What On Earth Is Shrinkflation

2026-08-08

The Shrinking Snack: How Shrinkflation Is Quietly Changing What We Buy

🔑 Introduction

Have you ever opened a packet of chips and thought:

“Wasn’t there more in here before?”

You may not be imagining it.

Across the food industry, manufacturers have increasingly used a strategy known as shrinkflation: reducing the quantity, weight, volume or number of individual products in a package while keeping the price the same—or sometimes increasing the price at the same time.

It is not a new phenomenon, but inflation, rising ingredient costs, transportation expenses and pressure on household budgets have made it particularly noticeable in recent years.

And snacks are among the most obvious battlegrounds.

Chips, chocolate, biscuits, sweets, ice cream and snack bars are particularly vulnerable because consumers often buy them out of habit. We recognise the packet, the colours, the logo and the product name. We may not remember whether that packet contained 120 grams, 110 grams or 100 grams.

The packaging remains familiar.

The product remains familiar.

The price may remain familiar.

But the quantity has changed.

That is the genius—and controversy—of shrinkflation. —

🔑 What Exactly Is Shrinkflation?

Shrinkflation occurs when a manufacturer reduces the quantity of a product without reducing the selling price proportionally.

For example:

Old product: 100 g for R20 New product: 80 g for R20

The packet still costs R20.

But the effective price per gram has increased by 25%.

This is fundamentally different from ordinary inflation.

With normal inflation, the consumer sees the price increase.

With shrinkflation, the manufacturer can leave the familiar price point untouched while changing what the consumer receives for that price.

South African consumer commentators have specifically described manufacturers reducing product sizes as a way of responding to inflation without imposing an obvious price increase. —

🔑 Why Don’t Companies Simply Increase the Price?

This is where shrinkflation becomes particularly interesting from a marketing perspective.

Consumers tend to notice a price increase immediately.

A packet of chips going from R15 to R18 is obvious.

But if the packet remains R15 while the contents quietly fall from 100 g to 85 g, many shoppers will simply pick it up, put it in the trolley and continue shopping.

The manufacturer has effectively increased the price per gram without necessarily changing the psychological price point.

This matters enormously in a market where consumers are highly price-sensitive.

A South African marketing analysis published in 2026 describes precisely this phenomenon: consumers can see the same familiar product and price while overlooking a reduction in weight.

The strategy therefore exploits something very human:

We remember prices more easily than grammage. —

🔑 The Packet of Chips Problem

Chips provide an almost perfect example.

Walk down a supermarket aisle and look at the average packet.

It may look enormous.

But much of the space inside a traditional chip packet is filled with air, usually nitrogen.

That air is not necessarily evidence of shrinkflation. It helps protect fragile chips from being crushed during transport and handling.

So simply saying:

“There is more air in the packet!”

doesn’t prove anything.

The real evidence is found on the label.

If the same product changes from:

120 g → 110 g → 100 g

while the package design and price remain similar, that is measurable shrinkflation.

This distinction is important because internet discussions about shrinkflation sometimes confuse large packaging with reduced product weight. Actual shrinkflation needs to be demonstrated through changes in quantity, weight or volume.

🔑 Simba: A South African Case Worth Watching

Simba is an especially interesting example because it is one of South Africa’s best-known snack brands.

However, there is an important distinction between documented shrinkflation and consumer suspicion.

I could not find sufficiently reliable current evidence to accuse Simba specifically of secretly reducing a particular packet’s weight as part of a deliberate shrinkflation campaign.

That doesn’t mean consumers’ observations are necessarily wrong.

It means that a proper investigation should compare historical and current packaging, record the stated net weight and price, and calculate the price per 100 grams before making the accusation.

Interestingly, Simba has recently been changing the physical characteristics of some of its chips for competitive reasons. In June 2026, the company announced thicker-cut, deeper-ridged chips, saying the change was intended to respond to changing consumer expectations and competition in South Africa’s snack market.

That demonstrates another important point:

Not every change to a food product is shrinkflation.

A manufacturer can change a recipe, shape, thickness, packaging or portion size for many different reasons.

The numbers matter. —

🔑 The Chocolate Industry Has Been Caught Repeatedly

Chocolate provides some of the clearest documented examples.

One of the most famous cases was Toblerone.

Mondelēz altered the shape of the chocolate bar, increasing the gaps between its distinctive triangular pieces. The change allowed the company to reduce the amount of chocolate while retaining much of the familiar appearance.

The move generated considerable consumer backlash.

But the story didn’t end there.

In 2026, a German court ruled against Mondelēz over the reduction of Milka’s Alpine Milk chocolate bar from 100 g to 90 g while the packaging remained substantially similar. The ruling is particularly significant because it moves the shrinkflation debate beyond consumer complaints and into questions of consumer deception.

That is a major development.

It suggests that regulators and courts may increasingly ask not merely:

“Was the manufacturer legally allowed to reduce the weight?”

but also:

“Was the way the reduction was presented to consumers misleading?” —

🔑 Cadbury: Another Major Player

Cadbury has also appeared repeatedly in shrinkflation investigations.

Historical examples include reductions to multipack sizes and chocolate products, while more recent investigations have found further reductions in some confectionery products.

