Slightly more than 6 months since the last half-price deal, so stock up again for another 6!
And the price has gone up by $0.20 again!
Enjoy!
½ Price Weet-Bix 575g $2.20 @ Coles
740
HamBoi69 on 07/08/2023 - 07:02 coles.com.au (2024 clicks)
Last edited 09/08/2023 - 16:49 by 1 other user
Last edited 09/08/2023 - 16:49 by 1 other user
Related Stores
closed Comments
sWeet-Bix
Buying home brand is also good to signal that you aren't going to accept higher prices.
Wheat biccies
actually buying woolies brand just means eventually the only option is woolies and that's when they jack the price. amazon are notorious for using unfair tactics to outcompete product manufacturers and coles/woolies isn't too far behind.
actually buying woolies brand just means eventually the only option is woolies and that's when they jack the price
Bit like banking. All the challenger banks are dead. (sarcasm)
Always people who will buy wheet bix to spite in the face of people. It is like people who pay credit card interest even though it has been long enough that credit card rates are too high.
@netjock: No. There is a systematic elimination of available food brands by the big supermarkets which is anti-consumer and results in less choice, poorer outcomes for producers and potentially monopolistic markets. If you think that's good, then god help you. I won't necessarily defend sanitarium as a company, this is more of a general philosophy about buying coles/woolies brands where a good/better alternative is still on the shelf.
@Budju: Do you think we should bring back the Dodo?
Obviously not an armchair economist.
If Woolworths takes over and jack up prices at some point there will be excess profits that will induce other entrants into the market. By your deduction Aldi shouldn't exist.
@netjock: You're obviously the kind of guy that thinks that Utopia would be a world where there are about three or four massive companies that have shops and that is it. Every single product on the shelf is low-medium quality woolies brand and that is the only choice you have. They can charge whatever they want because they've driven every other producer out of the market. Farmers get paid dirt because they literally cannot sell to any other company except coles and woolies. This is your ideal world, and it reads like cyber punk 2072.
@Budju: Nice come back.
But I don't think buying Weet Bix by sanitarium owned by seven day Adventist church who pays very low taxes because they pretend to be a charity is sticking it to the man?
@netjock: You can't compete with the large chain supermarkets on grocery prices, so starting my own would be futile. The monopolisation of downstream supply chains basically ensures their dominance and lets them regulate product supply pricing and access. Try to support third party food suppliers if ever possible.
@netjock: They do do a lot of good in the community, that doesn't always get seen. Breakfast clubs at schools all over Australia, lots of food donations where it's needed etc.:
https://www.sanitarium.com/au/social-purpose
https://www.sanitarium.com/au/about/sanitarium-story/profits…
Farmers get paid dirt
Not true. I know a vege farmer who supplies Woolies, and is happy with the price he gets.
If you're thinking of the example of milk, the farmers are getting screwed by the middleman, the milk processors.
Try to support third party food suppliers if ever possible.
I agree with you there. Farmers markets especially, you benefit and they benefit.
@Russ: You've taken my comment out of context. I am not talking about milk. The hypostasization was about a world where third party suppliers do not exist, and your only options are coles and woolworths brand. That is not the current world, but it is where things are moving toward - helped by comments like Buying home brand is also good to signal that you aren't going to accept higher prices. Who do you actually think sets the prices in the first place? Home Brand IS coles/woolworths.
@Budju: I get you now, but only after carefully re-reading your comment.
But while Coles and Woolies have a large footprint, I don't see them taking over all the other stores. My son lives in a small town of roughly 5000 people, and that town has a Woolies and an IGA as the main stores. Should Woolies attempt to buy IGA, or drive them out of business by predatory pricing, the anti-competition watchdogs will step in and stop it.
Add to that the growing competition of direct-delivered groceries from Amazon. While Amazon can't currently supply some types of grocery items (like those that require refrigeration), and probably won't have good coverage of tiny towns for many years, I think we'll end up with a somewhat stable distribution of market share, and not a monopoly or duopoly situation.
In situations where we have ended up with a near-monopoly, like Bunnings Hardware, they were aided by much of what they sell being difficult to order on the internet, or impractical and expensive to deliver. That isn't true of most of the products sold by Coles/Woolworths, so I think competition will stay alive.
I spoke to an executive on a flight once who introduced a new line for Coles with their premium Australian-grown product under their own home brand.
When the contract came up for renewal, they switched to sourcing the product from Asia - to save just cents per kg. All the while consumers who would have been enjoying the quality, premium Australian grown product would only notice if they looked closely at the country in the small print on the back - the home brand packaging stayed the same. Another way that Australian farmers and cooperatives can get squeezed by these supermarket giants.
You mean like how iPhones are made in China / Vietnam depending on which one is cheapest
I've been told that Coles people aren't the brightest that is why they can still be second after Woolworths even when backed by such a big group as Coles Myer (back in the day) or Wesfarmers.
