Downsizing

Downsizing really annoys me, even though I kind of understand why manufacturers might have to do it. What really irritates me is when a manufacturer manipulates the package to look the same--such as Skippy peanut butter dropping a couple of ounces and installing a false bottom in its jar. But what really, really irritates me (and I think is borderline criminal) is manipulating the package so it looks larger--with less product, of course. Case in point: my non-stick spray. Normally 6 oz, it's now 5 oz, but it's in a can that's an inch or so taller. Sleazy.

I haven't looked at tuna lately, which has marched downward in weight for years. It's probably approaching no tuna at all.

What really annoys me is the "Super Sized" culture McDonald's created. Perhaps downsizing food portions is exactly what our society needs.

Dave,

Larry's talking about downsizing of food ingredient packages, not meal portions. IMO it's at best a deceitful practice.

-Paul W.

Dave,

Larry's talking about downsizing of food ingredient packages, not meal portions.

Sorry, I thought Larry was talking about putting smaller portions in larger packages. The peanut butter for example. Sure, that is wasteful but I don't have a huge issue with it as long as there is a label on the container.

[Robin Garr]

What really annoys me is the "Super Sized" culture McDonald's created. Perhaps downsizing food portions is exactly what our society needs.

Yeah, but doing it without downsizing the price seems a tad sleazy ...

Sorry, I thought Larry was talking about putting smaller portions in larger packages. The peanut butter for example. Sure, that is wasteful but I don't have a huge issue with it as long as there is a label on the container.

It's more a problem of using the same sized container (or, as in the peanut butter example, a container that seems to be the same size but actually holds less) to hold a smaller portion, but charging the same price for it. A consumer who, say, is used to buying a 12 oz box of cereal gets a box of the same product, the box is the same size and price, but now it's got only 10 oz of cereal in it. The package is correctly labeled "10 oz" over in the lower corner, but how often does one look at that just to make sure that the producer hasn't suddenly cut back on the package portion size?

IMO it's a cowardly way to sneak in a price increase.

-Paul W.

Maybe they should rename the product "Skimpy Peanut Butter"?

I'm not a frequent buyer of ice cream but I noticed in the store recently that the packages of mass-market ice cream were looking decidely smaller. Closer examination revealed that the former "half gallon", already downsized to 1.75 quarts, has now been reduced to 1.5 quarts. Seems like this strategy has some obvious limits. What happens when a half gallon becomes smaller than a quart?

Yeah,this bugs the hell out of me, too.

Here are a few examples.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/food ... ing-ov.htm

Note the lame reasons given by corporate representatives near the bottom of the article. I especially liked the pet food.

We used to get two sandwiches from a can of tuna made into salad. Now we get one!

I'm not a frequent buyer of ice cream but I noticed in the store recently that the packages of mass-market ice cream were looking decidely smaller. Closer examination revealed that the former "half gallon", already downsized to 1.75 quarts, has now been reduced to 1.5 quarts. Seems like this strategy has some obvious limits. What happens when a half gallon becomes smaller than a quart?

Ice cream has not been ice cream for at least a couple decades. It has so much air beaten into it that, if you let it melt, you will notice about half a container of liquid with about an inch of foam floating on the top, the rest of the container filled with air! That is especially true of the stuff called ice milk and any milk shakes you buy from a fast food joint. I stopped eating ice cream, except from specialty shops long ago because of this. UGGGHHHHH!!!

Nothing new. The late Steve Gould wrote a paper on "The Phyletic Decrease in Size of Hershey Bars" some years back. Worth a read.

[David M. Bueker]

Folks - do you look at the sizes on the packages? Does disclosure mean that they have to put "NEW SMALLER SIZE FOR THE SAME (OR HIGHER) PRICE!!" in red letters on the package?

This thread seems rather disingenuous to me.

Folks - do you look at the sizes on the packages? Does disclosure mean that they have to put "NEW SMALLER SIZE FOR THE SAME (OR HIGHER) PRICE!!" in red letters on the package?

This thread seems rather disingenuous to me.

That time of the month, huh?

Folks - do you look at the sizes on the packages? Does disclosure mean that they have to put "NEW SMALLER SIZE FOR THE SAME (OR HIGHER) PRICE!!" in red letters on the package?

No, but IMO it shouldn't mean that I have to check the weight or volume measurement on a package every time I buy, just to insure that they're not trying to sneak in yet another decrease in the same-size packaging.

If they want to increase prices, then let them be honest about it. Using the same packaging, with nothing changed except the legally required weight or volume indication, is a deliberate attempt at deception.

-Paul W.

Folks - do you look at the sizes on the packages? Does disclosure mean that they have to put "NEW SMALLER SIZE FOR THE SAME (OR HIGHER) PRICE!!" in red letters on the package?

This thread seems rather disingenuous to me.

Disingenuous? You gotta be kidding. Quick, now. Rattle off the sizes of all the products you buy without looking.

Did you know the size of Kleenex tissues before they made them a bit narrower? How about weights of cereals? Dishwasher detergent? Or even spices?

I do check sizes and weights, but sometimes it's difficult to remember if the previous weight was 14.75 oz or 14.5 oz. IMO, it would be more honest to raise the price than to install false bottoms or use deceptive packaging.