I wasn’t actually complaining about the price of Panadol Osteo but pointing out the ridiculous price discrepancy between 2 product with the same ingredients from the same manufacturer, especially as the pharmacist has to see ID and label the osteo product.
I use Panadol Osteo daily on my GP’s advice, but at only $7.49 a pack, I like to stick with a brand I know
Similar deal with what I mentioned above. If they made the pack smaller they’d be far less visible on the shelf (especially given how big most pet flea packs are). Plus the product information takes up a chunk of space
Sorry @Fred123 if you thought I had taken it that way. My intent was just to inform of the generic variety and that it may be a cheaper cost version.
@Peterchu
Bravecto tablets/chews for dogs are in packets that are vastly bigger than the chew and it’s foil packaging are (plus the info leaflet). I think the packet could easily contain 8 or 10 of the chews in their individual foil packets.
Given they’re like $50 each and last 3-6 months per treatment I think that’s overkill 
No problem. I was just responding to a few comments which seemed to be about the price of Panadol.
Cheers.
My point was that the outer packaging is just huge for what they contain…excessive is my feeling. 
Pet medicine seems to be a real culprit for excess packaging? This one was shared with us on Twitter.
The $30 price tag, the cut on my hand getting the pill out (never mind administered), and all in carbon-intensive non-recyclable packaging. All for a tiny dog flea/worming tablet.
We can do much better than this.
If you think that one is bad, then check this one out.
An excessive pet medicine packaging episode of a different type.
The NexGard Spectra tablets I ordered on Sunday for our little dog were delivered this morning by AusPost.
Luckily postage was included in the price as I would expect that if I wanted to post that carton, AusPost would probably charge me 50% or more just for postage than I paid for the product including delivery.
These major online retailers must have some amazing rates with AusPost as they do not even bother to try to use smaller packaging sizes.
I’ve had the same issue. I ordered a simple $8 antenna from Mwave. Could fit in an envelope but was sent in a box about the same size as yours Fred.
And to clarify, I don’t mean a satchel. A standard letter envelope would have been fine
I am at home with a cold right now, and it’s made me realise another item that belongs in this category: Packet Soups.
A lot of them seem to come in a box with 2 single serve packets in them. Why? Why not just sell the packets individually, or put more in a box. So much unneeded cardboard going in my recycling for a box that only holds 2 serves.
Can we also be reminded that the cookies would have 0 health stars if the new standards were in place?
I bought some new ant killer in what I thought was a bigger shaker pack (Left first pic) to refill the older squirt applicator (Right first pic) that I already had at home.
When I went to transfer the contents, I expected that the shaker would hold more than would fit into the old squirt applicator. Much to my surprise it all went in, and I still had room to spare. Wondering why, I checked the contents, and I noticed that both were 500g (near the ant’s right rear leg).
To show the difference in the packaging, I lay both on their side on the to of the bin. The second and third photos show how much bigger the shaker container is than the squirt applicator.
Given that the 500g of powder didn’t come close to filling the squirt container, the shaker packaging is highly deceptive @BrendanMays @jhook.
I ALWAYS check the weight/litre content and will not purchase anything n a bigger container. Its plain cheating.
Yesterday I decided to treat myself to a box of Crunchy Nut Corn Flakes. Standard size box/packaging.
Imagine my surprise this morning when I opened it and the internal soft plastic pkg was only 2/3 of the inner volume, and, it wasn’t full. Effectively I only got half a box of cereal. 
I tried to find how much was supposed to be in the box but the only thing indication of any sort was on the lower left that said ‘e 640g Serving Suggestion’. No weight or volume of contents.
I rang the helpfully supplied ‘Consumer Contact Centre’ phone # and asked what was the go.
He indicated that the 640g was the weight of the contents, NOT the serving suggestion.
Needless to say I am not a happy camper.
The entire contents could have fitted in a box half the height. Rather than giving be the false impression I am buying a box of contents. Ian
Welcome to Choice community this fine, gloomy, damp mild winter’s day.
This problem has been around since packaged breakfast cereal was invented. Legally all is OK if the weight of contents is equal to the stated weight or within the range permitted by the relevant legislation.
There is a valid reason there is some extra space in the package as a product like cereal can settle somewhat in the package during transit. That does not excuse the maker from making the box much bigger than it ever needs to be in order to mislead those who look at the box size and not the weight on the box or the cost per 100g on the shelf label.
You can get upset every time you see this silliness in action or shrug and ignore the size of the box.
I understand about the need for space for settling but, even the internal packaging was only 2/3 of the overall box size… Isn’t the extra/unnecessary box size a waste of material/manufacturing?? Or is there some other reason they want the box to be that size??? 
I would not have been so upset if the little notice on the bottom left had said ‘e 640g contents by weight’ rather than ‘e 640g recommended serve’ - misleading.
If we all just shrug it off and accept it they continue to get away with stooging us. :-(.
Why should we as consumers have to safeguard ourselves against unscrupulous manufacturers?
Hi @ijbranch, welcome to the community and your first thoughtful contribution.
I suspect that the product size has reduced over time (many cereals have), but their packing equipment remains the same. They produce new boxes with the lighter weights, but the outer packaging remains the same dimensions as their packing equipment is already set up for the outer packaging size.
We have found the same thing where the internal sealed bags have a considerably smaller inflated volume than the outer box.
It isn’t good for the environment as there is more external packaging and there is more air transported between the packaging plant and the supermarket shelves. For consumers, it is close to being deceptive or misleading behaviour.
If you have a photo, you are welcome to share?
Because any time you part with your money you have the opportunity to make a deal that suits you or to avoid the purchase if it doesn’t. You can take that opportunity or not - it’s up to you. This little game has been around for so long I don’t see that you could have missed it before today.
What did you think it meant? Does it actually say those words or does it say
“e 640 g serving suggestion”?
The words “Serving suggestion” appear on almost all the cereal boxes and allows images to appear on the box that that include foods that are not included, such as fruit or toppings. This has also been around for decades.
The “e” is newer. It means the contents of a given box are not certain to be exactly as stated but that the contents of many boxes will be at least that amount on average. As I understand it under Oz law package contents have always had rules that allowed for the practical difficulty of measuring out exact quantities in the factory but the “e” label is fairly recent. Everything you buy that is measured out is covered by some kind of regulation governing how exact the quantity must be.
