First the alarms and complaints of consumer associations, first of all Codacons which presented a complaint to the Antitrust and then to 104 prosecutors, then on May 24 the Antitrust Authority decided to monitor the phenomenon of ” shrinkflation ”, ie same package, same price, identical package but with a lower weight. A move dictated by the need of producers to compensate for the long series of increases in raw materials, energy and logistics that began in 2021 to save their margins by dumping them on consumers. So the 150 gram pack of ham goes to 120 grams, the 1 kilo shortbread pack drops to 800 grams, the mayonnaise tube loses 20 grams, the liquid detergent has dropped to 1.35 liters against the old 1.5 liters and so on. The only certainty is that the displayed price is always the same. Giovanni Calabrò, director general for consumer protection of the Antitrust, recalls that “the Authority is aware of the shrinkflation and is monitoring the phenomenon to verify if it may have relevance for the purposes of applying the Consumer Code, with particular reference to the in the matter of unfair commercial practices “. The problem, according to the Antitrust officer, is not the reduction in itself of the quantity of product contained in the package, a legitimate business decision, but the transparency of this change towards the consumer. “In this sense – he explains – conducts such as the decrease in the quantity of product with the same size of the package, in the absence of an adequate warning on the front label, could be considered worthy of further study”. The Antitrust’s decision to monitor the phenomenon was welcomed by associations such as Coldiretti and consumer associations. «Shrinkflation is only the latest gimmick to unload the increase in costs fueled by the war in Ukraine on the weak links of the supply chain as consumers and producers – warn Coldiretti -. Speculations and unfair practices on food products are multiplying, ranging from attempts to reduce the quality of products offered on the shelves to misleading labels to cutting the compensation paid to farmers below production costs. The result is that more than 1 farm out of 10 (11%) is – continues Coldiretti – in a situation so critical as to lead to the cessation of the activity but well about 1/3 of the national total (30%) is in any case forced at this moment to work in a condition of negative income ». Consumer associations welcome the Authority’s position: “we hope that the Antitrust will condemn these companies and not limit itself to moral suasion” said Massimiliano Dona, president of the National Consumers Union, while Carlo Rienzi of Codacons reports that shrinkflation “causes hidden inflation to the detriment of consumers and empties shopping carts”. In parallel, the Authority works to increase fines for unfair commercial practices. In fact, Calabrò, during the hearing with the Commission of Inquiry on the protection of consumers and users, added that “the current cap in absolute value (up to 5 million euros for each infringement ed) despite representing the highest value among 27 Member States, often constitutes a very modest fraction of the profits that economic operators derive from certain infringements. It follows that the sanction imposed by the Authority – however perfectly foreseeable in its maximum amount – can be considered by companies as a fixed cost, a business risk, which is not susceptible of discouraging the implementation of the unlawful conduct and being devoid of a significant effect. deterrent”. Calabò then specified that “Parliament could raise this ceiling, so let’s leave the decision to Parliament.”
The Antitrust lens on shrinkflatione, the same price but lighter packs
121