Latest news with #CHOICE
News.com.au
12-07-2025
- Business
- News.com.au
$7 Aldi Bulk Buys kitchen item Aussies begging for returns
A popular kitchen item from a German supermarket chain is finally back on shelves after customers begged for its return. Aldi's popular Bulk Household Special Buys range is back from July 16 and it is set to feature the fan favourite Goliath 300m Cling Wrap. The cling wrap retails for $6.99. Customers have been begging for the item's return, with some revealing it had lasted them more than two years. 'Finally finished the 300m cling wrap after two years and three months,' one Aldi fan revealed. 'And then hubby bought the 600m today. Guess we don't need another box for four-and-a-half-years.' Another declared the item 'worth it' after purchasing it for her family of six. 'You can see they lasted us a while and still looks like there is a fair bit on each roll. I'd hate to think how many 30m rolls at Coles or Woolworths I would have bought at that time for $5 I would have bought in that time.' The cling wrap was given a 78 per cent rating by CHOICE after it noted no pulling or tearing with use, and a 'good sealing performance'. Other items in the Bulk Household Special Buys include the $10.99 Baking Paper 90m. the $16.99 Aluminium Foil 150m, $24.99 Laundry Powder 5kg and the $7.99 Super Strength Dishwashing Liquid 3L. In 2022, customers were stunned to discover there was a cling wrap cutter hidden at the end of the roll. 'Whoever the clever person was that mentioned the cling wrap cutter … a thousand thanks,' one woman shared, after being directed to it by another fan. In a second image it showed if customers opened the side of the box, it was hidden inside the roll. Hundreds of social media comments rolled in, with many stunned at the revelation. 'OMG I just found it after using the cling wrap for at least six months,' one person said. 'I just wasted a bit just to see how easily it cut.' The Goliath Cling Wrap 30m, which retails for $1.65, comes with a standard cutter and is part of the every day range. However, the 300m is part of the Special Buys and the cutter is found inside the tube.
Daily Mail
11-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Aldi Australia's most popular kitchen buy ever is finally back - and it's just $6.99
After months of hope, bargain-loving Aldi shoppers are finally getting what they asked for. Next week marks the return of a cult-status kitchen buy that lasts for years, costs just a few cents per metre, and is one of the store's most in-demand buys. From Wednesday, July 16, Aldi will re-stock its infamous Goliath 300m Cling Wrap as part of its Bulk Household Special Buys, and long-time shoppers are already clearing space in their pantries. At just $6.99 for 300 metres (that's less than 2.5 cents per metre), it's no wonder this jumbo-sized roll of cling wrap has achieved cult status among Aussie households. One fan, from the popular Aldi Mums Facebook page, bragged that her roll lasted an impressive two years and three months. 'Finally finished the 300m cling wrap after 2y3m!' she wrote. 'And then the hubby bought the 600m today. Guess we won't need another box for 4.5 years.' Even consumer watchdog CHOICE gave it a solid thumbs-up in their last wrap comparison, scoring it 78 per cent for performance, praising its strength, seal, and microwave durability. The massive wrap roll is part of a larger money-saving line-up landing at Aldi, which also includes: 90m Baking Paper ($10.99) and 150m Aluminium Foil ($16.99). However, while one favourite makes its return, others are becoming increasingly hard to find. This month the much-loved frozen corn cobs and the popular Choceur Milk Chocolate Mini Bars have all but disappeared, much to shoppers dismay. Sold in packs of 11 'mini' chocolate bars, one customer described the milk chocolate that features a luscious milk crème filling as a 'Kinder replica'. Taking to a Reddit thread dedicated to Aldi Australia, a woman wrote a concerned post under the heading: 'Please don't tell me they got rid of these?' Sharing a product image of the Choceur Chocolate Milk Mini Bars packet, she wrote: 'I feel like they suddenly disappeared from all stores – I've been buying them for years.' 'They're my number one guilty pleasure,' she added, alongside two 'sobbing' emojis. Commenters quickly chimed in, adding that they too had also recently noticed the product's absence. 'Noooo! I was wondering why I couldn't find these anymore,' replied one commenter. But in positive news for chocolate-lovers, it seems chocolate's in-store disappearance is only 'temporary'. An Aldi Australia spokesperson told FEMAIL that Choceur Chocolate Milk Mini Bars have indeed been removed from shelves - but only for the time being. 'There has been a temporary disruption to the supply of the customer favourite Choceur Chocolate Milk Mini Bars,' the Aldi spokesperson explained. 'However shoppers can anticipate its return to shelves around the end of September.' The frozen corn cobs on the other hand, aren't discontinued, they're just much harder to find, it seems. Earlier this week, disappointed shoppers took to Reddit again to share their struggle to locate frozen corn cobs at Aldi and discuss rumours of a shortage in supply to the budget supermarket chain. It began when a shopper uploaded a post titled: 'So what happened to frozen corn cobs???' Shoppers were puzzled that frozen corn cobs appeared to have disappeared, while bags of frozen corn kernels still appeared to be plentiful. Aldi sells Market Fare Corn Kernels in a 1kg bag for $4.19 Aldi stocks frozen Market Fare Corn Cobs in a 1kg bag, priced at $4.59. The budget supermarket also sells Market Fare Corn Kernels in a 1kg bag, priced at $4.19. FEMAIL reached out to Aldi for comment on this one too, with a spokesperson confirming they were 'not experiencing a shortage' - despite some shopper's recent difficulties locating the product. 