Disadvantage buyers, yet again
Whenever there is a clash of interest between the consumers and the industry, the winner is always the industry because of money power and a strong lobby

Unlike consumers, the industry has a strong lobby. The latest example is that of the rules pertaining to packed goods. Some weeks ago, I had written about the amendments to the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, that would make standard pack sizes mandatory for certain essential commodities once again. The industry was lobbying hard against it. Sure enough, the government has now postponed the implementation of the amended rules from July to November. In addition, the government has also diluted the rules considerably to suit the industry.

Standardisation in pack sizes help consumers compare prices of different brands and thereby make an informed choice. This is essential now, as the prices of all essential goods have touched the roof. So when you are buying edible oil, if all the brands sell in a standard-size pack of 500g, a consumer can easily compare the prices and buy the least expensive. If on the other hand, one sells 425 gm, another 426.2 gm and yet another, 480 gm, the price comparison becomes impossible because you need to calculate the unit price for each in order to compare their price! Besides, by looking at the pack size, a consumer would imagine that they all contain 500 gm (more so because manufacturers to do not display the quantity the way they should).

The Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs had initially mandated standard pack sizes for 39 essential goods. And there were decent gaps between such standard sizes to ensure that consumers were not misled on quantity by looking at the packages. But bowing to pressure from the industry, the government reduced this number to only 19.

But the matter did not end there. In 2006, the government allowed the industry to pack even the remaining 19 items in non-standard pack sizes , through a proviso to Rule 5 of the Packaged Commodities Rules. This permitted the industry to sell non-standard quantities by proclaiming on the package that this was a non-standard size. But nobody understood the significance, even if they happen to see it — in most cases they did not because the industry did not really print it the way it should have —in a prominent manner. This resulted in manufacturers coming up with all kinds of odd sizes. In addition, manufacturers found it convenient to keep the price constant and decrease the quantity, thereby giving an impression that the price of the commodity had not gone up at all.

After six long years, the government eventually sought to correct this and through a notification dated October 24, 2011, omitted this proviso, thereby mandating once again that these 19 products should be sold only in pack sizes specified in the second schedule of the rule. But even as consumer groups celebrated the development, the industry got busy with its lobbying and now the implementation has got delayed. That’s not all. The new amendments also give the government the power to permit a manufacturer, packer or an importer (upon application from him) to pack or sell in non-standard packages for a maximum of one year. It is also not necessary for the manufacturer to declare the net content for value based packs in the range of Re 1 to Rs 10.

The government has also revised the second schedule, giving the manufacturer more size options, thereby reducing the gap between pack sizes — this is again not in the interest of consumers because this again can mislead consumers about the quantity in a pack. It has also removed the size restrictions for a number of products, when packed in small quantities specified in the schedule. The lesson to be leant is simple. Consumers must shed their apathy and learn to fight for their rights. Or else, their interests will continue to be compromised.

HOME