What criteria do you use to choose a daily necessity used in great abundance such as the toilet rolls - quality, quantity, hygiene, or all rolled into one?
The plight is that they all look pretty much the same, and there is precious little product information on their packaging for comparative shopping.
The latest Consumer Council test has shown up some vast variations amongst 25 models of toilet rolls. The majority were 3-ply samples and only 3 were 2-ply.
First and foremost, of particular significance to the consumers intent on value for money, the results revealed considerable variations in relation to the net weight (less packaging and the core), number of sheets, and cost per roll.
On net weight and number of sheets, the samples varied from 68 g to 186 g and from 125 to 364 per roll respectively. In both cases, the variations were nearly 3 times.
On cost for 10 g paper, they differed from $0.136 to $0.288, a variation of more than double.
The test could establish no correlation between the price and quantity. The most pricey toilet roll at $3.69 each was found with 128 g in net weight and 195 in number of sheets while another sample priced at $3.09 had 162 g and 274 sheets.
Toilet roll suppliers are urged to label their products with comprehensive information to facilitate comparison by consumers.
The attention of consumers is also drawn to the promotional sale practice of some suppliers.
The tactic involved the sale of promotional 12-roll packs - 2 rolls more than the usual 10-roll packs - with claims of "buy 10 get 2 free" or "10+2".
But, contrary to consumers' expectation of gaining 2 additional rolls, it transpired that the net weight per roll in a 12-roll pack might actually be less than the net weight per roll in a 10-roll pack.
For instance, in one case, a 12-roll pack weighed a total of 1,764 g net whereas a 10-roll pack of the same brand weighed 1,800 g. This was because the net weight per roll of the 12-roll pack was only 147 g, 33 g less than one in the 10-roll pack.
In another case, however, consumers stand to benefit with a 12-roll pack weighing 1,536 g net compared to 1,250 g in a 10-roll pack of the same brand.
Secondly, of particular concern to the health-conscious is that some samples were found to contain bacteria in excess of the standard of the Mainland - the National Standards of the People's Republic of China-Bathroom Tissue GB20810-2006.
The models were tested in 2 batches for their Total Bacterial Count (TBC). 4 models, in both batches, were found to have a TBC exceeding 600 cfu/g (colony forming units per gram) while 1 model was found with the problem in only 1 batch.
However, no pathogen bacteria of Staphylococcus aureus and Hemolytic streptococci nor total coliform were detected in any of the samples.
The level of TBC may be affected by poor storage conditions of the products. So, always store in a clean dry place to avoid contamination.
In addition, the samples were subjected to tests for the presence of migratable fluorescent substances.
5 samples were detected with such substances. Although there is no concrete proof that fluorescent substances are harmful, some people might be allergic to them.
Thirdly, to assess their quality, the samples were tested for paper strength (tear resistance, wet and dry tensile strength), water absorbency (rate and capacity), resistance to disintegration in water, particles or loose fibre content.
The samples were rated also by users' panels for their softness and odour, and by visual inspection for creases and stains.
For details, consumers are urged to refer to the test result in this (June) issue of CHOICE.
The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE Magazine and Online CHOICE ( https://echoice.consumer.org.hk/ ).