'Our Market Fare Australian Corn Cobs are a much-loved item across our stores,' they said. 'While we are not experiencing a shortage, if customers can't get hold of our frozen product and are looking for alternatives, they can try our fresh The Good Stuff Sweet Corn Cobbettes or New Season Corn Kernels that you can grab off our shelves.' Nevertheless, the Reddit post was met with sympathetic replies from fellow shoppers who agreed that they too had recently struggled to find the popular frozen vegetable in their local Aldi store. Some hypothesised that they believed the missing item was a result of broader 'seasonal' and 'supply' issues, but an Aldi shelf stacker put their minds at ease with one encouraging comment. He claimed that they had personally placed 'three boxes of cobs into our [store] freezer yesterday, so they still exist at least for now'.
ABC News
10-07-2025
- Health
- ABC News
New questions in the sunscreen SPF saga
Sydney Pead: Sun safety is drilled into Australians from a young age, but the protection offered by some of the most popular sunscreen brands is in question, after consumer group Choice released test results showing many are not meeting their SPF claims. Today, the ABC's Rachel Carbonell on the industry backlash, her investigation into an overseas testing lab, and whether we can trust the SPF on the bottle. I'm Sydney Pead. On Gadigal Land in Sydney, this is ABC News Daily. Sydney Pead: Rachel, in this country, we are basically raised being told to put on sunscreen any time you leave the house, protect yourself from the you've been following this story that's cast doubt on how accurate the SPF labels on some of Australia's most popular sunscreen brands. It's just been this massive controversy, hasn't it? Rachel Carbonell: It has. It's been huge. I knew people would have strong reactions when the sunscreen SPF testing came out, but I was still surprised by just how passionate people are about their sunscreens in Australia, which is just as well, considering how high our skin cancer rates are, I guess. Sydney Pead: Mm, absolutely. And now, your investigations have raised even more questions, this time about one of the labs used by sunscreen brands for SPF certification. So we'll come to that in a moment. But first, just take me back. This whole saga really kicked off last month, didn't it? With a report from CHOICE, the consumer advocacy group. So what exactly did it find? Rachel Carbonell: So last month, consumer group CHOICE released the SPF test results for 20 popular sunscreens. It went to an independent Australian lab and had all 20 of them tested for their SPF and found that 16 of them failed to meet the SPF claim on the label. Now, those results varied quite a lot. Some got an SPF result in the 40s and 30s, but a bunch of them, seven, I think, had SPFs in the 20s, including a couple of Cancer Council products. And the one that really took everyone by surprise was the Ultra Violette product, which tested at four. And that's a product called Lean Screen SPF 50 Plus Mineral Mattifying Skin Screen. Now, this was also the most expensive product that CHOICE tested, and it retails for about $52 for 75 mils from the brand's online store. So look, all of those brands did come back saying that they'd followed all of the regulations, which meant that they had done their own independent testing for the SPF, showing that their sunscreens were compliant, which is something that all sunscreens have to do before they're allowed to sell their sunscreens in Australia. And I guess that's where the controversy really kicked off, because people are legitimately wondering how there can be such huge differences in SPF results between different labs. So after the results came out, CHOICE did ask the Therapeutic Goods Administration or the TGA, which regulates sunscreens in Australia, to go and test these products themselves. Sydney Pead: Right, and CHOICE actually said that because the results of Ultra Violette's product were so low, they needed to send it to get another test at a German lab to validate those results. Is that right? Rachel Carbonell: That's correct. So they sent it off for a smaller validation test at a well-known German lab, and that sample received an SPF of 5. So that's one more than the testing in Australia. So pretty much in line with the original testing. Sydney Pead: That's shockingly low for a sunscreen that's claiming to have an SPF rating of 50 plus. The company, Ultra Violette, was not happy about that finding. Rachel Carbonell: Ultra Violette hit back pretty hard at the CHOICE testing. Ava Chandler-Matthews, Ultra Violette co-founder: Obviously, I've seen all of the press about the CHOICE testing, and I guess I just wanted to give you a bit of an understanding of why we're disputing these claims. Rachel Carbonell: One of their founders, Ava Chandler-Matthews, went direct to the customers on social media saying that the results were not accurate and emphasising that the brand had done its own SPF testing at an independent overseas lab and received a