• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    You mean… like printing content measurements on the package?

    Not saying shrinkflation isn’t wrong, but interfering in private enterprise to that extent is both illegal and excessive.

    You wouldn’t want to live in a country where the chief executive has that kind of power.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Shrinkflation may be a valid business choice: misleading the customer should not be. Yes the label was required, which is a great starting point, but if the box appears the same size, who looks at the label? If the old size is not present, what do you compare with? Are you holding the customer responsible for memorizing the net weight for every product over the time range they may use it?

      You want to reduce the size, that’s your choice, but honesty means the customer will notice

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        If the old size is not present, what do you compare with?

        the relevant regulations that mandate package weight in the US has been a thing longer than I’ve been alive. So you compare it to the weight of the old package.

        There’s also some justification for using the same size packaging- they’d have to retool some of the filling machines, for example. or at least, adjust them, which adds increased associated production costs. But again, you’re talking about a government executive pushing extremely intrusive interference into a company’s operations.

        Is shrinkflation pretty scummy? absolutely. but there’s really no workable way to stop it, that doesn’t have a lot of much worse consequences.