Shitflation, shrinkflation, inflation database
jonatron.github.io
jonatron.github.io
- Perhaps choose some base rate of inflation and determine if the product price has increased in line with that or slower/faster.
- Use a bold font to highlight the product weight.
- Use an archived version of the product page today - that will reduce maintenance time moving forward.
And a question: are you using net or gross weight? When using gross weight it may very well be an update in packaging that is impacting the reported number.
For instance, a big red flag on the bacon that went from 90% pork to 89% pork. That sounds like a rounding error to me. Certainly not worthy of calling out.
Then tomato sauce (a preserved product) moving from raw tomato to preserved tomato getting called out when by all accounts, I can't imagine why that would matter. The product is after all, a preserved tomato product. Benefit of the doubt I'd just call it a recipe change. It may be better now. Just because it's different doesn't make it worse.
Finally the Chicken Tikka going from 26% marinated chicken to 14% cooked marinated chicken. That line item includes the marinade in both cases - which evaporates during cooking. How much of that is lost water and fat? How much of that was just the marinade cooking off?
Why is "deflation" just as red as "inflation" and "shitflation" - isn't that what you want? Lower prices?
I'm confused, I think this is a pretty weak presentation all around.
It would be really interesting to learn the magnitude of these effects but the way it's presented here it's hard to learn anything.
26% marinated chicken to 14% cooked marinated chicken - what makes you think the lost fat made it into the meal, and wasn't skimmed off and sold off to (for example) a broth company, or a rendering plant?
Maybe it was. If they could figure out how to make money off it though, chances are it wasn't.
Also, how would you know it wasn’t really 20% chicken cooked down to 14%?
It's a good way to lose actual calories and nutrients while thinking you're not losing anything. Which is also either shitflation or shrinkflation, depending on how you count it.
Totally agree on deflation, etc. though. That could also be from switching to reasonable quality ingredients to total crap ingredients that technically can be listed as the same thing on the label.
The challenge in general is it's the economy wide equivalent of shaving silver dollars - lots of small, invisible losses done by potentially many individuals that eventually add up to real visible differences and economy wide losses. In a way it's really hard to figure out who actually stole things.
Compare the nutrition information per 100g. Less carbs, sugars, fat, protein, fibre, but more salt.
> Tomato Puree
> Made from cooked tomatoes that have been strained of seeds and skins. Often this is just “reconstituted tomato paste,” made by adding water to tomato paste. This product has weak tomato flavor and isn’t called for in many recipes. Use in chilis, soups, and other long-cooked recipes where smooth, rich tomato texture is required. Many American commercial pasta sauces have tomato puree as their first ingredient (because tomato paste is cheaper to ship) which is why they’re not as fresh tasting as homemade sauces. I don’t think this exists in Germany, but it doesn’t matter so much because you’re going to be adding it to recipes that calls for long cooking times and many ingredients. If you have a recipe that calls for it, you can make it by adding water to tomato paste, or cooking down passierte tomatoes.
No idea how accurate this is, but I would assume it's true and thus "partially reconstituted tomato puree" is less ideal for a pasta sauce (where you likely want more of a tomato flavor).
The reason you can say that there is no consequential difference being illustrated here is precisely because he recorded that difference. It's just data collection, it's not shady unless they hide the numbers and still draw the conclusions for you.
What happened wasn't a drop from 73% tomato to 46% tomato as the highlighting would have you believe. Instead it's a change from 73% tomato/14% puree (total 87% tomato) to 46% tomato/43% partially reconstituted puree (total 89% tomato). It's actually more tomato than ever - while costing 20% less.
Calling this "shitflation" seems like quite an arbitrary judgement from someone who hasn't tried it? Especially when it's 1/5 less expensive. What if it tastes better? What if it takes less than 20% worse?
I've got a constantly growing dataset of price and quantity history for all products in one supermarket's database (Ocado, the online-only supermarket in the UK I shop at). Doesn't include ingredients at the moment, but I do like the idea of that. Also only a few months of data so far.
Anyway, I've made it available as a website in a way that is hopefully useful – it is to me at least: https://ocamatic.uk/
Bought 3 granola bar boxes that advertises 6 each box. Open them all, throw them in a bag once a week. This week there are 17. Hmmm.
Taco shells, should be 12 in a box. Had 11 in one of them today (none were broken). I wouldn't be surprised if the "weight" of those bags of chips filled to 1/3 is a mix of settling and also cheatflation.
Where are you buying your food? At least according to BLS data raw ingredient inflation is nowhere near that high. If you compare the price indices between today and late 2019, the max price you see is 59% (for the entire period, not annualized). Most are in the 20-30% range. I know this is BLS data for the whole country and localized inflation might be higher in specific places and/or outside the US, but 4x higher seems like hyperbole.
