Okay, despite slamming the zipper bag in my last column, size constraints did not allow me to present the other side of the argument. So, here it is.
I actually like the zipper technology and other resealable packaging options—especially when it’s done right.
Although I am not happy with the poor quality zipper offered on my cat’s food (click HERE), I am ecstatic about the zipper on my dog’s breakfast and repeatedly rave to my poor wife about it.
I purchase the 12.7 kg (28-lb) bags of Performatrin Ultra holistic nutrition dog food manufactured by Peton Distributors ULC—a Toronto-based pet-care company formed in 1976.
This is one beautiful looking package (see photo above). It features metallic foil and some dynamic graphics—look at the sun burst flaring out from the sun/moon central graphic! The metallic foil is also eye-catching for what is offered as an elite dog food brand.
However, along with the health benefits of the food (click HERE), my favorite feature is the re-closable zipper.
Much to my dog Buster’s chagrin, the zipper on his bag of dog food not only opens and closes easily keeping his food fresher and the insects out, it also aids in keeping his snoopy snout out of the bag, as that dog would eat the entire package—food included—in a single sitting. It’s true. I’ve seen it happen with other dog food packaging.
To open, I simply unzip the bag. Now, the package is still sealed below, so I have to place two thumbs into the bag and gently pull outward, easily separating the heat-sealed film. After this initial opening, the zipper takes care of all further openings and closures.
I like the resealable technologies. Perhaps it’s because I detest having food spoil—an especially annoying occurrence because the spoilage is always discovered as you want to use the product or if unlucky, after you have used it.
Do I think more food-related products could use better resealable technology? Yes, I do.
Should I have to use fold back clips to close a large bag of potato chips? No.
Should the packages be easy to open and close? Yes.
Should it still offer an environmentally suitable solution? You betcha.
Would we, the consumer, pay more to suffer less spoilage? Uh, let’s see what you think—check out the POLL QUESTION at the bottom of this e-newsletter and VOTE.
Of course we don’t want food spoilage. Not only is it dangerous if consumed, but it’s a waste of money and time to replace.
The average consumer feels that food prices are high enough as it is. Should added features—ones that make a product last longer in the hands of the consumer—come at the cost of the manufacturer, the product/brand owner or the user? There is no right answer, but imagine a product that maintains its price while offering an added-value service—without shrinking the product? Would they gain a customer for life?
Somewhere going to the dogs,