Democratic lawmakers accuse companies of shrinking product sizes while charging consumers the same price
It’s becoming a common experience for Americans going to the grocery store: your bag of chips seems lighter, your favorite drink comes in a slimmer bottle, and you’re running out of laundry detergent more quickly than usual. And yet things are staying the same price.
On Monday two Democratic lawmakers launched an attempt to get to the bottom of the phenomena, accusing three major companies, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and General Mills, of shrinking the size of products while charging consumers the same price – a price-gouging practice known as “shrinkflation”.
…
“Shrinking the size of a product in order to gouge consumers on the price per ounce is not innovation, it’s exploitation,” Warren and Dean said in a statement. “Unfortunately, this price gouging is a widespread problem, with corporate profits driving over half of inflation.”
On the one hand, shrinkflation is a fucking awful thing to do to consumers.
On the other hand, I wish people would see the fact that they’re eating fewer chips and drinking less sugary soda has a silver lining.
Maybe keep the physical shrink and shrink the price too?
The problem is lack of consent.
If I’m buying less chips than the last time, I should be informed, not in fine print, but in obvious terms.
A few companies tried to pawn off their shrinkflation by going the health route. A journalist then asked, “Why, then, are you not advertising the health benefits of this new size?”
I wish I could find the interview because the spokesperson simply gaffed and showed that it was not about health. It was about money.
Oh it’s definitely not about health. I’m just saying that they should be smaller portions. Just not what they charge for them.
Yes, proportional change would be better although when it ccomes to cereal it is the person pouring the cereal that decides how much a serving is.
mmmmmm cereal…
Absolutely. With some things, the physical shrinkage is not going to change portion size. But chips and soda were specifically mentioned.
What we need is regulation on serving sizes. Restaurants offer giant soda sizes because the cost of the actual product was almost nothing in comparison to the infrastructure required to serve it. Selling a $2 soda is roughly the same profit at 8 oz or 32 oz. So why not offer the 32 oz for 15 cents more and make the customer feel better about the value for their money? Plus, it’s addictive and reinforces taste hunger which encourages binge eating and triggers a physiological response to the meal.
Unfettered capitalism would scoop out your insides and sell them back to you if it generated profit. Sugar, salt, acid, and fat should be tightly regulated additives.
That’s really funny, I just finished posting almost the same thing about serving sizes to someone else in this comment chain but put it in another way. I agree with you 100%.
Right, I mean the issue isn’t necessarily the smaller serving size, it’s the much higher price per quantity of product. That said it isn’t all upside since the volume of a container increases faster than its surface area and therefore larger packages use less packaging material per quantity of product leading to less trash (assuming the product is fully consumed and not partially thrown away).
There’s a balancing act in play where the ideal size is the average amount that a person would consume within the products shelf life (once opened). That minimizes food waste and excess packaging material.
Since averages when applied to people are notoriously bad (see E.G. attempts at making an average fighter pilot seat) it’s best to offer a variety of package sizes so that consumers can purchase the one that best meets their consumption needs. So as to not encourage over consumption though, the cost of packaging materials should probably be averaged and applied to the quantity of product such that price per quantity of product remains linear instead of being cheaper as the volume of the container increases.
Standardizing ‘serving size’ would help too.
The ‘serving size’ of an 7.5-ounce can of Coke is… one can.
The ‘serving size’ of a 12-ounce can of Coke is… one can.
The ‘serving size’ of a 16-ounce bottle of Coke is… one bottle
The ‘serving size’ of a 20-ounce bottle of Coke is… one bottle.
The ‘serving size’ of a 2 liter bottle of Coke is… about six.
No wonder everyone ignores that phrase.
Those serving sizes actually make sense though. The ones that don’t are for instance a small bag of chips with a serving size like 1.5 servings where it’s very obvious the serving size was picked not based on the expected consumption (I’m certain the expectation is that the entire bag will be eaten in one sitting), but in order to make the nutritional information seem more reasonable. Or a single candybar with a serving size of 2.5.
There needs to be a distinction between single serving packaging vs. multi-serving packaging (which should be resealable), and that should be based on actual consumption not attempts to massage the nutritional into.
“Serving sizes” have always been arbitrary numbers set by the manufacturer, and yes they’re often ridiculous because they try to cheat the math. But I think they did make them start adding “per package” nutrition facts for non-resealable containers to combat this.
I don’t feel like it does make sense for all of those different sizes except the largest being one serving. Especially when the largest is more than twice as big as the smallest.
It goes back to my earlier point about average person. A 12oz can might be a single serving to you, but only a half serving to someone else. By offering different sized bottles/cans the consumer can purchase the single serving size appropriate to them (with matching accurate nutritional info). What shouldn’t happen though is for instance a 16oz bottle using the nutritional info from a 12oz bottle and just adjusting the servings per container to be ~1.3.
That’s not silver lining. That’s a flake of silver from the CEO’s toilet paper after he wiped his ass and threw it in the mixer