Amid ongoing price pressures on essential goods, a new trend is emerging in the country’s consumer market—products are being sold at the same price but with reduced weight, a phenomenon known as “shrinkflation.” This practice has recently become evident in the soap market.

A visit to local markets reveals that several companies are introducing soaps in new packaging with reduced weight compared to previous versions. However, as prices remain unchanged and no clear announcements are made, most consumers are unaware that they are effectively paying the same amount for less product.

Rehena Akter, a private-sector employee from East Rampura, shared her experience. “I regularly use beauty soap. After buying a Lux bar recently, I noticed on the packaging—only after using it—that the weight was 90 grams, while the price remained the same. Without any clear notice, reducing weight like this is essentially deceiving consumers,” she said, calling for authorities to investigate the issue.

According to the Packaging Rules (SRO No. 318-Law/2021) issued by the Ministry of Industries, revised guidelines require that soaps above 150 grams be packaged in increments of at least 25 grams. Previously, soaps above 50 grams followed a stepwise increase of 25 grams (e.g., 75g, 100g). Following a 2025 amendment, while most brands have maintained standard weight categories, several multinational brands have reduced soap weight by around 10 grams without prominently informing consumers.

This subtle reduction, without significant changes in packaging or clear labeling, makes it difficult for buyers to detect the difference. While such practices may technically comply with regulations, questions are being raised about their ethical implications.

Industry insiders also warn that shrinkflation is disrupting fair market competition. Multinational and dominant companies, by reducing product weight while keeping prices unchanged, are able to increase profit margins. This puts local brands at a disadvantage, as they struggle to maintain previous weight standards without losing competitiveness.

Economist Syed Ahsanul Alam Parvez described the practice as deceptive. “Reducing product weight without informing consumers is a form of fraud. It is unacceptable to exploit customers for extra profit in this manner. Regulatory bodies, including BSTI, must take strict action,” he said.

Analysts note that the strong market position of multinational companies allows them to influence pricing strategies, often creating an uneven playing field for smaller domestic businesses.

Consumer rights advocates argue that this is not just an isolated issue but a growing concern for the overall business environment. If such practices spread to other products, consumers may continue to suffer hidden losses while unethical businesses gain excess profits.

They emphasize that any changes in product weight or quantity should be clearly disclosed to consumers. Strong monitoring and enforcement by relevant authorities are essential to ensure transparency and protect consumer interests.

Meanwhile, some companies are reportedly maintaining previous weight standards due to competitive pressure. However, unless this trend of shrinkflation is regulated, it may expand across more product categories—ultimately affecting consumers’ purchasing power and undermining fair competition in the market.