Shrinkflation Tracker(shrinkflation.io)
shrinkflation.io
Shrinkflation Tracker
https://www.shrinkflation.io/
239 comments
Just one more factor to consider, some ingredients are no longer available.
Trans fats are a good example of this. They used to be the prime replacement for saturated fats. Now, in the US, they are effectively banned.
This hit oreos. [1]
[1] https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2006/01/02/manufacturers-tri...
Trans fats are a good example of this. They used to be the prime replacement for saturated fats. Now, in the US, they are effectively banned.
This hit oreos. [1]
[1] https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2006/01/02/manufacturers-tri...
Fair point. Were oreos always palm oil or were they lard back in the day?
The fracking industry has made guar gum too expensive to use as a food emulsifier. I know someone who reacts to xanthan gum (which has all but replaced guar) and she's not a happy camper, because it's in fucking everything.
The fracking industry has made guar gum too expensive to use as a food emulsifier. I know someone who reacts to xanthan gum (which has all but replaced guar) and she's not a happy camper, because it's in fucking everything.
> Were oreos always palm oil or were they lard back in the day?
They did use lard till mid 90s.
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2008/02/getting-lard-out-ko...
They did use lard till mid 90s.
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2008/02/getting-lard-out-ko...
No, they were partially hydrogenated soybean oil back in the day.
Palm oil is thick at room temp, like partially hydrogenated oils are.
Palm oil is thick at room temp, like partially hydrogenated oils are.
> but enshitification by slowly decreasing the quality of the ingredients is also a problem.
Every time you see a package with “new and improved recipe” you can bet it only improved their margins by using cheaper ingredients, not the actual taste.
Every time you see a package with “new and improved recipe” you can bet it only improved their margins by using cheaper ingredients, not the actual taste.
How is that possible if the rock solid theory underlying the free market promises us better products? /s
Actually, free markets do lead to better products. But they cost more than the worse products.
Look at coffee. The gradual shift from Arabica to more Robusta beans over a generation. Each year, an imperceptible shift was taken that, over decades, lead to coffee that tastes terrible. Opening the door for companies like Starbucks and a ton of gourmet roasters to compete.
But properly roasted, single origin coffee costs more than Chock-full-o'nuts. So you have options.
Look at coffee. The gradual shift from Arabica to more Robusta beans over a generation. Each year, an imperceptible shift was taken that, over decades, lead to coffee that tastes terrible. Opening the door for companies like Starbucks and a ton of gourmet roasters to compete.
But properly roasted, single origin coffee costs more than Chock-full-o'nuts. So you have options.
I react poorly to some coffees and not others. I've been told by people who claim to know that some people can't stomach Robusta as well as they can Arabica. And I'll be damned if I know how to track which one I'm actually getting.
I've surrendered and just drink tea and chai now.
I've surrendered and just drink tea and chai now.
The only thing that Starbucks did for coffee was that children now also love to drink it.
In fact their coffee doesn't taste like coffee, but more like mocha/hazelnut ice cream.
In fact their coffee doesn't taste like coffee, but more like mocha/hazelnut ice cream.
Are you talking about their black coffee? Or their other sorts of drinks that are often less than 50% actual coffee? Because if anything, the usual complaint about literal coffee at Starbucks from people who like coffee is it tastes too much like coffee, in the sense of being over-roasted and uninteresting. Even their blonde roast is still at best a medium roast at any other modern roaster.
The thing that surprised me about burnt coffee beans is that people assume that the heavier the taste the more caffeine is there and that’s not true of over-roasting. It’s less available caffeine, not more. So it tastes terrible for no practical reason.
Today’s Starbucks is well removed from its origins. Starbucks was never great coffee, but I’ve heard it started out pretty decent.
Much like how McDonalds, KFC, etc started by making decent food so did Starbucks. Add 40+ years of optimizing for the bottom line and the average person’s pallet and you get a very different product.
Much like how McDonalds, KFC, etc started by making decent food so did Starbucks. Add 40+ years of optimizing for the bottom line and the average person’s pallet and you get a very different product.
Anecdotally I believe McDonald’s actually does very well on blind taste tests.
I am a bitter taster. It took me years of having chocolate in my coffee to work up to a latte. And even then I tended to adulterate it with hazelnut.
Cold brew is better, but not as much as afficionadoes sold me on. I can still taste the bitters.
Cold brew is better, but not as much as afficionadoes sold me on. I can still taste the bitters.
This. And I'll also add that until I was required to try each variation of a certain coffee for a job prior bring it to stores, I was convinced there was no such thing as coffee that's not bitter. All coffee I'd had before tasted like chewing on aspirin[1].
For the job, there were five "espresso style" variants[2]. Although the "black no sugar" was too intense or me, none of them were bitter. I could make them bitter if I left one open too long or by heating one and letting it cool. There are only three variants now, and I miss the the discontinued "black lightly sweet" and "mochachino".
I've since experimented with making cold brew, servedhot or cold, with a little potassium bicarbonate. I've also tried some ready-made cold brews and lighter roasts. Darker roasts taste more burnt to me. Robusto is unsuitable. Arabica is better, especially if it has a good proportion of Kona in it. If it doesn't specifiy how much Kona, assume it's not enough to make a difference. I haven't tried pure Kona, even while in Hawai'i, because price.
[1] This was not planned. I was mistakenly given regular tablets instead of children's chewable…more than once, by different people. Not a recommended experience.
[2] I'm told Italy made them stop calling it that, because of some legal definition of what constitutes espresso.
For the job, there were five "espresso style" variants[2]. Although the "black no sugar" was too intense or me, none of them were bitter. I could make them bitter if I left one open too long or by heating one and letting it cool. There are only three variants now, and I miss the the discontinued "black lightly sweet" and "mochachino".
I've since experimented with making cold brew, servedhot or cold, with a little potassium bicarbonate. I've also tried some ready-made cold brews and lighter roasts. Darker roasts taste more burnt to me. Robusto is unsuitable. Arabica is better, especially if it has a good proportion of Kona in it. If it doesn't specifiy how much Kona, assume it's not enough to make a difference. I haven't tried pure Kona, even while in Hawai'i, because price.
[1] This was not planned. I was mistakenly given regular tablets instead of children's chewable…more than once, by different people. Not a recommended experience.
[2] I'm told Italy made them stop calling it that, because of some legal definition of what constitutes espresso.
"better" doesn't necessarily mean higher quality. It can mean faster delivery, cheaper, lighter, etc. Many parameters goes into better.
Yet every time I see a product advertised with "new and improved recipe", I can rarely tell along which axes it has actually improved. Usually I want the old product back.
> Do we put that under the shrinkflation umbrella
No we call it just that, enshittification.
No we call it just that, enshittification.
>No we call it just that, enshittification.
I'll be glad when this juvenile meme finally passes out of Hacker News' system.
I'll be glad when this juvenile meme finally passes out of Hacker News' system.
It's basically 'race to the bottom' but that term is not very inspirational. It's not evoking any kind of reaction in the masses.
Neither is "enshittification." Only HN and some tech bloggers even use it as far as I know, and mostly just to be able to imply something is "turning into shit" while pretending to use a precise term of art. But it isn't, it's a poop joke.
I agree with Krapp.
I mean, how can I argue with krapp about shit? I’m out of my depth clearly.
I'll do my best to keep it going, unless you have a better term. Enshittification clearly communicates the point trying to be made.
