I don’t think this is shrinkflation. 100g is a very, very common size for food products as here in Europe foods must have health charts (kcalories, sugars, etc) as both total for the package and per 100g. If the package is 100g it makes that easier and they only need 1 chart, good for smaller products.
This is just a European company selling the same product they sell elsewhere in a region that uses a very stupid measurement system.
It’s a mistake in the label template. In variable label printing it is common to use the same template for all products, i would imagine that the weight is probably stored as a floating-point number in the database and it is required to round the number to fit it on the template. It probably looked fine for 99% of labels being printed, especially in the European market where we use the metre SI… but in this case it did not work out, classic programmers nightmare to handle different locales especially for a company that probably centralize all label printing for all Ikea stores in the world.
That is a possible explanation, but I don’t buy it for a simple reason: I don’t know of any country where the shelf-label weight is allowed to differ from the actual gross weight by almost 15%. Ikea isn’t a small chain that just opened. If you are indeed correct and they simply haven’t bothered to update their templates, would really not a single person have sued since they started?
This being a temporary consequence of shrinkflation is far more likely than this being a permanent oversight. Sure, the US is the wild west for consumer rights in many aspects, but not this far.
If you were buying a cake you wouldn’t necessarily need the price to say $.$$ per 30.54 ounces, 31 ounces is accurate enough.
Yes there is a much bigger difference between 3.5 and 4, but it easily could just be an error in their computer system since most things don’t need to be that accurate.
I don’t see why there needs to be a cutoff? In my country we list exact prices and weights. Of course there’s room for error with the actual weight of the product in some cases, but that’s unrelated to the label itself.
Listed is how many pieces, total price, as well as price per piece.
Same with weight, though gram instead of piece, as well as price per kilo, making any sort of conversion easy.
I don’t think this is shrinkflation. 100g is a very, very common size for food products as here in Europe foods must have health charts (kcalories, sugars, etc) as both total for the package and per 100g. If the package is 100g it makes that easier and they only need 1 chart, good for smaller products.
This is just a European company selling the same product they sell elsewhere in a region that uses a very stupid measurement system.
They’re referring to the label on the shelf saying 4oz, which is ~113g. Seems to me like a mislabeling honestly.
I doubt it was ever 113g at any point. It’s just bad rounding.
I 100% doubt this. In what place would you be allowed to round the weight of whatever you’re selling up by half a unit?
It’s a mistake in the label template. In variable label printing it is common to use the same template for all products, i would imagine that the weight is probably stored as a floating-point number in the database and it is required to round the number to fit it on the template. It probably looked fine for 99% of labels being printed, especially in the European market where we use the metre SI… but in this case it did not work out, classic programmers nightmare to handle different locales especially for a company that probably centralize all label printing for all Ikea stores in the world.
That is a possible explanation, but I don’t buy it for a simple reason: I don’t know of any country where the shelf-label weight is allowed to differ from the actual gross weight by almost 15%. Ikea isn’t a small chain that just opened. If you are indeed correct and they simply haven’t bothered to update their templates, would really not a single person have sued since they started?
This being a temporary consequence of shrinkflation is far more likely than this being a permanent oversight. Sure, the US is the wild west for consumer rights in many aspects, but not this far.
They are probably just rounding up the 3.53 oz to 4 so make it more legible in the tag. It very well may have said 3oz if it had ended up being 3.47oz
That doesn’t sound legal, but then again in the US it’s okay to lie about prices on the label, so lying about weight should be just as fine.
Well there does need to be a cutoff somewhere.
If you were buying a cake you wouldn’t necessarily need the price to say $.$$ per 30.54 ounces, 31 ounces is accurate enough.
Yes there is a much bigger difference between 3.5 and 4, but it easily could just be an error in their computer system since most things don’t need to be that accurate.
I don’t see why there needs to be a cutoff? In my country we list exact prices and weights. Of course there’s room for error with the actual weight of the product in some cases, but that’s unrelated to the label itself.
Listed is how many pieces, total price, as well as price per piece.
Same with weight, though gram instead of piece, as well as price per kilo, making any sort of conversion easy.
And same thing with volume.