result of more than 60. Ultra Violette then went and tested that sunscreen again. So that original result would have been the result they got before they put that sunscreen on sale in Australia. So they went and tested it again, and it got a result of over 60 again. Ava Chandler-Matthews, Ultra Violette co-founder: So we now have three SPF tests done on 30 people that show where we've got a consistent result within one point of each other, one or two points of each other, at an over 60. Rachel Carbonell: It's worth noting that they went back to the same lab that they'd previously used, not a different lab. Now, that's not breaking any rules. They're just trying to show the public that they've done their testing and it's coming back at what they say it is. She also made the point that, you know, CHOICE is not the TGA or the consumer watch dog. Ava Chandler-Matthews, Ultra Violette co-founder: What we do know about CHOICE is they're not a regulator. They are not the ACCC. They are not the TGA. They are not the ones who approve sunscreens. Rachel Carbonell: And she said that, you know, for what it's worth, you know, she still has faith in that product and she still uses it herself. Sydney Pead: And so Ultra Violette's objection to CHOICE's testing was that their product was decanted before testing, and that process might tamper with the efficacy of the product. Is that right? Rachel Carbonell: Yeah, look, for everyone who was following along on the socials, this whole issue got quite heated and quite detailed. And there was a whole debate about decanting sunscreens out of their original packaging and into something else, whether that be for testing or if you're travelling and you're doing that with your sunscreens and raising questions about whether or not this might, you know, mess with test results. CHOICE hasn't said a lot publicly since it released the SPF results, but it did come back and provide some clarity on what it did in relation to the testing when it sent it off. Very keen for people to know that it followed some pretty strict protocols set by the lab. So they said it was decanted and sealed and labelled and transported, according to the lab instructions, in amber glass jars to limit any degradation of the ingredients. And that for the Sydney tests that were done, that was all done inside of an hour. Sydney Pead: OK, Rachel, can you walk me through what actually makes a sunscreen 50 plus and what testing a brand has to do to be allowed to print that on the bottle? Rachel Carbonell: SPF stands for sun protection factor, and it's a measure of how long it takes for skin to burn under the sun's rays or an imitation of the sun's rays with sunscreen on compared to that same exposure on bare skin. Working this out is actually done with human test subjects, which surprises a lot of people. To be allowed to sell sunscreen in Australia, sunscreen makers have to have done what's called a 10 person in vivo test, which is just a panel of 10 human volunteers. So in the test, the volunteers have a patch of unprotected skin exposed to UV radiation using a solar simulator and a patch of protected skin exposed to those rays. And then the readings from that go into a set of calculations which give an individual SPF value for each of the 10 test volunteers. And then the mean of all of those values is the final SPF for the product. The Therapeutic Goods Administration is the body that regulates sunscreen in Australia, and they don't do their own SPF testing. They can't do it in-house. And the TGA also has no oversight of the third party testing labs that sunscreen makers go to to certify the SPF in their products before they go to market. It is known in the industry that there will be differences between test results between labs. But I suppose the big question is how much variability is acceptable between these labs. I mean, the difference between Ultra Violette's own testing and Choice's testing is more than a whole SPF 50. Sydney Pead: OK, and you've been investigating this even further, and you found that at least half the sunscreens that failed to meet their SPF claims, according to Choice, had their original certification conducted at the same overseas lab. Rachel Carbonell: That's right. So we found at least eight of the 16 sunscreens that Choice found didn't meet their label claim used a lab called Princeton Consumer Research. So they include products from, well, three Cancer Council products and of course, the Ultra Violette sunscreen that we've been talking about. There was also two sunscreens that met their label claim in Choice's testing that used Princeton Consumer Research. But again, the PCR or the Princeton Consumer Research test results for those products were much higher than Choice's testing, which was done here in Australia. Sydney Pead: And Rachel, Ultra Violette published their SPF results from the PCR lab, both the original ones they submitted to the TGA and the second round conducted after Choice's report. You've shown these results to some experts. What did they have to say? Rachel Carbonell: Yeah, we showed the Ultra Violette results and four sets of results for Cancer Council to some experts here in Australia and overseas. And all of those experts said that the results were unusual and that they had concerns about them. To explain this, you need to understand a little bit more detail about the testing again. Sorry to get technical on you. But with each of those 10 volunteers that all receive their own