I've been buying the exact same pair of boxers for years. This year I noticed that they were actually smaller, by almost an inch. Elastic band is smaller and the actual length, so it started chafing. Shrinkflation even on clothes.
Heh.. I'd like to blame my boxers getting tighter on the same thing but I'm pretty sure it's just my waistline that's grown
When Levi’s moved to Mexico it wasn’t that the sizes got smaller, it was that they got inconsistent. Before I started shopping around for more responsible brands, I enjoyed the privilege of being able to walk into a department store and simply buy jeans based on the label. No dressing room. After I had three pairs of the same sized jeans that varied from uncomfortable to comfortable. Tolerances matter.
I've heart the term "skimoflation". There have been posts on HN about it.
my sensory skills are on point. its beyond infuriating when i notice a change in a food or drink product, hop online and search for the others with the pitchforks to join in with - only to find crickets.wav.
In an ideal world, one UPC code would identify only one product with one set of ingredients and one weight. Want to make a "+20% free!" package? New UPC! Want to change the contents from 16% cacao to 14% cacao and some more sugar? Sure, new UPC.
The manufacturers would have to publish the contents for each UPC in a machine readable format.
Then the retailers would have to publish daily prices, again in a machine redable format.
...and the world would be a much nicer place for the consumer. Everyone could build apps on top of that, you could compare retailers, comparable items could be crowdsourced (eg, 1L of 3.5% fat milk and a list of all UPCs for that), shopping list apps could calculate the cheapest options to choose the cheapest store, or in cases with multiple stores in a cluster, tell you what to buy where, etc.
And the best thing is, that nobody actually regulates any prices or item sizes, just the consumer gets more informed.
The manufacturers would have to publish the contents for each UPC in a machine readable format.
Then the retailers would have to publish daily prices, again in a machine redable format.
...and the world would be a much nicer place for the consumer. Everyone could build apps on top of that, you could compare retailers, comparable items could be crowdsourced (eg, 1L of 3.5% fat milk and a list of all UPCs for that), shopping list apps could calculate the cheapest options to choose the cheapest store, or in cases with multiple stores in a cluster, tell you what to buy where, etc.
And the best thing is, that nobody actually regulates any prices or item sizes, just the consumer gets more informed.
I thought this too, re: for Amazon review farming, but products are never homogeneous from the start.
All products have multiple component suppliers, with different tolerances/varieties, where the components are judged "close enough". Suppliers come and go. And even if it's a single large supplier, they may have different farms/factories/etc so you won't even be getting homogeneous components from them.
All products have multiple component suppliers, with different tolerances/varieties, where the components are judged "close enough". Suppliers come and go. And even if it's a single large supplier, they may have different farms/factories/etc so you won't even be getting homogeneous components from them.
Then extend product codes until every single individual batch - or even every single individual item - has a unique ID. Store information hierarchically if you have to to save space, but we have the technology today to track every single component of our entire supply chain. The automotive, aerospace, and defense industries already do this. The food industry even has the processes in place, they just only do the bare minimum to execute a recall when the FDA calls them on their shit. Even pet food can pull it off! All we have to do is make manufacturers go that rest of the way.
The business just make store specific upcs like mattresses. Same cookies, different number
You are free to do that. UPC is a private standard.
Super cool! Very clean, nice font. Some UX things I noticed:
1. In the scrolling feed on the homepage, a 0% change is shown as negative with a red down arrow
2. In the tracker page, 0% is grey (good!) but still with a down arrow, which isn't accurate
3. Might be a good idea to highlight egregious offenders over small decreases. Maybe bold the value if it's greater than 10-15%?
4. Would be cool to be able to sort to see the worst offenders!
1. In the scrolling feed on the homepage, a 0% change is shown as negative with a red down arrow
2. In the tracker page, 0% is grey (good!) but still with a down arrow, which isn't accurate
3. Might be a good idea to highlight egregious offenders over small decreases. Maybe bold the value if it's greater than 10-15%?
4. Would be cool to be able to sort to see the worst offenders!
I wonder why 0% items are shown on the big list at all. Like having a page of murderers with random innocent people with a text label under "not a murderer" :P
It could be greater than 0% but less than 0.5%, ending up rounded down when displayed. The value getting checked might be against the raw value rather than the rounded one. Which, of course, is a bug.
[deleted]
That would actually be beneficial to the innocent people if it gave them indemnity to prosecution! It's better to be cleared of a suspected crime than never prosecuted, in my opinion*.
* assuming the availability of pro bono legal aid as part of social welfare, a key part of any judicial system.
* assuming the availability of pro bono legal aid as part of social welfare, a key part of any judicial system.
That is a weird take. I'm pretty sure being accused of for example pedophilia can destroy someones life without a conviction.
Thanks for your response. I think it might be a cultural thing; although I've never been charged for anything myself and so have limited understanding of what that might feel like, I would never judge someone negatively for a prosecution of any crime unless they were actually sentenced. Accusations of sex offences might admittedly be less comfortable to have been known for, but if you win your case there is no (legal) way for anyone to destroy your career; the worst I can imagine happening is that family members distance themselves from you - again, a cultural and personal response, not a legal one.
At least where I am (Britain), compensation will be given if the case was deemed to have been opened without sufficient evidence, which keeps the Crown fairly honest about what they prosecute. The police have a slightly less positive record for integrity, but pro bono support is available if you are actually charged. The result of this is that you should never be left financially worse for having been prosecuted if you subsequently win your case.
Finally, you never need to tell anyone that you've been charged. Of course, people can find out if they are keen enough to do so, but I probably pass on the street dozens of people who've been charged and acquitted for crimes, but I would never know and don't need to know.
At least where I am (Britain), compensation will be given if the case was deemed to have been opened without sufficient evidence, which keeps the Crown fairly honest about what they prosecute. The police have a slightly less positive record for integrity, but pro bono support is available if you are actually charged. The result of this is that you should never be left financially worse for having been prosecuted if you subsequently win your case.
Finally, you never need to tell anyone that you've been charged. Of course, people can find out if they are keen enough to do so, but I probably pass on the street dozens of people who've been charged and acquitted for crimes, but I would never know and don't need to know.
Another source of shrinkflation is changing ingredients. Something that used to be 50% water is now 75% water as an example. Another is changing from olive oil to canola or palm or, and things like that.
One of the worst offenders in this regard is packages of frozen meat products such as chicken wings, chicken fingers, nuggets, etc. They used to just contain the breaded meat with the net weight printed on the box (usually 2 lb).
Now they've started including frozen sauce packets as well. I've weighed some of these and found, for example, a 2 lb box of chicken wings that comes with more than half a pound of buffalo sauce. The net weight stays the same (2 lb) but if you weigh the chicken you're getting less than 1.5 lb of meat! The rest is all sauce!
Now they've started including frozen sauce packets as well. I've weighed some of these and found, for example, a 2 lb box of chicken wings that comes with more than half a pound of buffalo sauce. The net weight stays the same (2 lb) but if you weigh the chicken you're getting less than 1.5 lb of meat! The rest is all sauce!
Sort of related is chocolate. I feel like 'pure' chocolate is a loss leader and all of the other types with mixed in caramel bits etc are a way of selling you a bunch of cheaper stuff for the same weight and price! Better to just buy the least adulterated chocolate for the best deal.
Or how about bread? I’ve seen some breads manage to increase the water content dramatically. You throw a slice in the toaster and it comes out weighting nothing at all, like a cracker!
