Slack Fill Packaging and Economics of Marketing vs. Material Cost

By Craig Macklin

Not too long ago, I was speaking with Jack regarding a letter he was writing regarding the extra space he found in the packages of Non-Dairy Creamer Powder he likes.  His theory was that the powder product was settling after packaging and during transport, which was leaving more space in the package than was needed.  He was writing to the manufacturer to suggest that they investigate a vibratory table to settle the product during packaging, which would allow them to make the packages much smaller (likely ~25%) and save significant dollars on the material for the packages.  I stipulated that the extra packaging might actually be desired for on shelf marketing.

So, I was interested to see an article in the latest issue of NCA Journal (Spring 2013) “Avoiding Slack Fill Litigation.”  It turns out, there are actually laws in place to prevent packagers from leaving too much space in packages and deceiving consumers.  As with any good law, it looks like there is some grey area for what NCA Journal calls “Allowable Instances of Slack Fill.”  One of these instances is “unavoidable product settling during shipping and handling.”

So, knowing that vibration can be used during package filling to settle the product just like shipping and handling might settle it, I have some questions:

  1. To my first discussion with Jack, is extra cost of packing negated by the better on-shelf appearance of the packaged product (if it is allowable slack fill)?
  2. What constitutes “unavoidable product settling” if vibration can be employed during packing?

Any food and packaging industry guru’s who might be reading this with thoughts on these questions, please submit a comment.  I think we could have a healthy discussion.


Share this blog post:
FacebooktwitterlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterlinkedinmail

Follow us:
FacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagramFacebooktwitterlinkedinyoutubeinstagram