Completely meaningless statement. There is less than one fifth of a teaspoon of sugar in a serve.
I don't believe you actually count your sugar intake to the single gram.
Edit: also, the homebrand one isn't fortified with vitamins and iron. Not everyone needs that, but it also makes Weet-bix a much better choice for very young kids.
Buy Coles brand. Same price as WW.
INGREDIENTS: Whole Grain Wheat (97%), Sugar, Salt, Barley Malt Extract, Vitamins (Niacin (B3), Thiamin (B1), Riboflavin (B2))
Iron isn't all that it is cracked up to be. You need to take it with Vitamin C else it doesn't get absorbed. If you have too much you get constipation.
Yeah, but basically no one is getting "too much", most young kids are getting "not enough", and basically no one is deficient in Vitamin C.
The Coles one is missing iron and folate.
most young kids are getting "not enough"
Makes you wonder why you think eating Weet Bix would solve the underlying problem? If it would they'd be throwing them off roof tops at schools.
@netjock: Weet-bix provide about a third of RDI for very young children.
No one food "solves" insufficient intake, or else yes they'd throw that food off rooftops.
However if one food had a super-dose of iron it in, every one who ate it wouldn't poop for days, so then they really would be throwing it off the rooftop. It's not healthy to eat a huge dose in one go, and you'd risk too high an intake of any one food aimed for the whole RDI.
You should think it through a bit more.
Weet-bix provide about a third of RDI for very young children.
So three serves and things are solved.
You wonder why they don't tell parents to serve them as side dishes for lunch and dinner.
Oh please. Cut the rubbish. It is marketing.
Nobody ever went into hospital and got a prescription for Weet Bix.
2/3 of the population is borderline or obese, you going to blame it on childhood Weet Bix deficiency too I suppose.
Yeah, but basically no one is getting "too much", most young kids are getting "not enough",
What are you basing that on?
@M00Cow: Re: infants, advice from professionals. Over 90% of infants don't meet the RDI.
Re: adults, advice from professionals. Over 95% of adults are fine for iron.
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/nine-out-of-10-inf…
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtrea…
@Wolfenstein98k: So a single study, not based on actual real life data, but interviews with parents. Red flag there for inaccuracy right there. The study was fund by Nestlé Nutrition Institute no conflict at all there 🤔
a 2016 study that found only 32.6% of infants and 18.6% of toddlers had inadequate iron intake.
So again red flag.
The recommended daily iron intake is based on the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines that recommends infants consume 7 mg of iron each day. To achieve this amount of iron, infants need to eat around 300 g of beef or 400 g of fortified cereal.
Really, a 6-12mth old eating 300g of steak each day??? And gee I wonder which company sells lots of fortified cereal? Surely not the same company that has for half a century tried to convince mothers around the world that their baby formula is far superior to their own breast milk. 🤔
And…
‘It’s possible the recommended iron intake has been set higher than needed and should be reviewed,’ Dr Netting said
You don't say.
And if course like many of these studies
‘But we won’t be able to confirm if this is the case without doing further studies with a larger cohort of infants.
Yep, a half arsed study so the marketing dept can put out some scare-mongering press release enabling the research institute to ask for money. It's certainly worthy of further study, but it's also not worth the paper it's written on.
And the final clincher. If you'd clicked in the link to the study, the first thing it says is there was a correction and that they entered the wrong data (i.e. it wasn't peer reviewed or wasn't done probably).
prevalence of inadequacy for iron for older infants (6–12 months) should be 75%, not 92%, as reported in the paper.
@M00Cow: Yeah, I trust the literature review from "M00cow" more than from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.
@Wolfenstein98k: It appears you didn't even bother reading the whole article, let alone understand it or even bother to click on the link to the actual paper. Which itself says was wrong.
The RACGP hasn't even bothered correct their article which the original paper's authors have stated was factually incorrect. Even News corp papers usually update their factually incorrect articles.
This is how misinformation spreads. People like you who regurgitate sensationalist headlines without even basic fact checking.
@M00Cow: Mate wtf are you talking about? There are multiple papers cited, that come to the same conclusion the broad literature does.
This is why I said "literature review", because you didn't do one - you just did some googling to support your predetermined conclusion. That's not "basic fact checking", it's misinformation.
Iron deficiency is the most common, well-known deficiency in infants related to food.
You have no idea what you're talking about, or how science works. Waste someone else's time.
@Wolfenstein98k: A little caution might be needed with the "no-one is getting too much" reasoning. "Emerging concerns about delayed neurological effects of early-life iron overexposure have raised questions as to whether recommended guidelines in high-income countries are unnecessarily excessive."
Source: https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/…@Wolfenstein98k: I am not sure what scientific papers they read but you better ask Indians and Chinese how do they have 1bn+ population without weet bix.
@netjock: I don't know what you think I'm saying. I just said "if you're choosing between brands, and you have very young children, go with the one that's better for very young children".
