This disagreement has ignited a broader conversation among shoppers, especially those who have grown increasingly skeptical about packaging practices across the food industry. Many consumers describe feeling uncertain about how much product they’re actually receiving when container sizes appear unchanged but the contents shrink. The term “shrinkflation” has become common in discussions about food and household items, and spices are no exception. Customers notice when jars feel lighter, when they run out faster, or when their trusted brands begin to subtly adjust quantities without changing the overall look of the container.
ndustry standards, and legally compliant. As long as the label shows the correct weight, the company believes consumers have what they need to make an informed decision.
At the same time, McCormick insists that their labeling provides full transparency. They point out that it is ultimately the consumer’s responsibility to check the net weight — a number displayed on every package. Companies throughout the industry rely on this standard. Without it, there would be no practical way to compare products. From McCormick’s standpoint, the debate is less about honesty and more about market positioning. They argue that Watkins is using the controversy to draw attention to their own packaging style rather than addressing the fact that ingredient costs, supply chain pressures, and inflation continue to affect producers across the board.
Yet consumers aren’t just worried about cost — they’re worried about trust. And trust is fragile. Once shoppers feel misled — even unintentionally — confidence in a brand can erode quickly. Several customers have gone so far as to raise concerns through legal channels, leading to ongoing cases now under review in federal courts. While no rulings have been issued, the very existence of these cases shows how deeply people care about transparency in everyday products.
What makes the conversation even more complex is that companies must balance clarity with marketing. Packaging isn’t just a container; it’s an identity. For McCormick, their iconic tin is part of the brand’s legacy. Changing it too drastically risks losing recognition built over generations. Watkins, meanwhile, leans on transparency — literally — as part of their promise to consumers. Neither approach is inherently wrong, but they do appeal to different expectations.
This debate also highlights an uncomfortable truth: many shoppers rely more on visual cues than printed details. A container that looks the same as last year encourages assumptions — even if the weight printed on the label tells a different story. This mismatch between perception and reality is at the heart of the controversy. It isn’t about accusing brands of wrongdoing; it’s about acknowledging how packaging influences psychological expectations.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
