Shrinkflation: smaller products hurt some households more than others – and can be bad for business
UK inflation may be easing, but many households still find their weekly shop getting more expensive. One key reason is something not captured in headline prices: shrinkflation, where manufacturers reduce pack sizes without reducing the price.
Shrinkflation has become more common thanks to the steep increase in the cost of living in recent years. A 2025 YouGov survey found that 80% of UK adults are “very” or “fairly” concerned about shrinkflation – up from 75% in 2023. But the same survey found that fewer consumers are changing habits to avoid it.
At the same time, grocery inflation was 5.1% in the year to November 2025, with staples such as chocolate shrinking or rising sharply in unit cost.
Shrinkflation is more than an annoying ruse by businesses. It’s a hidden redistribution of value from consumers to companies, and one that disproportionately affects lower-income households.
Shrinkflation is increasingly used as a strategy to pass rising production costs on to consumers in a way that is less noticeable than a direct price increase. This concept is well recognised in economics, although still poorly understood by much of the public.
How everyday products are shrinking
Evidence of shrinkflation in the UK is widespread. A 2024 analysis found that, by weight over the past decade, packets of digestive biscuits shrank by 28%, crisps by 17%, butter packs by 20% and breakfast cereals by 10% or more. Some brands have been bolder and have even reduced the number of advertised items in a pack.
These changes are rarely advertised. In some cases, consumers only notice when pack sizes look slightly smaller or when they run out of a product sooner than expected.
Individual examples continue to attract public frustration. Shrinkflation increases pressure on households even as inflation slows.
But inflation statistics don’t fully capture the real squeeze. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) adjusts inflation indices to account for changes in product size or quality by using quality-adjustment methods and scanner data to estimate changes in unit prices. These techniques struggle to capture frequent and subtle product resizing, however.
What’s more, these adjustments are technical – and consumers don’t experience inflation as economists measure it. In fact, the ONS has previously noted the complexity of tracking changing product sizes.
Read more: The way UK inflation is worked out is changing – and it will matter for everyone
Even if headline inflation falls, shrinkflation means the effective price per gram, millilitre or portion may continue rising. This helps explain why many households feel worse off despite improving macroeconomic indicators such as a slowdown in inflation.
From a business perspective, shrinkflation is rational. Raw material prices, energy costs, transport, packaging and wages have all risen over recent years. Raising sticker prices risks losing customers, especially in a highly price-sensitive grocery market where discount and budget supermarkets feature heavily.
Shrinkflation is also subtler than increasing the sale price: consumers react more negatively to overt price rises than to slightly smaller products. Food business analysts note that companies increasingly rely on stealth reductions or ingredient changes to protect margins.
But this strategy carries risks. Brand-loyal shoppers may feel misled if they discover reductions after the fact. Research from the US suggests that shrinkflation can weaken long-term customer loyalty, pushing people towards own-brand alternatives.
Shrinkflation hurts some groups of consumers more than others:
lower-income consumers face the biggest relative cost, as they spend more of their budget on essentials
families may need to buy key items more frequently if the weight or number of products per pack fall
consumers with disabilities or limited mobility, who rely on consistent product weights for meal planning, may find sudden changes especially disruptive.
There is also a broader social effect: shrinkflation undermines trust in brands and retailers, erodes transparency and reinforces the perception that cost-of-living pressures are being unevenly shared.
So should regulators intervene? Unlike some countries, the UK does not require companies to label pack-size reductions explicitly. Unit pricing exists (such as prices displayed per 100g or per litre) but this is inconsistently applied and often difficult to see on shelf labels.
Consumer organisations have repeatedly called for clearer rules. A more rigorous and standardised unit-pricing framework would help shoppers understand value more easily. And given the scale of shrinkflation, there is a case for requiring clearer disclosure when pack sizes change.
Eating into purchasing power
For example, France requires retailers to display unit prices clearly and to inform consumers when a product’s size has been reduced without a corresponding price cut.
But public awareness is growing. Media investigations have found shrinkflation to be rife in the UK and put pressure on companies to justify the changes.
Shrinking products are not merely an annoyance. They are part of a broader shift in how companies respond to cost pressures – and how households experience inflation.
While UK grocery inflation remains high and many consumers have done things like trade down – from beef to pork, for example – shrinkflation erodes purchasing power without public debate or transparency.
Recognising shrinkflation as a meaningful economic trend, not just a marketing choice, is essential for understanding how inflation is experienced by households, especially when official measures suggest price pressures are easing. Policymakers, retailers and regulators should consider how to make pricing clearer and consumer choice more genuine.
Erhan Kilincarslan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.