SPF value, you would expect there to be a bit of variability across the 10 subjects, according to those experts. But many of the test reports that we saw, they showed very little variation. And to explain that, for example, in one test report, nine of the 10 test volunteers got exactly the same SPF result down to the decimal point. In another few of them, we saw eight volunteers got exactly the same SPF result down to the decimal point. In the case of Ultra Violette's, it was two different sets of SPF numbers across 10 participants. So one of the experts that we spoke to from the Germany-based Normec Schrader Institute, Dr. Mathias Rohr, he said that the results were unlike anything that he'd seen in his whole career, testing more than 1,000 products a year. Now, it's worth noting at this point that this is the institute that CHOICE went to to do the validation test of Ultra Violette's products. So technically, you know, you could say, is there a conflict of interest there? There's no suggestion that there is. But we went to a bunch of other experts for that reason, just to make sure we were getting a spread of people and making sure we were talking to people who weren't in any way connected to CHOICE's testing. And they all held the same concerns about that lack of variability. They were all very careful to point out that it isn't impossible for these results to line up like that, just that it's unlikely and that they didn't really have an explanation for how that was happening. Sydney Pead: And you did go to the lab, you went to PCR and asked them. So what did they say? Rachel Carbonell: They did acknowledge that this kind of uniformity of SPF results for the test volunteers is uncommon, but did say that it can happen, especially with high performing products in a controlled test environment and that their testing processes meet the standard, the regulation, their testing processes are robust and they're verifiable. We spoke to a couple of the technical directors there, and, you know, both of them were saying, look, it is less common for that kind of lack of variability to happen. But, you know, it does happen. And it just so happens that that's what the test results look like in the test reports that the ABC was looking at. Sydney Pead: It seems a little unusual. How have the TGA and the brands that used this lab responded to your investigation? Rachel Carbonell: Look, a few of the sunscreen brands have told us that they are now going to another independent lab. So somebody that is not who they originally tested with and basically not Princeton Consumer Research. And so that suggests to me that those sunscreen brands that are doing that, which includes Cancer Council and Ultra Violette, are taking it seriously enough to go to a third lab. The TGA says that they are investigating the Choice findings and they'll take regulatory action as required. They themselves have pointed out that, you know, there can be variability between labs and that that's not uncommon. But you would have to presume that they were looking into it. The Cancer Council pointed out, as did a few other sunscreen brands, that Princeton Consumer Research is a really commonly used facility for SPF testing across the industry for sunscreens that are sold in Australia. And that's certainly what our investigation bore out. Like we've named the ones that we could get the reports. But, you know, there are others out there that are using it. And the Cancer Council, interestingly, said that the Choice findings have raised questions about the accuracy of SPF test results and that the Cancer Council is taking that seriously and investigating. Sydney Pead: Yeah, a lot of questions for the brands themselves, but what should consumers make of all of this? Because Ava Chandler-Matthews made the point in her video responding to the Choice results that this whole saga could have eroded trust in all sunscreen. Ava Chandler-Matthews, Ultra Violette co-founder: It's not just about us. It's just about, you know, knowing that the consumer can trust the sunscreens that they're wearing. Sydney Pead: Does she have a point there? Rachel Carbonell: Look, she does have a point, and I really hope that's not the case. And so do a lot of the organisations that work so hard in the skin cancer space in Australia. This is a really important issue, and it is really, really important that consumers and Australians don't lose faith in their sunscreens. Organisations like the Melanoma Institute are really keen to point out to people that the difference between an SPF 50 and SPF 25 is probably not as great as some people might think. And so an SPF in the 20s is still going to provide quite a lot of protection for people. Australians have a bit of a habit of not putting enough sunscreen on. And so, you know, if you've got a sunscreen that you think is potentially underperforming, the advice is not to throw it out. I think the advice is just to make sure you're putting plenty of it on and that you're reapplying regularly. Sydney Pead: That's right. I mean, Australia has the highest rate of melanoma in the world. So as you say, something is better than nothing. But I suppose we'll have to see how this pans out so they can get to the bottom of exactly how protected we are. Rachel Carbonell: That's right. I think we're going to have to leave it to the experts for now and wear long sleeves, put on your sunglasses, put on your hat, seek shade and hope that somebody can sort out the labelling issues so that people know that what it says on the sunscreen bottle is what you're actually getting. Sydney Pead: Rachel Carbonell is the ABC's National Health Equity reporter. This episode was produced by Kara Jensen-Mackinnon and Sam Dunn. Audio production by Adair Sheppard. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sydney Pead. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.
