Hi @ijbranch,
I moved your topic into this existing one about over packaging. Many products reflect your experiences. There are multiple issues, one being manufacturers that are unwilling or unable to discard old larger than necessary packaging, and possibly more importantly the marketing ‘opportunity’ to appear to be giving the consumer more than the consumer is getting (if the consumer compares unit prices and quantities).
With 32g of sugar and 480mg of sodium per 100g, Crunchy Nut Corn Flakes are not a very healthy choice for a breakfast cereal. The Pack size would be the least of my worries 
It says “e 640g Serving Suggestion”.
In my ignorance I interpreted it as being a health advice and that 640g was suggested. I have no idea what 640g weight feels/looks like.
Sure I’ve seen sizes reduced, Ice Creams, Chocolates, soft drinks, etc, but so has the container/packaging. No deceit there. I can see what I am getting/paying for.
In this case I would have had absolutely no issue whatsoever if the box had been physically half the size.
It shouldn’t be a game between Manufacturers and Consumers… 
Shouldn’t have to but we allow it to happen…
Almost everyone would know each box would contain multiple servings. The writing on the back of the box states that there are 18 servings per pack. Did you really think that the box weighed over 11 kgs when you picked it up?
Below are images of the front and back of the offending box.
The serving suggestion is the photo image on the packaging and not a 640g serve. Many breakfast cereals have similar wording on packaging.
All the more reason to do it by the numbers. For the cereals that meet your needs check the price per 100g on the shelf label and pick the cheapest regardless of what it feels or looks like.
While in the store, picking up a 1kg packet (sugar, flour…) or a 500g canned food can give a fair idea, by comparison, of the weight of the item we wish to buy. Also, in the F&V section there’s often scales we can use.
For our health sake our selection should be based on the lowest percentage of sugar, salt, fat, that we can read on the ingredients list on the package. It might cost a bit more but it’ll pay off in the long run 
A special treat perhaps?
With just 2 health stars to be consumed in moderation.
There are numerous lower sugar and lower salt alternatives including solid grain based products such as Weet Bix, 5 health stars. No need for concern over wasted space in Weet Bix or their competitors such as Vita Brits packaging.
I’ve acquired a preference for rolled oats, amongst other cereals/grains. The final salt and sugar content of breakfast depends on personal preferences. Served as porridge on a cold winter morning with cut up strawberries or banana or blue berries or … salt optional and lower all natural sugars.
P.S.
Rolled Oats in a box also settles leaving a large air space. Also available in a packet which takes up around one third of the volume in the shopping trolley or pantry when compared to the more highly processed breakfast cereals. I suspect we all knew that. 
If they are damaged i would say it is. Cant stand biscuits if are broken. I may have drifted off course. I agree with other members to hard to tell from picture… How come manufacturers need to double wrap certain things. For example a cake that is sliced. To save on packaging surely the consumer could slice it easily. I throw away more plastic than ever before.
Sometimes what appears to be excessive packaging does have a purpose beside cynical marketing to misrepresent the size.
One possible reason is that it may keep the individual slices fresher for longer, better than in a cake tin that is opened and closed many times before the entire cake is consumed.
It’s hay fever season. My nose is constantly blocked and my eyes itch. So I looked around to see where I could get the hay fever medication that would help me. I found that (as is often the case with medicines) there are huge price differences. For example, you can buy 30 tablets of the same brand for $26.49 (i.e. $0.88 per tablet) or 80 tablets for $29.99 (0.38 per tablet). That is 56% less. I then bought the larger pack.
However, the contents also seem to match the cheaper price in relation to the packaging, i.e. about 56% air:
I wonder what this is good for. Manufacturers often argue that larger packaging is needed to print necessary information legibly on the packaging. This is clearly not the case here, because on the one hand it says no less on the packs of 30 tablets, and on the other hand there is almost nothing on the side panels of the large pack.
It is obvious that beside the big amount of tablets inside, they also want to give the impression of “a lot” here … Why can’t they just use normal, necessary and honest packaging?
Bought a box of Freedom Foods breakfast cereal two days ago. It was like opening a Russian doll. The inner package (inside the box) was just over half the size of the box, and the contents inside the inner package were about two thirds or less of the inner package. Measured side by side the contents were about 40 percent of the size of the box. Talk about small, smaller, smallest. Large sign on the box says “active balance”. I think “active deception” would be more accurate
Another medicine where the packaging volume is excessive compared to the size of the contents:
It is estimated that the packaging volume is 250mL, while the treatment volume is about 7.5mL. Being a pharmacy medicine, the contents of the packaging includes a folded, double sided A4 page with information and recommended doses of the medicine. The packaging contains in part duplicate information, but, still is in excess to that required.
Agree re: excessive packaging. I received this package today from Myer Online - a product that was unable to be purchased at any of my local stores in person. The product was not fragile (set of metal teaspoons) but packaged in this unnecessarily large cardboard box, with a multitude of Polycell inflatable air cushions which are currently unable to be recycled in my state due to the collapse of REDcycle
This is an example of the second reason for absurd packaging. The thread has dealt with the marketing ploy of inflating pack size to try to make you think you are getting more product. This shows the other reason: incompetence.
The packers had run out of small boxes or couldn’t be bothered going to get one so we have the giant box. Their supervisor probably wouldn’t be too pleased with the excess consumption of box and packing nor (possibly) excessive postage.
I’ve had that sort of nonsense also. amazon: 2 CR123 batteries in a box about the size of yours. Another box a tad smaller than yours appears, containing another box with a spiraliser in it which was much smaller than that box, and lots of “peanut” packing.
It’s the cats. They have conspired to obtain large boxes delivered to their clueless human servants 
. Oh the fun to be had playing in the large empty box while the human is away typing outrage posts to the Community.
Yep, similar happened to me-also from Myer. A single bread and butter plate in a box that size, surrounded by paper and plastic filler.
