The plan to require explicit per-kilogram and per-liter pricing for food products is slated to take effect this October. If enacted, most shoppers will not only see how prices have climbed, but will also face another round of increases as producers respond with adjusted packaging and costs.
About 15 years ago, the shelves began to feature 900 ml milk packs instead of full liters and 180 g butter portions instead of 200 g. At first, it sparked confusion and frustration, though some understood the motive, most were annoyed. Over time, people adapted, muttering about corporate greed. The trend extended further: buckwheat and rice moved from 1 kg to 900 g, and eggs began to be sold in sets of nine. These changes became part of daily shopping life.
Across the last decade, the average size of many consumer goods, including household chemicals, shrank by roughly 7 to 20 percent. Manufacturers attribute this to a decline in household income and purchasing power. Yet if families are poorer, why the steady shrinkage of product sizes? The logic some marketers lean on is simple: smaller packages can be sold at the same price per kilogram or liter, which translates to a higher effective price. In other words, a 100 g butter pack could be priced as if it were 200 g, if the larger package carries the same per-unit cost. The takeaway many consumers have internalized is that prices tend to rise over time. It’s worth remembering that in 2000, a kilogram of beef could fetch 100 rubles in Moscow, and a typical Russian family could eat for a week on around 500 rubles. And palm oil was not as ubiquitous as it is today.
Lawmakers in the State Duma proposed a bill requiring every price tag to disclose the cost per kilogram of the product. The Ministry of Industry and Trade opposed this approach, proposing instead a unified packaging standard to simplify price comparisons for buyers. For instance, pasta would be offered only in 800 g bundles, which would still amount to a per-kilogram price but produced a different packaging footprint. Rospotrebnadzor even sent a private letter to the State Legal Department. The President warned that a weight-based price per kilogram could complicate the consumer’s understanding of value, particularly for items like tea or coffee. The question remained: would such transparency truly confuse shoppers or illuminate price differences more clearly for instant products sold online?
State Duma Deputy Chairman Boris Chernyshev of the Liberal Democratic Party argued that price manipulation misleads consumers. In response, Rospotrebnadzor and the Ministry of Industry and Trade warned that the new law would push prices higher, as retailers would need to automate processes to comply. Reminiscent of the 1990s, automation could be a manual, one-off effort for each commodity category. Today, many retail systems support automatic per-unit pricing via straightforward formulas, and large chains rely on integrated software to calculate real-time per-kilogram and per-liter prices. Still, automation alone would not necessarily shield prices from rising, especially if packaging and product formats shift alongside the legal changes.
Reality rarely aligns with ideal outcomes. Prices tend to rise when warning signals appear. Pensioners and larger households would notice, but sellers often look for opportunities to boost margins as well, and officials may report increases in trading profits. The initial cost impact would come from automation and the transition to new packaging. Within a few months, once the market acclimates to automatic labeling, new packaging standards could push prices higher yet again as units switch to kilograms and liters. Some manufacturers may aim to align their launches with the law while the ink is still drying on the final text.
Today, the price tag on a package accounts for roughly ten percent of the product’s value. The majority of the cost relates to production rather than the producer alone. Food manufacturers commonly price vacuum bags for meat, sausage, cheese, and other items between nine and twenty rubles. Bulk purchases make packaging cheaper, including polystyrene trays priced around two to three rubles. With the new law in place, packaging costs could rise to thirteen to fifteen percent of the total price. If an average Russian family of three spends about 300 thousand rubles annually on groceries, a portion of that amount goes to packaging. Under higher packaging costs, monthly expenses could climb noticeably, adding tens of thousands of rubles to yearly food outlays for many households.
Despite protests, the broader pattern is clear: some ministries appear inclined toward adopting a Western model of market operations. Critics of armchair economics point out that industry players rarely heed consumer input in such transitions. The experience from parts of Europe offers a cautionary tale. In 2016, a British controversy around chocolate lasted months after a 400 g bar was reduced to 360 g while the packaging stayed the same. Rather than accept a lighter bar, consumers focused on the altered product design, prompting a shift back to the previous weight while leaving the price unchanged. Coca-Cola later explored smaller bottle sizes in 0.9 liter formats in response to consumer expectations, testing the boundary between price perception and actual product content. Retailers sometimes use such moves to adjust perceived value while maintaining overall sales—an approach that often invites public scrutiny.
The remedy rests with informed shoppers who vote with their wallets. If consumers resist overpriced items, producers may rethink formulations or ingredient choices to balance cost and quality. State oversight remains essential to prevent anti-competitive behavior and ensure that transparency does not become a vehicle for inflated prices. As reform discussions continue, lawmakers consider additional measures to curb misleading packaging practices and to safeguard consumer trust, recognizing that the end goal is fair pricing and clear information across the marketplace.