gm”.Manufacturers ought to know that by law, consumers should be told the exact quantity in the packet. Besides, manufacturers cannot manipulate the quantity by exploiting the oil’s sensitivity to temperature. They must indicate the correct quantity measured only at standardised temperature for that particular oil.The concept of standard pack sizes has its origin in the PC Rules of 1977. Following the opening up of the market in 1991, the government came under considerable pressure from multinational companies interested in doing business in India to remove these restrictions. Finally, in 1994, 20 products, including mineral water, were removed from the original list of 38. However, in 2001, the government re-introduced size restrictions on mineral water and added bottled and packaged drinking water to the list. Like the oil industry today, it was found that mineral water was being sold in packs such as 130 ml, 135 ml, 140 ml and 165 ml, distorting price comparison.Subsequently, the PC Rules, 2011, that replaced the earlier Rules, also made similar stipulations on pack sizes and covered 19 goods of common use. Manufacturers, however, were always opposed to it.I must also mention that in those 45 years when the pack size restrictions existed, businesses constantly pressured the government to introduce more pack sizes. Edible oil, for example, was to be packed in standard quantities of 50 gm, 100 gm, 200 gm, 250 gm, 500 gm, 1 kg, 2 kg, 3 kg, and multiples of 5 kg (and volumes of similar sizes), but three more pack sizes of 550 gm, 600 gm and 650 gm were introduced, thereby reducing the gap between sizes.But still, it did protect consumers from the kind of weight manipulations that we see today. Cut to the present. Now, unit sale price is considered a more scientific and accurate method of facilitating price comparison and increasing price transparency. So, in 2022, the government removed pack restrictions and made the declaration of unit sale price mandatory on all pre-packed goods. The changes came into effect from January 2024.But obviously, an industry out to make the best of the opacity in the pricing of pre-packed goods sees no reason to promote the unit sale price (USP). This can be seen in the way the USP is hidden on the package, defeating its very purpose.Here again, I found that while one pouch of oil mentioned the unit sale price per 100 gm of the oil, others mentioned the USP per 100 ml, even though the rules mandate that the USP be mentioned by weight.A consumer showed me a pouch that she had bought, assuming it contained a litre of oil. When she poured it into a 1-litre bottle, it filled only 75 per cent of it. That’s when she realised that the bottle contained only 850 ml of the oil. The USP declared on the package was undecipherable. It said: “0.214”!The Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, which has been keeping a close watch on the developments post the abolition of standard pack sizes, recently called a meeting of all stakeholders to discuss the manipulations in the pricing of edible oil. It warned the industry leaders that if they did not mend their ways, the government will take whatever steps needed to protect consumer interest.Ironically, the edible oil industry, which fought against pack size standardisation, is today urging the ministry to re-introduce it on the ground that odd pack sizes are distorting competition!Unit pricing can surely bring about price transparency, if only manufacturers displayed it accurately and prominently and also created consumer awareness about it. Till then, USP can only be an additional tool for consumer protection but cannot be a substitute for pack size restrictions, particularly in the oil industry. It is also important to ensure that edible oil packages indicate the content only by weight, measured accurately at standard temperature.— The writer is a consumer affairs expert

How brands fool customers on quantity in packs

Pushpa Girimaji

Unlock Premium Insights in This Article