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.”

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The federal government should just enact a national unit price mandate for fair comparison shopping.

    Currently, eighteen (18) states and one (1) territories have unit pricing laws or regulations in force. Ten (10) of these have mandatory unit pricing provisions. They are: Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and the District of Columbia.

    https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/national-legal-metrology/us-retail-pricing-laws-and-regulations

    • Docus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      ·
      1 month ago

      Unit pricing helps. A French supermarket also puts shrinkflation warning stickers on shelves where packaging size changed but price has not, that too should be mandatory

    • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      This is the right way to go about it. Telling companies they can’t do x or y doesn’t jive with capitalism if they aren’t deemed monopolies.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Unregulated capitalism is clearly a shitshow so why are you arguing against an entire class of regulations for no real reason other than historical precedence? There’s no such thing as an inherent rule. They’re all just as made up as the rest.

        • 418_im_a_teapot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Ok, but how do you see the proposed legislation playing out? How do you expect congress to set a specific amount of product that can no longer be reduced? It’s not like anyone can trust congress to revisit the law when changes are needed. Companies will just start making “six packs” of individual things that used to be sold as a six units per container in order to maintain flexibility to shift quantities in the future. This will lead to way more packaging.

          Regulating capitalism is a very good thing, but I don’t see how it makes any sense in this case with the proposed legislation.

          • krashmo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            No one has proposed any specific legislation. We’re talking about theoretical concepts. My only point is that saying “that’s not how capitalism works” is a dumb thing to say when it comes to rejecting an idea because we are collectively making up the rules for how capitalism works as we go along. It can work in whatever way we want it to.

    • underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Great, now I can more accurately compare how all the brands are shrinking at roughly the same rate. The problem isn’t consumer education, it’s implicit market collusion. Coke shrinks and doesn’t lose profit so Pepsi shrinks so Coke shrinks so Pepsi shrinks, etc - a race to the bottom feedback loop.

      Unit pricing is good, but I don’t really think it solves this particular issue. Every time I see unit price even listed it’s in tiny, near illegible font under the massive bold item price, and every time I’ve point d the out to people they don’t give a shit because they aren’t going to spend 5 minutes comparing the prices of soda bottles so they can squeeze out less than a dime’s worth of savings.

      • 418_im_a_teapot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        The problem isn’t consumer education, it’s implicit market collusion.

        Nailed it. And this is why your comment about notifying customers is also correct. Consumers barely have a choice. Everything is overpriced.

        they aren’t going to spend 5 minutes comparing the prices of soda bottles so they can squeeze out less than a dime’s worth of savings.

        It’s all about those percentages. My favorite chips went from 60¢/oz to 85¢/oz. Clearly not worth my time in terms of absolute price difference, but that’s a 41.67% increase. If I just ignore the amount through my whole grocery trip, the difference at the checkout line is huge. It becomes worth my time very quickly.

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          You can explain that to people but it still won’t convince them to spend any amount of time doing math in a grocery store unless they’re so desperate for cash that the problem is well beyond the scope of pricing schemes.

      • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I frequently make decisions based on ($/oz, $/g, or $/ml) unit pricing, but I also have very limited income.