@Wolfenstein98k: If you believe yourself you'd actually buy Weet Bix kids because it has low salt and sugar, more fibre and vitamins.
@Wolfenstein98k: Matey, you said
Re: infants, advice from professionals. Over 90% of infants don't meet the RDI.
And referred to this to support your claim
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/nine-out-of-10-inf…
You based your claim from the headline of that article.Tbat headline is based on this study, which was subsequently updated to correct errors they made about the 90% figure (well 92%).
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/5/1144
So your claim is wrong.
There are multiple papers cited, that come to the same conclusion
Where? Even the original paper was wrong and revised their figure from 92% to 75%.
Your statement
Over 90% of infants don't meet the RDI.
Is not supported anywhere. It's misinformation.
If you had of read the whole article they even cast doubt on the RDI as well. If you had of clicked through to the paper that the alarmist headline was based on, you would have seen the correction of the figures (which would have been picked up if the paper had of been peer reviewed before being published). If you'd had read the paper you'd have seen it was based on a phone survey of parents. Not a very scientifically accurate method.
You have no idea what you're talking about, or how science works. Waste someone else's time.
Keep spreading misinformation.
you just did some googling to support your predetermined conclusion.
I didn't do any googling, I just followed the link you posted. actually read the article, clicked in the link inside to article to the research paper it was based on. But apparently I have no idea about how science works.
What does the Woolies brand weet bix taste like?
Weetbix!
Same flavour and texture as Weetbix. Slightly less sweet, but not noticeable if you add fresh fruit and nuts.
Thank you - I don't like it when its too sweet so will get some to try.
What does the Woolies brand weet bix taste like?
cardboard.
cardboard
JV, you're supposed to only eat the contents of the box, not the box itself.
And you're also supposed to unwrap lollies before eating them.
box has less carbs
It probably has more fibre too, but it's not safe to eat. Don't do it JV, where will we get our daily dose of sarcasm if the printing ink poisons you?
I find the WW ones to taste a lot more bland. In terms of texture, it crumples quite a bit more and breaks apart a lot easier. It’s more comparable to Vita Brits, and the difference is big enough that my kids wouldn’t touch it but they’re perfectly fine with weet bix or the Coles ones (which is practically a less fortified version of the branded product). It’s also noted that the WW ones have quite a bit more sodium than the Coles ones but, putting it into perspective, they aren’t that different from, say, a serving of bread.
Woolies home brand version.
Yuck !!!
I still sweeten with maple syrup anyways
And aldi has rebanded wheatbix on sale everyday
How much is Aldi?
tell me i have no tastebuds but I cant tell the difference between wheatbix and aldi version
in fact the box they come in and the packaging is basically the same
@MrThing: Quite possibly there is no difference in flavour, and they might even be made on the same production line.
I've been eating store-brand crumpets for years, and I used to wonder how there could be such a price disparity between the name-brand varieties and the store brand. So I compared the products, and I found that name-brand crumpets are always visually perfect, with no uneven colouration and perfectly regular thickness. The store-brand crumpets have dark bits on them, some large and some little holes, and the top of them usually slopes to one side.
So I've come to the conclusion that they were probably made on the same production line, and all the visually-imperfect crumpets are packaged and sold as store-brand crumpets. And I'm happy with that, I'm saving substantial money and getting the same nutritional value.
I've noticed that weetbix are perfectly rectangular, while the store-brand equivalents are more rounded and a little more crumbly. So I reckon the store-brand weetbix are also the "visually imperfect" ones from the same production line.
@Russ: Yes crumpets are another aldi product which look pretty much the same as the most popular coles woolies one
How many can you do?
6 lol covered in sugar. So Woolies brand is out for me!
I'd agree with 6 being a good number. My record is 24.
Thank you! I’m down to 3 boxes from last deal!
Slightly more than 6 months since the last half-price deal
Not so, it has been half price at $2.20 several times more recently:
19 April at Woolworths
26 April at Coles
12 July at Woolworths (apparently not posted to Ozbargain)From the thumbnail, this appears to be two packs for $2.20. Unfortunately I only want one pack, so I’ll wait for them to go back to the everyday low price
It's $2.20 for 575g (one pack).
Not according to the thumbnail. I’ve printed it out, and I’m going to scream for the manager if they won’t honour it. That, and I have a letter to the ombud already prepared, but let’s hope for their sake it doesn’t come to that
@tharlow: Good luck with that. Note that the catalogue entry says "$0.38 per 100g", which is why I'm confident you only get one 575g pack for $2.20.
Is Beet Wix bad for you? I understand it is highly processed
Health star rating is five out of five stars. You can trust the government, because the vaccine was safe, effective, and not at all mandatory
They won't cure Spoonerisms, if that's what you were hoping for.
how u know is it highly processed ?
Thanks OP. Bought some cartons of these for a local community centre to have on hand to add to hampers. Great value.
Twice as much sugar as Woolies home brand version.