Here's a comparison based on an arbitrary selection of "basic ingredients":
category Nov. 2023 Dec. 2019 % rise
Flour and prepared flour mixes 325.853 225.638 44.4%
Rice, pasta, cornmeal 291.728 234.282 24.5%
Beef and veal 415.788 313.818 32.5%
Pork chops(4) 242.457 191.834 26.4%
Other pork including roasts, steaks, and ribs(5) 160.961 129.193 24.6%
Chicken(4)(5) 194.86 152.095 28.1%
Other uncooked poultry including turkey(5) 209.362 147.475 42.0%
Fresh fish and seafood(4)(5) 220.513 186.119 18.5%
Eggs(4) 261.105 213.421 22.3%
Milk(5) 176.76 144.845 22.0%
Cheese and related products(4) 264.392 234.486 12.8%
Fresh fruits 417.433 353.047 18.2%
Fresh vegetables 376.284 334.875 12.4%
Frozen fruits and vegetables(5) 186.642 142.654 30.8%
Roasted coffee(6) 250.296 196.173 27.6%
Sugar and sugar substitutes 261.475 186.257 40.4%
Butter and margarine(5) 284.894 199.761 42.6%
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20201022124428if_/https://www.bl...
I think this sums it up well. People mostly don't know or care about how hedonic regression is used in CPI (myself included, on knowing). I don't think the process is easy to understand nor transparent (although I may be wrong here).
But BLS denies this assessment (and it's not 100% related to the article posted, but closely related to your comment I think):
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/common-misconceptions-abo...
> When the cost of food rises, does the CPI assume that consumers switch to less desired foods, such as substituting hamburger for steak?
> No. ...
> Is the use of "hedonic quality adjustment" in the CPI simply a way of lowering the inflation rate?
> No. ...
Obviously, they provide their own explanations, but I'm not going to paste the whole thing. This is definitely something I'd like to understand better though. Especially every time I complain about how Chewy Chips Ahoy or some other product I enjoyed in my childhood is absolute garbage now, and I don't buy the explanation that I simply had bad taste as a kid.
They also host this Quality Adjustment page to say which types of products do or don't have such adjustments: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/home.htm. So maybe this is transparency. I think it would take me 2+ hours on a weekend to really research this to understand it myself.
Note that all of the data and methodology that goes into this is public and if there were any real, actually problematic substitutions, you'd know about it. The substitutions are good, actually, as they reflect changes in tastes. For instance, lobster and caviar used to be food for poor people. Should they be part of the CPI despite the fact they're rich people food now? Definitely not, that would massively overstate inflation.
> Especially every time I complain about how Chewy Chips Ahoy or some other product I enjoyed in my childhood is absolute garbage now, and I don't buy the explanation that I simply had bad taste as a kid.
Honestly, I buy that completely. We've known our tastes change as we get older. I used to hate tomatoes, now I love them. [2]
[1] https://www.bls.gov/cpi/research-series/r-cpi-u-rs-home.htm
[2] https://www.bonappetit.com/entertaining-style/trends-news/ar...
I used to hate eggs, and now I love them, and I am aware of that change in my taste. The concept that tastes change is not new to me. I also used to love Oreos, and I still do. They do not taste significantly different. Chocolate chip cookies, in general, still taste good to me, especially slightly under-baked ones (which the "Chewy" Chips Ahoy resembled in texture when I enjoyed them as a kid).
The fact that, in current day, I would despise this one type of chocolate chip cookie that I used to like--and also while still enjoying other cookies and chocolate chip cookies, and fully understanding that tastes change--seems to be an absurd scenario compared to the distinct possibility that something changed in the way they make the cookies. Also, considering Kraft (which owned Nabisco which owned Chips Ahoy) split up in 2012, I'd be more surprised if they didn't decide to make changes to some of their recipes.
However, I do remember at one point trying baijiu (白酒), and it ruined the taste of sodas and diet sodas to me for several months. It was an abrupt but temporary change. No idea how that works, but the taste (really the smell) became unbearably similar to baijiu. Kind of want to try baijiu again now that I think about it.
While those core goods prices are I believe accurate, the prices at point of sale have gone up significantly more - especially in places that went from having a competitive grocery market to, well not.
Note that restaurants have done a significantly better job of controlling ingredient costs specifically because they don't shop at grocery chains.
CPI, as the name suggests, is based on consumer prices. They're not taking the price of wheat features and calling it a day.
Of course I agree with you about how CPI samples are taken and that they are representative of the market as a whole.
tl;dr: I agree with you, I'm just floating a theory as to why some people may have significantly different experiences on a micro level.
This is what I’m seeing, anecdotally. In towns with more than one non-affiliated grocer, prices are cheap. In towns with consolidated groceries, prices are higher. Enough that the “savvy” shoppers, i.e. those with a car and time and liquidity to enable bulk buying, drive to the next town over.
