A couple of years ago, MrConsumer’s doctor recommended that he take 1000 iu of vitamin D a day. Recently he switched from tablets to softgels, and got quite a surprise when he opened the bottle.
Here is the CVS pill bottle with contains 300 softgels:
Upon opening the bottle, MrConsumer discovered that most of the bottle was just filled with air, with the softgels way at the bottom.
*MOUSE PRINT:
In this roughly five-inch high bottle, the pills only occupy the bottom one-and-one-quarter inches.
Had MrConsumer had his trusty x-ray device with him at the store, he would have seen this:
*MOUSE PRINT x-ray:
Presumably there really were 300 softgels in the bottle, so that is not the issue. This is, however, an example of over-packaging or “slack-fill” as it is known. Slack-fill is the difference between the actual capacity of a container and the volume of product contained therein. If the extra space is really non-functional and not required for filling machines to operate properly, the product can be deemed misbranded under federal law.
It certainly would be cheaper for CVS to use a smaller bottle, and better for the environment. One has to wonder, then, why they continue to sell pills in oversized bottles. So we asked them.
“The front label on our over the counter products clearly states the number of pills/capsules/tablets contained in the bottle, as evidenced by the sample photo you provided, to ensure that customers are aware of the quantity being purchased. We also need to ensure that the container is sufficient in size to accommodate the required drug fact information. Generally speaking, manufacturers choose the container size.” — Public Relations, CVS/pharmacy
Coincidentally, Consumer Reports in its August issue shows more examples of air-filled pill bottles and gets other explanations of why this is a common practice.
So their answer is they do it so they won’t have to make the print so small. If that logic were applied to their ointments, the tubes would fit a caulking gun.
That explains the billboard sized cereal boxes that are 1/3 empty.
I can understand having a minimum bottle size to make sure all the necessary information is conveyed on the package, but some of those bottles on the Consumer Reports page look ridiculous and so does the CVS bottle above.
Do we really live in a world where it is more economical to waste a limited, but crucial, resource such as petroleum because it costs less money to produce a standard sized package rather than various sizes?
And how hard would it be to put a fold out label on that bottle? I’m not buying the explanation – it’s to fool the eye, nothing more.
Yeah, when I buy bug or weed killer (concentrate), the bottles are small but they have fold out paper instructions/warnings. Pill bottles can’t do this because??
My experience with “slack fill” involved a can of green beans that was only about a third full. When I contacted the company, they sent me a coupon and some recipes. To me the term would be more appropriate to this type of situation, not where a company has deliberately chosen to use an over-sized package.
I had asked about over-sized packaging on something at a local store. I was told it was to help reduce shoplifting. A small box or bottle can go in a pocket easily where a larger one is more visible. Made sense to me, although I still don’t understand why they don’t put twice as much in each container…
Well Nancy Then I charge you twice as much for that same bottle.
Exactly, the average human brain just doesn’t understand unit pricing that well. $10 for 300 vitamins or $20 for 600 vitamins works out the same in the end; the latter even has an advantage of only having to be purchased half as often, but often the consumer sees “$20” on the same size bottle and immediately goes “that’s too expensive” without even considering other factors like the quantity or size of the product.
One good reason to have larger than required packaging is to reduce theft. A smaller container is easier to conceal. Another reason is to reduce production costs. If the same bottle size is used for multiple products, conveyor belts do not need to be recalibrated for different sizes
DID you count the softgels?
😀
Edgar replies: No… but there better be 300 in there!
Mario and Nancy, thing is, there are LAWS out there about packaging.
Theft makes no sense, that bottle is still small enough to put in a pocket or something.
What makes sense is that the companies standardize on packaging. If most of a pill producer’s output can fit reasonably in a few different sizes of container, then less time needs to be spent hunting down varied containers, ordering them, inventorying them, setting them up, allowing for them in packaging equipment, and so forth. Just stop the line, change the pills and labels and start it up again. “slack space” shouldn’t be an issue to the consumer in this case – you are purchasing based on count, not on volume. The cost of packaging is minimal, and far outweighed by the other costs I mentioned. Bottom line – not an issue.