In 2026, Australian consumer organisation CHOICE reported that several Cadbury Easter products had again become smaller and more expensive, following reductions the previous year.

In the United Kingdom, Cadbury’s Heroes and Roses tubs have also been reported as falling from 550 g to 475 g—a reduction of roughly 14%—while prices remained around the same level.

That is no longer a tiny adjustment.

A 14% reduction means that a consumer buying the same number of tubs over time can end up paying substantially more for the same amount of confectionery. —

🔑 Nestlé, Mars and the Chocolate Shrink

The phenomenon isn’t restricted to one manufacturer.

In 2025, reports documented reductions affecting products including Quality Street, Celebrations, Toblerone and Terry’s Chocolate Orange.

For example, reported changes included:

• Quality Street: 600 g → 550 g
• Celebrations: 550 g → 500 g
• Toblerone: 360 g → 340 g
• Terry’s Chocolate Orange: 157 g → 145 g

Manufacturers have generally pointed toward higher ingredient, energy, transportation and production costs when explaining these changes.

That explanation should not automatically be dismissed.

Food manufacturers really do face volatile commodity prices.

Cocoa prices, electricity, fuel, packaging materials, wages, transport and exchange rates can all affect production costs.

The controversy comes from how those costs are passed on to consumers. —

🔑 It Isn’t Just Chocolate

Shrinkflation affects practically every category of packaged food.

Documented examples have included:

🍟 Crisps and chips

Doritos and other PepsiCo products have experienced documented reductions in certain markets.

A 2017 report, for example, recorded reductions affecting Doritos packs. PepsiCo attributed changes to rising costs and currency pressures.

More recently, PepsiCo responded to accusations of shrinkflation by announcing additional chips in selected Tostitos and Ruffles packages and increasing the number of bags in some multipacks.

🍪 Biscuits

Which? identified numerous biscuit products affected by reductions, including McVitie’s Digestives, which were reported as falling from 400 g to 360 g.

🍫 Chocolate bars

Milka, Toblerone, Cadbury and other confectionery products have all featured in shrinkflation investigations.

🍦 Ice cream

South Africa has had particularly visible examples.

In 2024, Magnum Minis were reported as changing from six 60 g units to five 55 g units.

That means the old box contained:

360 g

while the new box contained:

275 g

That is a reduction of approximately 24% in total product.

The company explained the decision as a response to rising costs and said it allowed the product to remain competitive without a significant price increase. —

🔑 Shrinkflation Can Happen More Than Once

Perhaps the most interesting development is that shrinkflation doesn’t necessarily happen once.

A manufacturer may reduce a product:

100 g → 90 g

and several years later:

90 g → 85 g

and eventually:

85 g → 80 g

Each individual reduction may be small enough to escape widespread attention.

But over several years, the cumulative reduction can become substantial.

A 2025 investigation by the Dutch Consumers’ Association found examples of products that had already been reduced and were subsequently reduced again. The organisation suggested that manufacturers sometimes make changes in small increments, making them harder for consumers to notice.

That is perhaps the most revealing aspect of the phenomenon.

Shrinkflation can be incremental. —

🔑 The Even Sneakier Cousin: Skimpflation

There is another phenomenon that consumers should know about.

It is called skimpflation.

Instead of reducing the amount of food, the manufacturer reduces the cost or quantity of ingredients while keeping the product’s name and general appearance.

For example, a manufacturer might theoretically reduce the percentage of a premium ingredient and replace part of it with a cheaper alternative.

The packet still says the same thing.

The product may look almost identical.

But the formulation has changed.

South African consumer journalist Wendy Knowler has highlighted skimpflation as a related phenomenon, describing situations where manufacturers reduce the proportion of premium ingredients rather than simply reducing the physical quantity.

This creates a fascinating distinction:

Shrinkflation: You get less.

Skimpflation: You get the same amount, but potentially less of what made the product desirable. —

🔑 So Which Companies Are “Most Guilty”?

This is where caution is necessary.

There is no scientifically valid worldwide league table ranking food companies according to how much they shrink their products.

It would therefore be irresponsible to declare:

“Company X is the world’s worst shrinkflation offender.”

What we can do is identify companies whose products have repeatedly appeared in documented shrinkflation cases.

Among the major international names frequently appearing in investigations are:

Mondelēz International — Milka, Toblerone and other confectionery.

Cadbury — numerous chocolate and Easter products.

Mars — including products such as Celebrations and Maltesers.

Nestlé — various confectionery products.

PepsiCo — including Doritos, Tostitos, Ruffles and other snack brands.

Kellogg’s — including documented changes to Coco Pops.

McVitie’s — including documented biscuit weight reductions.

This doesn’t mean every product made by these companies has been reduced.

Nor does it mean these companies are necessarily behaving unlawfully.

It means their products have appeared in documented shrinkflation cases.

🔑 Why Snack Companies Are Particularly Vulnerable

Snack foods have several characteristics that make them ideal candidates for this strategy.

1. Strong brand loyalty

People don’t necessarily want “a chocolate bar.”

They want their chocolate bar.