ABC News
27-06-2025
- ABC News
Does travel insurance cover cancellations due to war or natural disasters?
Do you really know what your travel insurance covers? This week, passengers faced cancellations and lengthy delays on flights due to the Middle East conflict, with routes to major cities cut off across the globe. While operations in Dubai and Qatar have resumed and airspaces reopened, it's times like these that it pays to know exactly what your travel insurance covers We spoke to the experts to find out what you're entitled to when a conflict breaks out or a natural disaster unfolds. In short, no. That's what Wendy discovered after buying travel insurance for her adult son weeks before the conflict in the Middle East. Stranded at Doha airport after winning a European holiday, and despite getting a full refund for the cancelled flight, Christopher was told he would have to pay the difference for an alternative ticket with another airline. "We were really shocked. I can understand war and unrest is a very top-tier issue, but it's still interesting how they can get around it because it falls under something that's outside of your control," Wendy said. It's a situation insurance expert Jodi Bird from consumer advocacy group CHOICE said was far more common than many people realised. "Pretty much across all policies there's a blanket ban," he said. "There's no policies that CHOICE are aware of that will cover claims resulting from war." It's pretty straightforward, according to Mr Bird. It's all about the bottom line. "Travel insurance generally doesn't like to cover things like war because it costs too much money," he said. "For some reason, they've decided that war is kind of a blanket ban across pretty much all policies." Put simply, it doesn't make a difference. You won't be covered regardless of the premium you're paying, Mr Bird said. Even the most expensive policies don't offer protection when conflict breaks out overseas. "You might find some variation in things like a pandemic — there were a lot more insurers that covered for pandemic before we had one," he said. Unfortunately, timing doesn't help. Wendy's family had no inkling there was a risk when they booked. "In what way, in our wildest dreams … a transit flight through Qatar, which thousands and thousands of passengers are doing around the world every day, would you ever consider that there's going to be a war there?" she said. The Insurance Council of Australia's deputy CEO, Kylie McFarlane, said it doesn't matter when the policy is taken out. If there is no conflict or war at the time of purchase, the fine print still excludes any claims arising from those events. It depends on your level of cover, but in many cases you may be protected. Natural disasters like floods, cyclones or bushfires are treated differently to war or a conflict. "Extreme weather events may be an inclusion," Ms McFarlane said. "It all comes down to the insurance policy and the provider, so if you're concerned, speak to your insurer." Absolutely — and don't give up if your claim is knocked back. "You should not accept that as the last port of call, unless you absolutely agree with them," Mr Bird said. "The first thing you need to do is raise a complaint to the insurer themselves and ask them to revisit your claim. And if they don't give you a satisfactory answer, you can escalate the complaint to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority." Wendy reached out to the insurance company, but they simply directed her to the clause on her policy showing that war or unrest made any claims null and void. "It's not one of those things that they even raise for you in the beginning, and even if you'd looked at the exclusions at the back, it still wouldn't occur to us," she said. Start by looking beyond the top-line benefits on the website and dig into the exclusions. "Every product disclosure statement has a section called 'general exclusions' — that's a bit that is good to read," he said. "That will give you an understanding of what they may or may not cover — big events like war, pandemic, terrorism, civil unrest. That will give you a good idea of what it is that you're actually buying." Yep. "Travel insurance is definitely worth it — especially just for the medical cost line," Mr Bird says. "It's worth it basically all the time for overseas travel. You will need travel insurance to cover the medical and repatriation costs if you have a problem overseas. Those are the kinds of things where you can really get into a lot of trouble financially if you're not covered." While Wendy's son was able to get a refund for the cancelled flight, they weren't able to pay out the difference of a more expensive flight for him to get to Europe. Or the extra costs associated with travelling from a different city to his intended destination. Wendy has a message for other travellers . "Beware, and understand that you can fully pay for your trip and be prepared, and you can buy your travel insurance, and then still you have to be prepared to cover all the costs yourself if something goes wrong," she said.
