At a recent visit to Coles, I saw Arnotts Shapes crackers in Gluten Free varieties. This is a new product.
They were selling for $4.40 a box.
and for details of the range of GF crackers from Arnotts, see
Next to them were the regular non-GF Shapes, on sale for $2 a box, see
The boxes, when looking at them, front view, look almost the same size (height and width).
But when compared side by side, the GF variety is a much slimmer box. It’s 110 gm where the regular Shapes is 175 gm.
The weight of each box is listed on the packaging (bottom LHS) in what seems to me to be different size fonts. Naturally the “110 gm” does not stand out so as to scream at the consumer.
Price wise GF is $4/100gm and non-GF (on sale) is $1.14/100 gm.
Going by the packaging, without studying the unit pricing and without comparing the 2 products for weight and dimensions, as consumers walk past the products, there is no way they would conclude that the GF variety is more than 3.5 times the price of the non-GF crackers.
I have reworded the title to better reflect the subject of the thread.
Comparing non-GF and GF pricing, when non-GF is on sale isn’t correct. A supermarket isn’t compelled to have every product type for a brand on sale at the same time. If this was required, the same product in different packet sizings would all need to be on sale at the same time.
The standard price unit prices are therefore GF is $4/100g and non-GF is $2.29/100g.
The difference in product price between GF and non-GF will be partly attributed to by the ingredients. Non-GF has wheat as its major ingredient. GF has starch (tapioca, maize) and rice flour as its major ingredients. Wheat is cheap and higher availability compared to GF substitutes.
Other factors affecting price include having a specific production line for GF, free of any potential gluten contamination. The market for GF is smaller than non-GF so cost base is spread across smaller manufacturing volumes. Hence higher product cost.
As you noted an added cost is that facilities that produce GF products often have to ensure no cross contamination from gluten containing products. This can mean duplication of machinery, different buildings or possibly special sealed areas that stop the contamination, separated storage of raw product such as silos dedicated to only GF products even if the product is used in all recipes. All this adds significantly to the cost of production.
Agreed. The true comparison is $2.29 v $4. But I still think the price difference b/w the two items is not only due to the shorter production runs of Arnott’s, but also Arnott’s milking the GF consumer for as much as it thinks it can get away with.
None can be sure?
We don’t know the supermarket purchase price loaded on truck at the biscuit factory door for either product. Nor do we know the cost recovery and pricing formulas plus margins applied by the selling supermarket. The suggestions there is an excessive price difference or who might be taking a larger proportionate margin for the GF product are unlikely to be resolved without that knowledge.
Both the GF and regular versions of the Arnotts Shapes product are discretionary food items. Products one does not need to consume to meet dietary requirements. If it were a processed/manufactured product that most consider a staple such as bread there may be cause for complaint. However looking to the extensive choice of loaf bread in the supermarket, consumers are prepared to pay more the $7-$8 per loaf vs $2 for lesser ingredients. Higher fibre, lower GI, organic, etc among the many properties that supposedly justify the cost differential.
For those of us on a tight budget - not every product labelled as GF will be a healthy choice. Arnotts GF Shapes as an example rate only 2 health stars. Hardly a healthy choice. With more than 16gms of carbs in a 25gm serve, one for anyone with DB2 to be cautious of consuming.
Re health star ratings, how unbiased and immune to manipulation by the manufacturer are they? I have seen cereals, high in sugar, given 4 star ratings.
How can that be justified?
Welcome to the world of gluten free products where they shrink in size and grow in price
Unlike Italy, Australia provides no subsidy for coeliacs who must pay more for gluten free products.
Eating gluten free usually means eating whole products and not paying ridiculous prices for products like biscuits and cakes
If raw ingredients, processing/manufacturing costs and other overheads (such as insurance, testing, compliance) are higher, they are reflected in the final product cost.
The ABC article indicates that raw cost non-GF flours are about half of GF flours. Add in processing, mixing and handling multiple non-GF flours the cost would easily become more than two times that of non-GF flours. The Arnotts GF shapes, flours (starches) are the main ingredient and would impact on the product ingredient cost.
Higher margins could exist, but this higher margin may also be reflective of the higher risks associated with marketing GF products. It will be unlikely Arnotts ‘milking the GF consumer’.
I had an annoying experience. I needed a 250 gm packet of Arnott’s Scotch Finger biscuits for a slice recipe. As I was making it for someone who can’t have gluten, I substituted the Gluten free scotch finger packet. To all intents and purposes, it appeared the same. However, when I actually went to cook with them, the gluten free packet is only 170gms.
It was a packet that looked like other packets. If it had 170g in it instead of 250 g then to all intents and purposes it was not the same. If you meant to say at a glance it looked the same but you didn’t look at the weight it would be more accurate. You seem to be hinting you got home with the wrong amount of biscuit because of some other reason. Why you would pick up a packet of a new product and not look at the weight escapes me.
Wow, harsh! Yes, I made the error of not checking but really they looked “nearly identical” if you want to be pedantic. I did say “appeared”. I actually think many people would not check that aspect. I am not hinting anything. It was a mistake that I think is easy to make.
Many posts here criticise vendors for something, most are justified, some are not. When you post to a thread that is critical of vendors and add intensifiers like “to all intents and purposes” it is easy to think you are adding to the pile on, especially when for your purpose the two products are clearly not the same.
If you are now saying the vendor was not engaged in deceiving you I am sorry I misunderstood but consider that we only see your words here, we can only judge your intention by those words and their context, we don’t know what you are thinking.
Your mistake is common and is easily made. What retailers do is often carrel the GF foods separately to the non GF food, even when say in the case of your biscuit, it’s the same type but one is GF.
Maybe retailers should be compelled to place the Scotch Finger GF side by side with the non GF product with the labels indicating price per unit to be of equal size, so consumers like us do not have to fossick elsewhere in the same store for the GF item or as in the case of a GF item not on sale, come across the GF item with a much smaller unit price label than the non GF item when on sale.
Placing GF within non-GF also makes it difficult for coeliac disease to find suitable products, and increases the risk of accidentally picking up the wrong product from a shelf.
Cross contamination and/or accidental product selection can be catastrophic for someone with coeliac disease. Safety will always outweigh inconvenience of a shopper who may chose to buy GF foods.
This is why they are often separated and I support their separation.
The price of gluten free products are often double and it’s not fair. I’m a coeliac, and it was how I was born. I’m 70 years old and on an Aged pension
This is a very interesting and informative conversation, especially for those of us who need to have a GF diet and are also interested in getting value for money.
The comment in the ABC story on GF bread about suppliers and retailers possibly pricing to reflect what the market will bear, are very relevant and hopefully the ACCC supermarkets inquiry will shed some light on this (including on a different topic also I hope for differences in unit price between package sizes).
Whenever possible, to reduce costs and increase value for money, I try to avoid buying products that are labelled/advertised as being GF and I try to buy products that are naturally GF, for example potatoes, rice, rice/corn flour, and rice/corn cakes. And, of course, I do look closely at the ingredients list on packaged products.
I’d be very interested in more views on whether from a consumer perspective GF versions of products like pasta, biscuits, and bread should be located in the same area as non GF versions. I prefer them to be located together.
Sorry, I should not have put the price gouging allegation solely on the retailer. The manufacturer may well be responsible. As for GF purchases: I do it for my Mum who was diagnosed with a gluten allergy back in the days Reagan was President. From my past reading of allergy journals, there is no rationale for those not allergic to feast on GF foods, which are often loaded with more fat or sugar than the non GF varieties, in order to give the product taste.