(a) Kroger - Kroger, Ralphs, Dillons, Smith’s, King Soopers, Fry’s, QFC, City Market, Owen’s, Jay C, Pay Less, Baker’s, Gerbes, Harris Teeter, Pick ‘n Save, Metro Market, Mariano’s, Fred Meyer, Dillons Marketplace, Fry’s Marketplace, King Soopers Marketplace, Kroger Marketplace, Smith’s Marketplace, Food 4 Less, Foods Co.
(b) Cerberus Capital Management - Albertons, Acme Markets, Carrs-Safeway, Haggen, Jewel-Osco, Kings, Pavilions, Plated, Randalls, Safeway, Shaw's and Star Market, Tom Thumb, United Supermarkets, Vons.
There was a situation a while ago where egg prices really did "double or more" (about $1/egg in the worst places). But that's also the one place I've seen where prices went back down, and big brands got charged with collusion, and there was an avian flu epidemic on top of that.
Take for example eggs: they’re up about 20% over the last two years… but they’re down from 15 years ago, because eggs have (mostly) stayed really cheap for a long time.
And that’s not down in inflation adjusted dollars, it’s just down.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1d3aL
Though as a general rule people notice acceleration not speed, so the big pandemic bump is clearly more impactful than a slower increase.
Since then the cheapest eggs have come back down somewhat.
The problem is statistics count averages or price on a certain day, etc, people remember the _highest_ price they paid recently.
Some people say there's a real difference in health between non-organic and organic foods, others say it's BS. Anecdotally, some people say the meat and produce from places like and Walmart are worse than those from places like Whole foods, and generics are worse than brand names, even ignoring organic vs. non-organic; but I wonder how much is placebo, and how much is a real difference in nutrition. I assume that some products are literally the same thing repackaged, but others are different in ways that matter.
There's also things which are supposed to be monitored by the FDA, like using pesticides and injecting meat with saline. My understanding is that the FDA is pretty strict in the US but who knows?
Foods like:
- Fresh fruit and vegetables
- Frozen fruit and vegetables
- Canned fruit and vegetables
- Eggs
- Dairy (milk, cheese, yogurt)
- Grains (oats, rice)
- Fresh meat and fish
- Frozen meat and fish
- Canned meat and fish (e.g. canned chicken, tuna)
- Ground meat
- Seasoning
- Olive oil, butter
You are only standing at the edge of the rabbit hole friend. Don’t be afraid to take a few steps in
Simply using breeding, genetic engineering, and artificial growth to create more efficient and resilient crops isn't a bad thing, it only is if it somehow makes quality worse as a by-product. Even then, if the product is just less nutrient-dense, it's less of an issue than products with additives known to cause immune responses and other health issues (including pesticides which crop engineering can make redundant, so in some cases it's even a good thing).
Have you met the Red Delicious Apple? It was grown specifically for shelf life and aesthetics and it became so mealy and tasteless that people stopped eating it. [1]
[1] https://thecounter.org/history-economics-red-delicious-apple...
Meanwhile, you could also chase the Organic certification to fetch a higher price, but not care about the taste... then it's up to the buyer (mainly the grocery store) whether you reached their quality bar.
I think there's a big regional variation as well. By the time the avocados get from CA to NJ, maybe the different offerings don't taste that different. But the opposite might be true for another foodstuff.
Realistically can the average person care enough to use this information, to measure value? Possibly some abstraction and scale for more casual comparison would be useful.
Normalising the idea of this kind of data and having a historical frame of reference like this would/could be a pretty solid resource, especially when looking at particular brands.
Seems to me these much-maligned supermarkets are giving better value to customers than much-loved restaurants.
For example, I fly a lot for work and have noticed delays and cancellations are a lot higher than they used to be. The data seems to support this in aggregate [1], but I'd like to see it by carrier.
Service enshitification is a lot harder to quantify, but is definitely another thing I've noticed at checkouts, restaurants, etc.
Food inflation has been over 10% for two years now in the UK so it's been very noticeable.
On the other hand I do find restaurant/coffee shop servings regularly misleading. There is no size/weight printed on it. They can and often reduce size/portion/pieces in their servings along with increasing price.
- Smaller product quantity, when previously sold at an apparently similar quantity (secret shrinkflation).
- Changes in food recipe (secret food enshitification).
- (maybe) changes in nutritional value or flavor for farm produce. I'm not sure how this is possible or practical, but I'm thinking about claims that e.g. tomatoes taste worse and are less nutritious than they were a few decades ago.
- Changes in non-food products that worsen performance. E.g., SSD makers switching to cheaper and slower components after initial reviews have come out, but still retaining the same product name. (secret non-food enshitification)
Probably can’t do this across the board. But one could certainly link trademark rights to it. The purpose of a trademark is to signal to consumers what they’re buying, after all.