Yahoo
25-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Major supermarket wins price war: '25 per cent cheaper'
Aldi has once again beaten supermarket behemoths Coles and Woolworths to offer the cheapest basket of grocery items. Consumer group CHOICE sent mystery shoppers to 104 supermarkets across Australia and found Aldi had the 'best deal' for shoppers this winter. CHOICE has been tracking the price of groceries at Australian supermarkets since March last year with its quarterly government-funded report. Now in its second year, the group's test basket comprised base items and spotlight items, which included popular winter products this quarter like vegetable stock, quick oats and drinking chocolate. The report found Aldi's basket was the cheapest at $55.35 for the 14 items without specials. Woolworths came in second place at $58.92, followed by Coles at $59.22 and IGA at $69.74. That's a 25 per cent difference between Aldi and IGA, and a smaller 6 to 7 per cent difference between Aldi and Woolworths and Coles. RELATED Afterpay's play for Coles, Woolworths, Aldi sparks warning for millions Young Aussie reveals $390,000 property regret after falling into common trap Centrelink payment alert for 58,000 Aussies in caravans CHOICE CEO Ashley de Silva said Woolworths had the cheapest chicken breasts and pumpkin, while Coles had the best deal on apples, and IGA for carrots and garlic. 'For all other products in our basket, Aldi is your best bet,' he said. Even when taking into account specials, Aldi still 'came out on top' with its basket costing $54.44. It was followed by Coles at $57.67, then Woolworths at $58.86, and IGA at $67.54.'All up, if you're planning a hearty porridge breakfast, or wanting a cup of hot chocolate to keep you feeling snug, Aldi should be your first stop,' de Silva said. 'But, as always, there are lots of other ways to save on your weekly grocery shop. Checking the unit pricing, keeping an eye on specials, shopping around, and trying out house brand products can all add up to significant savings.' Aldi Australia chief commercial officer Jordan Lack told Yahoo Finance the findings showed shopping first with the supermarket would deliver "genuine savings, no matter what's in your basket". "Whether you're picking up winter warmers to beat the cold or just topping up on everyday essentials, ALDI will always deliver unbeatable value through our range of great quality products at everyday low prices," Lack said. CHOICE's price comparison was done on a basket of 14 items in March, with the group considering factors like ingredient lists, country of origin and packaging similarities to ensure it made fair comparisons. The base basket, which will remain the same over the next year, included: Full cream milk Sanitarium Weetbix Royal Gala apples Carrots Cavendish bananas Strawberries Chicken breast fillets, bulk pack Spotlight items for the quarter were: Vegetable stock Sour cream Drinking chocolate Butternut pumpkin Quick oat sachets Garlic Brown onions It comes as both Woolworths and Coles slash prices on a range of popular items in a bid to lure shoppers. Woolworths has lowered shelf prices on 550 products until at least 2026, up from the nearly 400 products initially announced, along with lowering prices on winter essentials for the next three months. In response to the CHOICE report, a Woolworths spokesperson told Yahoo Finance it understood the pressures customers continued to be under. 'Year on year prices in our Australian Food business have now declined for five consecutive quarters and we remain committed to delivering value for our customers every time they shop with us," the spokesperson said. Coles, meanwhile, has cut prices on 307 winter essentials and household staples for three months, starting from June. Aldi, for its part, has pushed back on offering temporary discounts to customers and said customers don't have to chase in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