2. Familiar packaging

The consumer recognises the packet before checking the weight.

3. Small price points

A R2 or R3 increase can feel more significant psychologically than a 10–15% reduction in quantity.

4. Frequent purchases

A consumer might buy chips, biscuits or chocolate repeatedly throughout the year.

5. Difficult visual comparison

A 100 g packet and an 85 g packet can look remarkably similar.

6. Portion sizes are easy to manipulate

A manufacturer can reduce the number of sweets, biscuits or individual bars without completely redesigning the product. —

🔑 The Psychology Behind It

This may be the most important part of the story.

Consumers don’t evaluate every grocery purchase mathematically.

Imagine standing in a supermarket.

You see your usual chips.

They cost R19.99.

You remember buying them for around R20 before.

You put them in the trolley.

What you may not remember is that the old packet contained 120 g and the new one contains 100 g.

The price hasn’t moved.

Your brain therefore registers:

“Same product. Same price.”

Economically, however, the situation is very different.

The price per 100 g has increased from:

R16.66 per 100 g

to:

R19.99 per 100 g.

That is a 20% increase in the effective unit price.

Nothing on the large, familiar price sticker necessarily screams:

20% PRICE INCREASE!

That is why shrinkflation can be such an effective commercial strategy. —

🔑 Is It Actually a Marketing Strategy?

This requires another important distinction.

Manufacturers don’t necessarily describe shrinkflation as a marketing strategy.

They generally describe it as a response to:

• rising ingredient costs;
• energy costs;
• transport costs;
• packaging costs;
• exchange-rate movements;
• labour costs;
• commodity shortages;
• inflation;
• changing consumer demand.

Those are legitimate business considerations.

But from a marketing perspective, maintaining a familiar psychological price point while changing the quantity can absolutely function as a pricing strategy.

The company is effectively deciding:

“Would consumers rather pay R25 for the old quantity, or R20 for a smaller quantity?”

If market research suggests that consumers will reject the R25 price more strongly, the smaller package may be commercially attractive.

That doesn’t necessarily make the practice fraudulent.

But it does make it worth examining.

🔑 South Africa Has a Particular Problem

South African consumers face an additional challenge.

According to the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud, South African consumers generally do not have specific legal protection against shrinkflation itself.

The Ombud has noted that consumers tend to notice the price before the grammage, making reductions in quantity particularly easy to overlook.

That puts much of the responsibility on consumers to compare:

price ÷ quantity

rather than simply comparing the price printed on the shelf. —

🔑 The Real Question: What Does It Cost Per 100 Grams?

This may be the simplest weapon consumers have against shrinkflation.

Don’t ask only:

“How much does this packet cost?”

Ask:

“How much am I paying for 100 grams?”

For example:

The packet has only gone from R20 to R22.

That sounds like a 10% price increase.

But the consumer is actually paying 37.5% more per 100 g than before.

That is the number that tells the real story.

🔑 The Shrinkflation Checklist

The next time a familiar product seems suspiciously small, check:

1. Net weight

Look for grams, millilitres or kilograms.

2. Number of individual pieces

A box might contain 12 items today and 10 tomorrow.

3. Price

Record the actual shelf price.

4. Price per 100 g

Calculate it yourself.

5. Ingredients

Look for formulation changes.

6. Serving size

Manufacturers can sometimes change serving definitions, so compare the actual quantity as well as the nutritional information.

7. Packaging

Has the packet remained almost identical despite a reduction in contents?

8. Historical evidence

Old photographs, receipts and packaging can be extremely valuable. —

🔑 The Bigger Picture

Shrinkflation is ultimately a symptom of a much larger problem.

Food companies operate under enormous cost pressures.

Consumers operate under enormous budget pressures.

Manufacturers want to protect margins.

Consumers want to protect purchasing power.

And somewhere between the factory and the supermarket shelf, the packet gets smaller.

The uncomfortable truth is that both sides can have legitimate economic reasons for their behaviour.

A manufacturer facing dramatically higher cocoa, electricity or transport costs may genuinely struggle to maintain the old price.

But consumers are equally entitled to ask:

“If you’re giving me less, why does the packet still look almost exactly the same?”

And that question becomes even more important when a product has been reduced repeatedly. —

🔑 Conclusion: Watch the Grams, Not Just the Price

The next time you buy your favourite packet of chips, chocolate bar or box of biscuits, don’t just look at the price.

Look at the little number printed somewhere on the packaging.

The grams tell a story.

A product that costs R20 today and R20 next year may appear to have experienced no price inflation at all.

But if it has gone from 100 g to 85 g, the economics tell a completely different story.

Shrinkflation doesn’t necessarily mean that a company is doing something illegal.

It doesn’t even necessarily mean that the manufacturer is acting unfairly.

But when reductions are difficult to notice, repeated over time, or presented in packaging that strongly suggests the old quantity remains, consumers have every reason to pay closer attention.

Perhaps the best response isn’t to complain that the packet has too much air.

Perhaps it is to turn the packet around.

Find the weight.

Find the price.

Do the mathematics.

Because in the modern supermarket, the most important number may no longer be the price printed on the front.

It may be the tiny number of grams printed on the back.