That's amazing that it isn't illegal to do that. I wonder if the laws will force companies to list out how much weight each component is like that.
But then again if there is no health impact (like with Trans fats) then is there any incentive for the regulators to change this?
Has the FDA ever done any work to protect consumers from sketchy marketing/labeling of products?
(I asked ChatGPT and it gave me a few bits. Apparently the term "Healthy" is regulated. And serving sizes are another that seem to be regulated. Maybe there is an angle within there that would make sense.)
But then again if there is no health impact (like with Trans fats) then is there any incentive for the regulators to change this?
Has the FDA ever done any work to protect consumers from sketchy marketing/labeling of products?
(I asked ChatGPT and it gave me a few bits. Apparently the term "Healthy" is regulated. And serving sizes are another that seem to be regulated. Maybe there is an angle within there that would make sense.)
Yeah, people call it skimpflation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkflation#Skimpflation
we need github tracking for the changes in metadata for products, like we do for legislation or the terms of use (like the one that unity deleted)
I’ve also seen a change in packaging, example: changing from a glass bottle to a plastic bottle.
I think the toilet bowl cleaner used to be more viscous and last a long time.
Sainsbury’s don’t like changing the weights encoded in their urls so although Cadburys 180g “Price locked” Fruit and Nut has been shrinkflated for over a year the link is still:
https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/cadbury-dairy-mi...
…www.Sainsbury's.co.uk/gol-ui/product/cadbury-dairy-milk-fruit---nut-200g
My
https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/cadbury-dairy-mi...
…www.Sainsbury's.co.uk/gol-ui/product/cadbury-dairy-milk-fruit---nut-200g
My
In a high-inflation environment your profits are constantly shrinking. The problem also affects small and independent makers of all kinds.
If you are an indie maker and priced your product at $10 in 2020, you're now effectively making $8.38 USD[1]. Assuming inflation will remain elevated and you want to maintain the same margins, you need to either:
1. increase prices
2. reduce quality/quantity/features
3. reduce supplier costs
4. reduce service costs
Customers are very sensitive to increases in prices. This is a case where none of the options are great.
[1]: https://twitter.com/kepano/status/1702401372661096477
If you are an indie maker and priced your product at $10 in 2020, you're now effectively making $8.38 USD[1]. Assuming inflation will remain elevated and you want to maintain the same margins, you need to either:
1. increase prices
2. reduce quality/quantity/features
3. reduce supplier costs
4. reduce service costs
Customers are very sensitive to increases in prices. This is a case where none of the options are great.
[1]: https://twitter.com/kepano/status/1702401372661096477
There's more malfeasance here.
5. They expansively tier their product line with minor variation to remove the idea of a standard offering. Eg there are some 33 sizes of M&Ms so nobody could say "get me a bag of M&Ms" any more. Forget comparing cell service plans.
5. They expansively tier their product line with minor variation to remove the idea of a standard offering. Eg there are some 33 sizes of M&Ms so nobody could say "get me a bag of M&Ms" any more. Forget comparing cell service plans.
* https://www.measuringhow.com/m-and-m-bag-sizes-guide/
* https://www.quora.com/Why-are-model-numbers-for-the-same-appliance-all-different-in-each-store-you-visit?share=1
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2017/06/16/amazon-has-a-patent-to-keep-you-from-comparison-shopping-while-youre-in-its-stores/
* https://www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/accounting/discouraging-price-shopping/And onther method is offering a new product in the same category with less content for a higher price, eventually switch over all products and level the price, now you have less at the same or higher prices for all products (looking at you teisseire as a latest example)
Shoe and boot manufacturers also do 6.
That's a good explanation, but problems with silently reducing quantity are:
- It attempts to trick the customer
- As a customer, it makes it harder to depend on your product or buy predictably (a box of cereal used to last me through the week, now suddenly it doesn't)
- It is now harder for me to comparison shop because I need to calculate cost per volume/weight
- It is often done at a rate higher than inflation
This site is great, people need more transparency and companies need to be called out
This site is great, people need more transparency and companies need to be called out
this is an accurate description of shrinkflation, though not a good justification of it
if companies were honest, they'd put"29% less, but the same price! Inflation, you know?", and more-informed consumers could make more-informed choices
indeed, "Customers are very sensitive to increases in prices" is a nicer way of saying "shrinkflation makes it easier to hide from consumers that they are receiving less value for their money"
Thank you for this site, if the author is here, it's something I felt we needed to make markets more informed and more efficient. I'll be submitting content.
if companies were honest, they'd put"29% less, but the same price! Inflation, you know?", and more-informed consumers could make more-informed choices
indeed, "Customers are very sensitive to increases in prices" is a nicer way of saying "shrinkflation makes it easier to hide from consumers that they are receiving less value for their money"
Thank you for this site, if the author is here, it's something I felt we needed to make markets more informed and more efficient. I'll be submitting content.
I'm not defending CPG companies. I'm pointing out that if you're an indie maker inflation is a problem you need to contend with in your own pricing. Once you start thinking about it from that perspective, you realize how difficult of a problem it is to solve in a way that feels fair to customers.
In theory software is easier because you could more easily change your pricing every month. With CPG these products sit on store shelves and the manufacturers have less direct control over the pricing.
In theory software is easier because you could more easily change your pricing every month. With CPG these products sit on store shelves and the manufacturers have less direct control over the pricing.
The issue most people have with shrinkflation isn't that the manufacturers made a tough call when all the options were tough, it's that manufacturers do so in a manner deliberately calculated to hide information from the consumer, and in some cases outright deceive them (if they didn't, this shrinkflation tracker wouldn't exist)
To reiterate, a company honest with consumers would inform them they were getting less for the same price, and try to make the case you're making now: "hey, sorry about this, but times are tough, and we can't raise prices"
Less scrupulous and deceptive companies don't
To reiterate, a company honest with consumers would inform them they were getting less for the same price, and try to make the case you're making now: "hey, sorry about this, but times are tough, and we can't raise prices"
Less scrupulous and deceptive companies don't
Not sure if this fits under shrinkflation, but the practice of substituting quality ingredients for cheaper ones is even worse IMO. When Nutella did it, it caused a huge kerfuffle, but it's virtually impossible for a consumer to track this across all the products they buy.
An upstream problem is the money printing that causes some of these incentives in the first place.
An upstream problem is the money printing that causes some of these incentives in the first place.
> To reiterate, a company honest with consumers would inform them they were getting less for the same price, and try to make the case you're making now: "hey, sorry about this, but times are tough, and we can't raise prices"
How do they do this? They make a chocolate bar that a shop buys and puts on a shelf.
How do they do this? They make a chocolate bar that a shop buys and puts on a shelf.
They have to alter the packaging to account for the changes. They can either do so in a way that makes apparent to the customers that they're receiving less value for their money, making sure they're aware of it, or they can do so in a way that attempts to deceive consumers and hide this information.
An example of messaging for the former is described in the quote you quoted. Another would be to use different-looking packaging, to indicate that it is not what it was before. If a consumer will still buy the item when properly informed of the lower value, then this apparent labeling should not have any effect on sales. If it does, it means the information hiding was material, which makes it bad.
tl;dr: companies hide this information because being deceptive increases sales, if it didn't, they wouldn't
An example of messaging for the former is described in the quote you quoted. Another would be to use different-looking packaging, to indicate that it is not what it was before. If a consumer will still buy the item when properly informed of the lower value, then this apparent labeling should not have any effect on sales. If it does, it means the information hiding was material, which makes it bad.
tl;dr: companies hide this information because being deceptive increases sales, if it didn't, they wouldn't
> If a consumer will still buy the item when properly informed of the lower value, then this apparent labeling should not have any effect on sales.
If it looks different, consumers might not know it's the same thing just smaller. E.g. if I buy a box of Celebrations, I know what each little sweet is because it shares the same packaging as its normal-sized equivalents. I know it's smaller because...it's smaller.
If it looks different, consumers might not know it's the same thing just smaller. E.g. if I buy a box of Celebrations, I know what each little sweet is because it shares the same packaging as its normal-sized equivalents. I know it's smaller because...it's smaller.
If it doesn't look different, customers might not know it's a different product than before due to the quantity change, and won't be prompted to investigate further.
Indeed, if the packaging is the same except for the quantity labels, then you don't, in fact, know it's smaller, because both the quantity change and the packaging change has been calculated to hide that fact from you. That's the problem being solved here.
With a proper packaging change, on the other hand, your confusion is resolved within seconds, when you read the packaging, which can include whatever explanatory info the manufacturer decides to put there. And if it's not resolved? The manufacturer should do better to explain.
Indeed, if the packaging is the same except for the quantity labels, then you don't, in fact, know it's smaller, because both the quantity change and the packaging change has been calculated to hide that fact from you. That's the problem being solved here.
With a proper packaging change, on the other hand, your confusion is resolved within seconds, when you read the packaging, which can include whatever explanatory info the manufacturer decides to put there. And if it's not resolved? The manufacturer should do better to explain.
Being honest doesn't pay as well. If it did, they would just raise the price.
They are hoping you don't notice.
They are hoping you don't notice.
Most of the products on the site appear to be candy/junk that shouldn’t be consumed in large quantities anyway. There is probably substantial social good being done by making the default portions of pringles and chocolate smaller.
What if people just buy more and now there is more package waste?
Oddly, search only covers brand names?
https://www.shrinkflation.io/search?query=soap <- zero results https://www.shrinkflation.io/search?query=dove <- result has 'soap' in name
https://www.shrinkflation.io/search?query=soap <- zero results https://www.shrinkflation.io/search?query=dove <- result has 'soap' in name
Oreo doesn’t work.
Should probably complete the price point review prior to allowing the data points to be shown. This dove bar has a price point from the year 9999 and its messing with the whole graph: https://www.shrinkflation.io/products/535
I would love to see something like this for tracking the sizes of the content catalogs of streaming services like Netflix, D+, and the other streaming services which go out of their way to create the illusion of sitting on top of an infinite content library. To see how those values change over time, while subscription fees remain the same (at best) would be quite revealing.
What a horrible UI and information presentation. What does the scrolling information even mean? Are the up/down arrows/percents tracking % change in package size, % change in per unit price resulting from the new package size, or…what? Are the listed package sizes the before or after sizes? Why if I go beyond the front page to the main list (which provides the same information and lack of explanation as the scroll, but with product pictures) and click on a product does it cause a crash to a “Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the browser console for more information).” and why is the back button broken so that once this occurs, it stays on the error page even as the URL in the address bar walks back?
Great idea! I'm afraid this would require at least a hundred employees to keep it current and useful, though. But, as a society, we definitely need this. Maybe if some government agency could back it up?
A ton of automated scraping is what it needs. Just the main UK supermarket chains would do, as it seems rather British in the choice of products even though there's no pricing actually shown.
The packages are changing so fast/often now that the shelf labels, online sizes and unit prices are often out of date. (Yes this is illegal, no nobody cares because it's £0.05 per product and they aren't doing it on purpose, they just don't make it a priority to have correct data).
Why would this benefit society? Price per unit is a trivial calculation, and most grocery stores already show it on the price tag.
Change in price over time is irrelevant for making a decision on whether or not something is worth the utility to price ratio now. If you are trying to time the market on junk food, then it is best to simply avoid it.
If, for some reason, you want to prevent Mondelez, or whichever other manufacturer, from earning more profit margin than it historically has, then you can look up their public financials most of the time:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MDLZ/mondelez/prof...
Change in price over time is irrelevant for making a decision on whether or not something is worth the utility to price ratio now. If you are trying to time the market on junk food, then it is best to simply avoid it.
If, for some reason, you want to prevent Mondelez, or whichever other manufacturer, from earning more profit margin than it historically has, then you can look up their public financials most of the time:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MDLZ/mondelez/prof...
>Why would this benefit society?
To put factual and open information out there of how companies consistently just fuck with all of us and get away with every little thing they can because "profits!" and "their duty to investors!". e.g., the biggest lies our societies ever came up with
To put factual and open information out there of how companies consistently just fuck with all of us and get away with every little thing they can because "profits!" and "their duty to investors!". e.g., the biggest lies our societies ever came up with
It is already open information that pretty much every seller of everything in the whole world tries to sell for as high of a price that they think can get.
And that purchasing power of currencies will go down over time.
And that purchasing power of currencies will go down over time.
>And that purchasing power of currencies will go down over time.
This is only true when you keep printing more of it. The creation of currency outpacing the creation of value is inflation.
This is only true when you keep printing more of it. The creation of currency outpacing the creation of value is inflation.
Inflation existed for currencies that were on the gold standard too.
There was over a decade of QE which the rainmakers said would totally cause inflation. It didn’t.
Then there were supply side shocks which would definitely only cause transitory inflation. Also wrong.
Then we learned that sentiment causes it, and in the middle of terrible sentiment inflation went down.
Every complex problem has a simple, intuitive, easy to understand wrong answer. It is not an exaggeration to say that we do not know what causes inflation.
There was over a decade of QE which the rainmakers said would totally cause inflation. It didn’t.
Then there were supply side shocks which would definitely only cause transitory inflation. Also wrong.
Then we learned that sentiment causes it, and in the middle of terrible sentiment inflation went down.
Every complex problem has a simple, intuitive, easy to understand wrong answer. It is not an exaggeration to say that we do not know what causes inflation.
>There was over a decade of QE which the rainmakers said would totally cause inflation. It didn’t.
False
False
Good point, cogently reasoned and well stated. I especially like all the extraordinary evidence you provided for your claim of inflation from 2008-2019. Thank you for your contribution to the conversation.
i can't believe the sole use you could think of is timing the market on junk food
[deleted]
I have an original Pringle's can from the late 70s or whenever it was. (yes, it used to have an apostrophe in the name).
It contained 4.5 ozs of "newfangled potato chips" (I think they legally can't call them chips anymore). That works out to about 125grams give or take.
This site is kvetching that they are at 200 grams now.
Ps, my can doesn't have a UPC barcode on it because they hadn't been invented yet.
It contained 4.5 ozs of "newfangled potato chips" (I think they legally can't call them chips anymore). That works out to about 125grams give or take.
This site is kvetching that they are at 200 grams now.
Ps, my can doesn't have a UPC barcode on it because they hadn't been invented yet.
This is great! I wanted to add a product that I recently noticed was smaller, but I no longer use Google, so I'm unable to go through the submission process. Maybe if someone else sees this you can add Kingsford charcoal. 4-5 years ago bags came in a pack of 2x20 lb. Then 2022 they were 2x18lb. This year they are 2x16lb. Can't wait until we can just buy a 2 pack of briquettes.
[deleted]
Would be nice to have the actual owning organisations in there. i bet these are largely subsidiaries of the same mother company.
I remember using this app[0] on my phone years ago, I just checked and they have an API. I'm not sure, but if I recall correctly this allowed you to scan barcodes of things and warn you if they are sub-brand or subsidiary of [evil company you wish to avoid].
[0] https://www.buycott.com/api
[0] https://www.buycott.com/api
Is this the one that explicitly won't let you boycott products by Israeli companies?
edit: Yep https://honestreporting.com/fighting-bds-with-buycotts/
You can use it to boycott anything (perceived as conservative or neutral) you like as long as it's not progressive or Israeli.
So, useless.
edit: Yep https://honestreporting.com/fighting-bds-with-buycotts/
You can use it to boycott anything (perceived as conservative or neutral) you like as long as it's not progressive or Israeli.
So, useless.
Wasn't aware of that, also my use-case during the brief time I messed with it was trying to see how clever it was at identifying companies which use animal testing to develop their products.
Thank you for the link.
Thank you for the link.
Was it just based on that chart about the illusion of choice?
This was my reaction too. I'd like to see which conglomerates and their divisions are the worst offenders. To break it down by brands alone makes it hard to identify who to name and shame.
In EU prices for food stuff have to also list price per KG.
Here in the US, while unit pricing is commonly displayed, I frequently find that a store will use a wide variety of units, thereby negating the ability to easily compare items in this way. For the same type of product I may see cost per ounce, cost per pound, cost per each, cost per dozen, etc. for various sizes and brands. It's maddening, insulting, and probably in most cases malicious.
Yeah, this is insane e.g. I've seen cents/fl.oz, dollars/litre, cents/ml, dollars/unit. For the same product. And yes, totally malicious. Fresh Thyme does this. It's ugly.
This is also common in the US.
Example below. Top row is blurry but bottom row shows “per ounce” price on the bottom right. Tiny print and I imagine barely anyone actually shops that way.
I’m guessing there must be some US requirement for this otherwise I’m not sure why it’s commonplace.
https://supersafeway.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-S...
Example below. Top row is blurry but bottom row shows “per ounce” price on the bottom right. Tiny print and I imagine barely anyone actually shops that way.
I’m guessing there must be some US requirement for this otherwise I’m not sure why it’s commonplace.
https://supersafeway.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-S...
> I imagine barely anyone actually shops that way.
This feels so foreign to me; I largely ignore the overall price and shop by unit prices within a reasonable size range.
This feels so foreign to me; I largely ignore the overall price and shop by unit prices within a reasonable size range.
I think the commenter you are responding to does not have enough faith in humanity. Most people I know (anecdotal and biased sampling I know) do check that number when shopping, especially for interchangeable items that don't have a well-know brand such as flour or baking powder.
Ancidotal, but myself and many of my friends shop this way. I've found that sometimes the larger bottle isn't cheaper per unit
Yes, but no history.
So is shrinkflation actually included in official inflation numbers? If all bars of soap in the country become smaller by 10%, does 'official' inflation number go up? Are the folks tracking official inflation index equipped to measure all the various products per kilo, etc?
in the uk we measure the price of a basket of goods, which includes quantity adjustment. So packaging size is irrelevant. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/meth...
>The simplest form of direct adjustment is quantity adjustment, which is used when there is a permanent size change in an item.
>The simplest form of direct adjustment is quantity adjustment, which is used when there is a permanent size change in an item.
Love the idea, but how far back do the data go?
And someone pointed out the preponderance of junk food; I want to see core items that are often used in recipes. To me this is the most offensive aspect of these scams: You know your favorite recipe takes four cans of tomatoes, cans that have been the same size for decades. Now... WHOOPS, your meal is messed up because the manufacturer is too gutless to simply raise the price.
The one example I see on the site is butter: https://www.shrinkflation.io/search?query=butter
These jagoffs reduced the quantity by 20%, which is definitely enough to mess up recipes.
And someone pointed out the preponderance of junk food; I want to see core items that are often used in recipes. To me this is the most offensive aspect of these scams: You know your favorite recipe takes four cans of tomatoes, cans that have been the same size for decades. Now... WHOOPS, your meal is messed up because the manufacturer is too gutless to simply raise the price.
The one example I see on the site is butter: https://www.shrinkflation.io/search?query=butter
These jagoffs reduced the quantity by 20%, which is definitely enough to mess up recipes.
> but how far back do the data go?
Anywhere from 1297 to 9248 apparently, I guess he must have some kind of time traveler
Anywhere from 1297 to 9248 apparently, I guess he must have some kind of time traveler
@samlader - now overlay the graphs with EPS growth * -1 to see correlation
I don't really understand the recent focus on this. Shrinkflation has always been a thing, and it seems like it shouldn't be strongly correlated with actual inflation, since the critical equation is something like how much material should a given product contain to provide enough value to consumers, or in other words it's equally advantageous to optimize the value of your product in times of low or high inflation and thus optimize margins.
Maybe we just care more about it when we see prices raising in general? IDK.
Maybe we just care more about it when we see prices raising in general? IDK.
It’s not a recent focus, it’s a continual focus.
Shrinkflation is important for understanding true price increase. It’s not enough to say “toothpaste went up 20%” in price because you really want to know “toothpaste went up 35% based on weight.”
It’s also frustrating because it’s just another level of bullshit to sift through when shopping. It would be nice if manufacturers and retailers didn’t do this.
Shrinkflation is important for understanding true price increase. It’s not enough to say “toothpaste went up 20%” in price because you really want to know “toothpaste went up 35% based on weight.”
It’s also frustrating because it’s just another level of bullshit to sift through when shopping. It would be nice if manufacturers and retailers didn’t do this.
You don’t need to sift through it, though. There’s no prize for catching companies in the act. Figure out which toothpaste you want, decide whether youre willing to spend the money, then buy it or don’t.
They do it because otherwise people will complain incessantly about price increases and this way people only complain intermittently about shrinkflation.
They do it because otherwise people will complain incessantly about price increases and this way people only complain intermittently about shrinkflation.
When submitting a weight, the site should allow you to submit a reference such as a newspaper article, an archived website, or other form of proof. And the proof should be publicly visible.
A lot of it looks like candy, so it could be a good thing.
We saw shrinkflation with our apartments when they went from a central dumpster to expecting everyone in an 8-unit complex to line up cans on the road
I don't like that it's sneaky, but I would rather candy servings get smaller rather than prices get higher, if those are the options.
I ticker arrows could use explanation. I assume green is good and red is bad, but it's not immediately clear what the units are ect.
Nice idea, but that site seems to track only "food" that is basically poisonous to begin with.
If these brands make the portions smaller, they are actually doing us a favour.
After a quick browse, I haven't found anything on that site that actually qualifies as food.
Couldn't care less how prices of these items develop.
If these brands make the portions smaller, they are actually doing us a favour.
After a quick browse, I haven't found anything on that site that actually qualifies as food.
Couldn't care less how prices of these items develop.
% change is over what time frame? YoY?
Great Idea! Perfectly executed, great site to give some awareness to the average consumer.
The worst part of shrinkflation is restaurants who have reduced the sizes of their meals, in my opinion. I’ve seen this quite a lot in everything from fast casual places like Cava to locally owned establishments.
That may not be a bad thing per se. In plenty of restaurants the amount of food in a serving is way too large for me and the alternative probably was to raise prices. In restaurants food isn't usually the high margin product, that's alcohol.
Most fast casual places don’t sell much alcohol.
For some reason the same product often shows up multiple times in the list. And I don't mean "the product looks the same" I mean "the URL it links is even the exact same" .
Very cool. Looks like it could use some more controls to reduce bad data. For example the Dove year 9999 data point.
I would love to see a list of Parent companies. Single brands will be hard to remember.
I would love to see a list of Parent companies. Single brands will be hard to remember.
I would like to be able to sort by change delta. Cool site!
Shrinkflation of these products is better than increased prices, because you should not eat/drink so much of this crap anyway.
Recently I noticed that the baguettes at Whole Foods (in St. Louis) are about 2 inches shorter than before. They are the same price.
Werther's Original did not betray us.
Great, but manual input and seems to be focused on the UK. I think someone needs to brute force this problem.
Wanted to add a product, but you can't sign up for the site: you need to go sign up to Google first...
I've definitely experienced this with colgate toothpaste and sure enough it's on this list!
I don’t get it, would people rather pay higher prices up front?
A lot of times people don’t even use the entirety of a product they pay for. Shrinkflation can essentially just cut that part out. Even if you eat 100% of something, your brain was probably satiated after eating 80%, the rest is excess.
For stuff like candy you won’t notice a missing gummy bear or two. You’ll get the same satisfaction.
A lot of times people don’t even use the entirety of a product they pay for. Shrinkflation can essentially just cut that part out. Even if you eat 100% of something, your brain was probably satiated after eating 80%, the rest is excess.
For stuff like candy you won’t notice a missing gummy bear or two. You’ll get the same satisfaction.
A lot of people resent how sneaky shrinkflation feels.
Manufacturers would gladly boast about increasing the size of their product if they did so, but do everything they can to hide when they've shrunk it.
Manipulative tricks like oddly shaped packaging or plastic fillers to take up the space that was previously product are examples of why people hate shrinkflation.
If something goes up in price but the quantity and quality stayed the same, people wouldn't feel like they're being tricked.
Manufacturers would gladly boast about increasing the size of their product if they did so, but do everything they can to hide when they've shrunk it.
Manipulative tricks like oddly shaped packaging or plastic fillers to take up the space that was previously product are examples of why people hate shrinkflation.
If something goes up in price but the quantity and quality stayed the same, people wouldn't feel like they're being tricked.
They wouldn’t feel tricked, but then they’d be pissed off at the rising prices, which affects their ability to enjoy the product.
If someone sells you a bag of chips but they’ve already eaten two of the chips, your enjoyment of the bag will still be the same as if you had the whole bag. If they reveal that fact to you though, then your experience will be soured.
This is for the consumer’s own benefit.
If someone sells you a bag of chips but they’ve already eaten two of the chips, your enjoyment of the bag will still be the same as if you had the whole bag. If they reveal that fact to you though, then your experience will be soured.
This is for the consumer’s own benefit.
It does not benefit me when I have to buy two packs of something to obtain the same quantity of product.
People just like to feel outraged, apparently.
If you've always been sold a dozen eggs in a package that can hold twelve eggs, but suddenly the same package is relabelled and used to sell you only ten eggs, who in the world looks at that situation and says "as a rational market participant, I can't be mad because the package has indeed been updated to say 'ten eggs' and I just failed to take notice (yolk's on me)."
People like to be dealt with fairly. When they occasionally notice things that make them realize there are rooms full of people whose entire job is to trick them, they don't like it. Where's the mystery?
People like to be dealt with fairly. When they occasionally notice things that make them realize there are rooms full of people whose entire job is to trick them, they don't like it. Where's the mystery?
Reading isn’t hard. People should try it.
So much of modern life boils down to this.
When I see perceivable sneakiness, I assume non-perceivable sneakiness is there too. (E.g. Poor product standards, worker abuse)
I just don't understand why you would expect there to be any honest companies left to deal with. Any honest company has an insurmountable disadvantage in a competitive economy where the winners fund the policymakers. The honest business will always, eventually, become the prey of vulture hedge funds and predatory mergers seeking market capture. Even if it's a privately owned business, the monopolies will just drive down prices to force it out of the market, and then once market dominance is achieved, the price rises commensurate to recoup that lost profit. Even if this ploy isn't actually profitable in practice, the financing for such corporations that employ these methods is assured, through the stock market and big banks loan practices. Monopoly is really the only game left in town, they just have to make it look enough like a "free market" to keep people from trying to make it illegal. This is rather simply accomplished by having multiple different companies all owned by the same wealthy shareholders or mutual funds. But, I'm sure you can see all this for yourself, you just can't figure out a better system.
If it’s two gummy bears a year, a decade later it’s an empty bag.
itd be interesting if tracking price is also included, although I can imagine that would be insanely difficult to keep track of for many reasons. I love this idea and hope it continues to grow.
Should be able to sort by highest to lowest. Name and shame'em!
What's the problem? You want to keep everything the same size and pay more? That's the other option. You know it works out to the same amount of stuff for the same amount of money, right?
Yes, because it’s easier to notice and adjust your purchasing decisions accordingly.
The point of shrinkflation is to obfuscate the price increase and hope that some consumers don’t notice.
The point of shrinkflation is to obfuscate the price increase and hope that some consumers don’t notice.
I have thought about developing this site for the last 3-4 years! This is exactly what it would have looked like. Thanks for saving me the trouble (if I ever had got round to it).
Very cool! Where are you sourcing data from?
Ronald Reagan used to have the misery index
Crowdsourced data?
can you automate this with amazon parsing?
Fabulous… I heart data
Nice project, very clean etc.
Now about that shrinkflation thing... There isn't a single product in that list that is actually healthy. Highly processed food is horrible for us and our environment, and the gigantic conglomerates making and selling them are a plague to our economies.
Veggies at my local farmers' market didn't shrink in size, prices went up slightly for some and it's very visible from the tag. Same goes for the bread I buy at the bakery, and the pasta I get in bulk in a small store nearby. If you have no choice but to rely on these products bought in a supermarket, you've been conned way before shrinkflation hit.
Now about that shrinkflation thing... There isn't a single product in that list that is actually healthy. Highly processed food is horrible for us and our environment, and the gigantic conglomerates making and selling them are a plague to our economies.
Veggies at my local farmers' market didn't shrink in size, prices went up slightly for some and it's very visible from the tag. Same goes for the bread I buy at the bakery, and the pasta I get in bulk in a small store nearby. If you have no choice but to rely on these products bought in a supermarket, you've been conned way before shrinkflation hit.
I don’t rely on candy. I enjoy it a few times per year.
It sucks that Cadbury eggs get smaller and smaller. Not because I need their nutrients to survive.
It sucks that Cadbury eggs get smaller and smaller. Not because I need their nutrients to survive.
Did they get smaller or just fewer in the pack?
The eggs got smaller. BJ Novak did the research, https://youtu.be/TlXLCrzpToo?si=0i6G9NFSbr9aKiaN
Link with story cued (at 4:21): https://youtu.be/TlXLCrzpToo?t=261
Toothpaste and soap aren't healthy?
Fair enough, but let's not pretend this is what shrinkflation is all about...
Some toothpaste can be a net-negative, like those with abrasives. It's actually the mechanical aspect of brushing that does most of the hygiene. Frothing and minty taste of toothpaste are mostly marketing. Maybe there's a case for fluoride, but there are other sources like tap water (and that's a whole digression of it's own).
