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.”

  • orclev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      “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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.