Save the weights

Bad news: industry groups are pushing hard to remove weight information from the front of packs.

This means it could get much harder to figure out how much you are getting for your money. Take these Tim Tams for example - both cost the same, but a closer look reveals one contains two biscuits more than the other.

You shouldn’t have to spend your supermarket shop turning over every packet to find out how much is inside, so we’ve launched a campaign to fight back.

Here’s how you can help:

  1. Get angry
  2. Channel that anger and take action at:
  3. Share the CHOICE Facebook or Twitter posts

Thanks for your support.


The caramel biscuits must be marginally heavier.

Who are these ‘industry groups’ ?

1 Like

The size of the weight/volume information is important too. I recently bought 2 packs of Nabisco Premium (crisp bread biscuit) - Original, and 98% fat free. Both packages are the same size (250mm x 110mm), but the weight is in 3mm high figures. Both packs were the same dimensions and the same price - but one was 250g the other 205g. 18% lighter. While I looked at the weight, it didn’t register with me - same size, same digits. My mistake - I won’t be buying the lighter product again.

My local shop advertised Cadbury family blocks as Half Price!! When I looked, it was only for the blocks that have reduced from 200g (or thereabouts) to 160g - by making them thinner. They appear the same on the shelf. It was only the printed weight that gave it away (store is too small for Unit Pricing). The stated usual price was dearer than the 200g offering, half that price might be “about what it was worth”

I will fight to keep Weight / Volume prominently on the front of packaging.


@draughtrider - the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) and Accord Australasia (cosmetic and specialty products) have supported these changes in the past. Individual manufactures are also likely to contribute to the consultation process, and we’re also aware The Department of Industry is under the impression that consumers have “little passion” about the issue.

It’s a tricky assumption as we’re unlikely to see the widespread reactions until the problem occurs on the supermarket shelves.

1 Like

I think it’s actually a fundamental concept, not tricky at all, the only tricky thing is getting to the nub of what these marketing droids are up to - is it as simple as just obfuscating the cost/benefit equation or is there a bigger thing here? It makes me skeptical, as it seems absolutely fundamental for a consumer to ask what is the price and how much do I get for that spend? How could any of these muppets think that consumers have little passion about the issue? Dept of Industry are passion detecting experts now? I smell deception - oh, sorry, I already said marketing were involved :wink:


That’s a great way to put it @draughtrider, I agree it’s a fundamental concept of significant importance. ‘Passion detecting experts’ they are not.


The real name should be Department FOR Industry. It is yet another government project to aid and abet business.

This reflects increasingly routine attacks on us but the voters vote as they do, against their own self interests more often than not, and we BOHICA.


How do they come to this conclusion? Have they consulted consumer representatives and other non-industry staked holders?

This is another sad indication that industry lobbyists are being allowed to determine Government policy.

Is it an impossible dream to expect our political representatives to consider the best interests of their constituents and make policy on that basis?

As a suggestion Brendan, perhaps this might be a good forum to get feedback on drafts of future petitions etc for campaigns before they are made public. I think that the synergy of this group may improve the quality, and therefore the response from the public to future campaigns. :wink:


Thanks @meltam, agree with your sentiment and the suggestions to share the drafts for further feedback. Glad to hear we weren’t the only ones incensed by the “little passion” remark :+1: