S.3819 – Shrinkflation Prevention Act of 2024
congress.gov
congress.gov
So, this is a law which states that there SHALL be regulation--who knows what form--to solve a problem that, for all we know, can't be solved in any reasonable way... but once this law is passed, there will be a new regulatory process (I guess in this case attached to the existing agency, though watch there be new people hired to concentrate on this specific issue) which won't care if their ideas are pointless or harmful as they are legally mandated to exist?
I'd like to see a meta-law which prevents Congress from kicking the can down the road like this; if they don't know how to regulate something, they should form a subcommittee to investigate the problem and come up with a concrete solution that can be considered and voted on: it simply shouldn't be possible for them to make a law which says nothing more than "we all agree we hate X and so someone in the executive branch SHALL solve it for us within two years"... legislating should be the job of the legislative branch!
Even better if you require companies to put big gaudy warnings on their products themselves when shrank(and replacing the previous size) like cigarette companies.
0 - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/14/carrefour-p...
At some point, there needs to be pressure to prevent relentless maximization of economy of scale.
I'm not a fan of this type of packaging trickery, but there's no reason we shouldn't expect that. The best defense is to be a smart shopper.
https://fifthperson.com/3-companies-own-us-soft-drink-market...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anaswanson/2014/09/10/meet-the-...
This does feel a little like micromanaging but it does seem good. If someone buys the same product every week for 10 years, they're -never- going to be on the lookout for "has this product changed this week, is it smaller now?".
(1) of course within limits suitable for our household. It doesn't make sense to buy stuff the won't be consumed before it's getting unusable.
In the very old days in Germany chocolate was only allowed to sold in certain fixed sizes. 100 grams bars had >98% market share, although several other standardized sizes were allowed, too. With EU free markets that regulation had to be abandoned because it hindered free market access. I don't know whether unit price information was introduced at the same point in time, I wasn't living there at that time. But I still hate to see 90 grams and 282 grams chocolate bars where I live now.
However it's not much useful to combat shrinkflation because if, let's say, icecreams shrink maybe you realize it only when you open the box at home and you get the feeling that something changed. Or if you notice that a pack of food that has always been 500 g is now 450 g. You can't remember with precision the old price per kg but you definitely suspect that the manufacturer is playing the shrinkflation game.
If laws make product changes difficult what might the second order effects of these laws be?
The phenomena is annoying, but I don't think legislating against it is the correct approach. Australia has had some quite amazing laws that require 'per 100g' or 'cost per 100ml' pricing on the store label, which is incredibly helpful. I'd like to see more tools of those kinds.
So, companies are beholden to shareholders to increase profits and must find workarounds.
New packaging and new formula same great taste are things to look for. I think my laundry detergent should be over 500% more concentrated by now compared to 20 years ago.
source?
It's right in the bill:
> Congress finds the following:
> (1) According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, from the third quarter of 2020 to the second quarter of 2022, corporate profits rose by 75 percent, and Federal Reserve research found that 42 percent of inflation over that same time period went toward greater corporate profits.
the only thing that hasn't shrunk seems to be tech. my current laptop is a 14nm+++ Intel chip that cost 1k when i bought it. the same 1k can get you a Intel 7 or TSMC 5nm AMD ryzen. Same money, but better cpu.
(Although in some cases still smaller)
It even has the added benefit of people eating less pre-packaged crap.
As others have said in this thread, if you want to be honest with costumers make supermarkets add price/100g next to the price label.
This should actually be great for companies because it levels the playing field. You don't have to worry that your competitor is going to raise prices by shrinking and look better on the shelf next to you and you never have to change your factory to a new smaller size.
It's good for consumers because it's hard to measure cost of living increases when your grocery bill number stays the same but actually is just 10% less stuff.
So, yes, but also there's other stuff you have to do to ensure that supermarkets don't make this information harder to use/make it irrelevant entirely.
It clearly rubs people up the wrong way.
There's a perception that these huge companies are trying to trick consumers by hiding these reductions in size/quantity. Consumers don't like that.
No. The issue is that consumers tend to remember the price they last paid for a product, but seldom remember the weight/volume of the same. A producer can raise the price for a product in two ways: 1) directly increase the price for the same weight/volume of product, or 2) reduce the weight/volume of the product while maintaining the same price.
If the company performs #1, a majority of consumers notice, and the company often sees reduced sales (thereby negating the extra profit from the increased price).
If the company performs #2, a majority of consumers will not notice the weight/volume change. Esp. if the outer package is the same size as the prior version, and all that changes is the small "weight/volume" listed on the label. In this instance, most consumers do not realize the price actually increased, and so continue to purchase the same amount as before, but now the company captures greater profit due to the "stealth price increase".
Over time, more and more companies have learned this consumer physiology and are often attempting to hide price increases behind weight/volume reductions. Laws like this are simply an attempt to prevent this stealth price increase and instead make it clear that if the company wants to raise the price of the product, then the price of the product should be what increases. Whether any regulations that result from this statute (should it get enacted) produce that outcome is yet to be determined.
As the act explains, it actually is Coca-Cola's and Heinz' fault that some of the inflation exists, because some of it is just them raising prices to make more profit.
Requiring price increases to be done "openly" will likely reduce inflation, by discouraging price increases.
I suppose you could make thinner and denser font in last one to make it even cheaper.
That said, I don’t think this bill would target something like that, as it clearly discusses the “size” and “amount” of a product.
It makes it easy to compare different versions/brands/sizes of the same product and select the most optimum version for you. It's a nice touch. Not sure if this is a EU thing, or just a store policy.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...
1. Keeping www.congress.gov and public information protected from the Internet Archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20240307063211if_/https://www.co...