> Some toothpaste can be a net-negative, like those with abrasives
Yup. Those toothpastes with extra whitening are wreaking havoc. It's effectively liquid sandpaper.
> Frothing and minty taste of toothpaste are mostly marketing
The frothing, sure. The mint? I mean, I like some kind of flavoring. Mint is nice.
> Maybe there's a case for fluoride, but there are other sources like tap water (and that's a whole digression of it's own).
There's definitely a case for the fluoride. Your tap water isn't enough.
Yup. Those toothpastes with extra whitening are wreaking havoc. It's effectively liquid sandpaper.
> Frothing and minty taste of toothpaste are mostly marketing
The frothing, sure. The mint? I mean, I like some kind of flavoring. Mint is nice.
> Maybe there's a case for fluoride, but there are other sources like tap water (and that's a whole digression of it's own).
There's definitely a case for the fluoride. Your tap water isn't enough.
>The mint? I mean, I like some kind of flavoring. Mint is nice.
I’m saying it’s a subjective nice, it’s not adding to the hygienic effect of toothpaste. Its was added to feel clean, not because it actually does any cleaning.
Fluoride works, but the concentration in toothpaste is usually too low to be effective.
I’m saying it’s a subjective nice, it’s not adding to the hygienic effect of toothpaste. Its was added to feel clean, not because it actually does any cleaning.
Fluoride works, but the concentration in toothpaste is usually too low to be effective.
Mostly marketing or people actually enjoy these things and they encourage good oral hygiene?
I guess, yes, from a behavioral change standpoint they’re effective, even if they don’t objectively contribute to hygiene themselves.
Those of us on well water don't get fluoride in our drinking water.
Hopefully you get it from a dentist visit because unless you use a prescription toothpaste, it probably doesn’t have much effect.
How does the effectiveness compare of a twice yearly dosing at the dentist vs constant low-level exposure via municipal water?
My (very) lay understanding is that the constant low level fluoride was what's important for long-term dental health.
My (very) lay understanding is that the constant low level fluoride was what's important for long-term dental health.
Bread wouldn't be bread if it wasn't processed. We would be eating the wheat kernels.
Not all bread has
* added sugar
* preservatives
* texturizers
Cut these out and you're on the right side concerning processed foods.
* added sugar
* preservatives
* texturizers
Cut these out and you're on the right side concerning processed foods.
All bread cuts out most of the fiber of the wheat kernel. That's more of a net gain than removing the items you listed.
I wrote highly processed, not processed
Well, since we are talking in superlatives...
[deleted]
The idea is nice, but it seems to be tracking junk food, which you probably shouldn't eat and can easily avoid.
I'd be more interested in home goods such as soap, detergent; and food staples.
I'd be more interested in home goods such as soap, detergent; and food staples.
There’s a listing for soap on the front page, I don’t think it’s confined to just junk food
I searched soap and got no result
I don't think the search works, but it's here: https://www.shrinkflation.io/products/535
[deleted]
[deleted]
Warning: rant about brands
The sadistic think about brands is that people are paying for marketing team to continue to lie to them and brainwash them, to convince them to continue buying their products!
Media is full of brands - gosh I wonder how they have all that budget for expensive marketing campaigns !
It's so incredibly hard to wean someone off brands. I've been campaigning my family for years, but they still seem allergic to Aldi/Lidl etc.
Take cereal (eww):
Aldi Corn Flakes (500g) - £0.75 ($0.93)
Kellogs Cornflakes (500g) - £2.25 ($2.79)
3x more expensive! THREE. (some people might be thinking that $2.79 is nothing but just think in relative terms)
Yes Kellogs Cornflakes taste a bit nicer but that's not the comparison to make: a small serving of oats with some fruit is a MUCH better breakfast meal. Oats are roughly same amount of calories per gram but much more filling and less sugar, salt, fat etc and double the protein. But we're all addicted to cereal because the adverts brainwashed our parents in to thinking it's a healthy meal to have in the morning.
(EDIT: oops guess I'm a hypocrite) And has anyone tasted a McVities Digestive biscuit recently? (similar to a graham cracker, a distant relative of the shortbread - very very popular in the UK)? Absolutely vile. If you're still buying them you're literally an idiot and COVID must have destroyed your taste buds. Aldi own brand digestives taste like the old recipe of McVities Digestives at 1/3 of the price!
The sadistic think about brands is that people are paying for marketing team to continue to lie to them and brainwash them, to convince them to continue buying their products!
Media is full of brands - gosh I wonder how they have all that budget for expensive marketing campaigns !
It's so incredibly hard to wean someone off brands. I've been campaigning my family for years, but they still seem allergic to Aldi/Lidl etc.
Take cereal (eww):
Aldi Corn Flakes (500g) - £0.75 ($0.93)
Kellogs Cornflakes (500g) - £2.25 ($2.79)
3x more expensive! THREE. (some people might be thinking that $2.79 is nothing but just think in relative terms)
Yes Kellogs Cornflakes taste a bit nicer but that's not the comparison to make: a small serving of oats with some fruit is a MUCH better breakfast meal. Oats are roughly same amount of calories per gram but much more filling and less sugar, salt, fat etc and double the protein. But we're all addicted to cereal because the adverts brainwashed our parents in to thinking it's a healthy meal to have in the morning.
(EDIT: oops guess I'm a hypocrite) And has anyone tasted a McVities Digestive biscuit recently? (similar to a graham cracker, a distant relative of the shortbread - very very popular in the UK)? Absolutely vile. If you're still buying them you're literally an idiot and COVID must have destroyed your taste buds. Aldi own brand digestives taste like the old recipe of McVities Digestives at 1/3 of the price!
But sugary cereal is heart-healthy!
Oh wait, that's horseshit that even Kellogg can't get away with anymore.
https://thecounter.org/kellogg-sugary-cereal-healthy-label/
Breakfast cereal, namely corn flakes, is a mass psychosis. Have them sometimes if you like as a treat, but even then you might as well eat a bowl of ice cream. The idea of eating cornflakes was invented by a guy who gave his "patients" yogurt enemas. Why in 2023 are we still taking his advice?
Oh wait, that's horseshit that even Kellogg can't get away with anymore.
https://thecounter.org/kellogg-sugary-cereal-healthy-label/
Breakfast cereal, namely corn flakes, is a mass psychosis. Have them sometimes if you like as a treat, but even then you might as well eat a bowl of ice cream. The idea of eating cornflakes was invented by a guy who gave his "patients" yogurt enemas. Why in 2023 are we still taking his advice?
> but that's not the comparison to make
It is one a lot of people make, also... you make that comparison literally one line down.
It is one a lot of people make, also... you make that comparison literally one line down.
[deleted]
the choice as you say it's not between kellogs vs aldi cereals. But between highly processed and industrially produced crap and organic high quality raw foods. I personally don't buy any of the products on this list. But for a lot of people, there isn't a lot of choice but to go to a discount because that's literally only thing they can afford unfortunately.
I also find the Lidl Ginger Nut biscuits are vastly superior to the McVities ones, which taste burnt. I don't understand why McVities aren't better.
I bought Lidl Tower Gate Chocolate Digestive Biscuits because of the annoying look-like-mcvities-packaging thing, but they're actually pretty good...
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/14/590x/seconda...
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/14/590x/seconda...
> I don't understand why McVities aren't better.
People pay McVities to brainwash them in to thinking they're better, so they don't need to be better LOL
People pay McVities to brainwash them in to thinking they're better, so they don't need to be better LOL
[deleted]
For junk food which is what this mostly tracks, shrinkflation is good for people’s healths.
>inflation is a good thing and here's why
Inflation Could Save Your Life! The reasons why may shock you.
Lipids HATE this one trick
It's not lipids you should be worried about, it's emulsifiers:
> celluloses, mono and diglycerides of fatty acids, modified starches, lecithins, carrageenans, phosphates, gums, and pectins. Some recent studies have indicated that emulsifiers can disturb gut bacteria and promote inflammation, potentially increasing susceptibility to cardiovascular issues.[0]
0. https://studyfinds.org/food-e-numbers-heart-disease/
> celluloses, mono and diglycerides of fatty acids, modified starches, lecithins, carrageenans, phosphates, gums, and pectins. Some recent studies have indicated that emulsifiers can disturb gut bacteria and promote inflammation, potentially increasing susceptibility to cardiovascular issues.[0]
0. https://studyfinds.org/food-e-numbers-heart-disease/
clickbait is not what i meant, why are we having a reddit-tier comment chain?
Well, till you need to get 2 burgers instead of one to feel full...
That is the point, people eat fewer burgers because they cannot afford more.
This has not worked out so well for other products. I live in Canada where cigarettes are enormously expensive due to taxes. Yet I know people who continue to smoke.
They're a lot poorer now, and so they have less money to spend on healthy food. So not only are they destroying their health by smoking, they're stuck eating crappy food as well.
They're a lot poorer now, and so they have less money to spend on healthy food. So not only are they destroying their health by smoking, they're stuck eating crappy food as well.
I would not expect a higher price to stop every single person from buying the item immediately, especially not at at a price that is still obviously affordable.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/434150/share-of-canadian...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/434150/share-of-canadian...
Yes, GP is absolutely correct, all the people in the developing world who can't afford food are much healthier than those of us in the West, that live long enough and eat enough to deal with diseases of obesity that primarily affect one after 60 years of age. /s
You put /s, but that to an extent is sort of true. Diseases can't be cured as effectively where remedies or mitigations are too expensive, but the same first world locations where medicine and care is most available also have a litany of factors working against health.
I don't believe though that this is inevitable, and I hope that the first world will continue to improve its situation, and that less well-equipped areas will somehow avoid making the mistakes and leapfrog these uncomfortable middle periods. We see this for instance with the Industrial Revolution, where those that can be credited with facilitating it generally did pretty poorly for themselves, but those who industrialised later were substantially better off.
I don't believe though that this is inevitable, and I hope that the first world will continue to improve its situation, and that less well-equipped areas will somehow avoid making the mistakes and leapfrog these uncomfortable middle periods. We see this for instance with the Industrial Revolution, where those that can be credited with facilitating it generally did pretty poorly for themselves, but those who industrialised later were substantially better off.
The context is not affording junk food, not not affording food. Most burgers qualify as junk food.
Sure. Starvation is more deadly than obesity however, and globally more prevalent.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and...
>In 2016, more than 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and older, were overweight. Of these over 650 million were obese.
>39% of adults aged 18 years and over were overweight in 2016, and 13% were obese.
https://www.who.int/news/item/06-07-2022-un-report--global-h...
>The number of people affected by hunger globally rose to as many as 828 million in 2021
I would bet the obesity numbers have greatly increased since 2016.
>In 2016, more than 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and older, were overweight. Of these over 650 million were obese.
>39% of adults aged 18 years and over were overweight in 2016, and 13% were obese.
https://www.who.int/news/item/06-07-2022-un-report--global-h...
>The number of people affected by hunger globally rose to as many as 828 million in 2021
I would bet the obesity numbers have greatly increased since 2016.
Another statistic from your source
> Around 2.3 billion people in the world (29.3%) were moderately or severely food insecure in 2021
It’s easy to talk on a forum like this, where the median salary is massive compared to global/country median, that poor people shouldn’t be able to afford as much bad food. I think when you do so you’ve lost touch with the average person who is affected by things like shrinkflation.
> Around 2.3 billion people in the world (29.3%) were moderately or severely food insecure in 2021
It’s easy to talk on a forum like this, where the median salary is massive compared to global/country median, that poor people shouldn’t be able to afford as much bad food. I think when you do so you’ve lost touch with the average person who is affected by things like shrinkflation.
I never meant to imply poor people, as in starvation poor, should not be able to afford as much bad food.
But generally, the people eating burgers in developed countries have a choice of eating healthier foods, and choose to eat burgers instead.
But generally, the people eating burgers in developed countries have a choice of eating healthier foods, and choose to eat burgers instead.
What wonder, we've nearly conquered hunger if obesity has finally become more prevalent than starvation. I stand corrected. Nonetheless, starvation is more directly harmful/deadly. Obesity may kill you eventually, starvation will kill you in relatively short order.
Sure, but this thread is about the price of processed junk foods going up, including burgers, the sat fat laden mayo, and the bread enveloping it.
Price increases in healthy lentils, grains, nuts, fruits, vegetables, dairy, and healthier meats/poultry/fish is a concern for the global poor, but that is not what is talked about here.
Price increases in healthy lentils, grains, nuts, fruits, vegetables, dairy, and healthier meats/poultry/fish is a concern for the global poor, but that is not what is talked about here.
To OP's point, would be interesting to have an option to filter out junk food.
Good news everyone! You can't afford snacks anymore.
Most of these products are extremely unhealthy so shrinking portions should be considered a public service.
I don't particularly care about shrinkflation. It gets calculated in the CPI (obviously) and most of the time it's goods that are unhealthy and overpriced to begin with.
It's basically a dark pattern. Not illegal or anything, but designed to mask relevant information from the consumer.
> most of the time it's goods that are unhealthy and overpriced to begin with
Like British housing, horribly overpriced and half of it has mould.
Like British housing, horribly overpriced and half of it has mould.
Sure, most of these items also cost next to nothing to make too and costs to actually make have barely risen (as a percentage of the item cost). So mostly it’s companies using inflation to squeeze more money out of people.
I agree that material cost is not a major component of the cost in a lot of these products.
It's marketing, distribution, etc. I don't think inflation is their excuse to squeeze more money out of you as it is to spend more in other areas of the business, as they should.
It's marketing, distribution, etc. I don't think inflation is their excuse to squeeze more money out of you as it is to spend more in other areas of the business, as they should.
But a lot of us enjoy eating unhealthy foods. And as long as we don't have diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc then it's not a problem.
I think it's just a wild theory at this stage, but some doctors are saying that eating unhealthy food leads to diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure
If one is sedentary and obese, yes.
Shrinkflation generally means same price for less product (grams, fluid ounces), but enshitification by slowly decreasing the quality of the ingredients is also a problem.
Do we put that under the shrinkflation umbrella or track it as a separate problem? Since they are both unwanted solutions to the same problem, seems like they should be kept together (to avoid a Goodhart's Law fiasco)
I recall eating an Oreo after fifteen years of not having one. At first I just thought I'd forgotten what they actually tasted like, but the more I thought about it, the more I could see a long chain of focus groups asking customers if cookie A and cookie B taste the same, if one tastes better, and slowly changing the formula to only alienate 0.2% of the customers each time until one day I wander up and find I'm part of the 10% they've cumulatively alienated.
See also how only some of us can taste certain artificial sweeteners as sugary toxic waste instead of sugar (saccharin tastes to me like drinking soda after licking a 9 volt battery)