S.3819 – Shrinkflation Prevention Act of 2024(congress.gov)
congress.gov
S.3819 – Shrinkflation Prevention Act of 2024
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3819/text
13 comments
Even if you can't prevent it directly, you could regulate labeling and shaming like Carrefour did[0].
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...
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...
this is what most countries that have this do. If mandated surgeon general warnings on alcohol and tobacco products are legal, I'm not sure why such a mandated warning here wouldn't be.
If Chevron is overturned, this will be more grist for the mill.
This lo-fi blog https://www.mouseprint.org/category/downsiz/ is (probably) the best maintained documentation on shrinkflation. Maintained for over a decade by a former Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General in consumer protection.
The real problem here is lack of competition. Regulators slept at the wheel and now there's 3 corporations controlling 80% of the market. So they can get away with this kind of stuff. Legislating it away is a bandaid that will fall off as soon as a different administration neglects to enforce it.
Yup. Until some government gets serious and starts breaking up any company that gets more than 20% of any market slice, this will continue.
At some point, there needs to be pressure to prevent relentless maximization of economy of scale.
At some point, there needs to be pressure to prevent relentless maximization of economy of scale.
Competition in my grocery store seems high. There are multiple options for almost every product category, including a store brand right there on the shelf next to each other with price (including per unit measure) plainly listed. I wish more product categories had the price transparency of grocery stores.
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.
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.
The “multiple options” are frequently all owned by the same company, and the store brand is made by one of their subsidiaries too. The wide variety of brand names is there specifically to conceal how much the industry has consolidated.
You don't have a choice even when it looks like you do.
https://fifthperson.com/3-companies-own-us-soft-drink-market...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anaswanson/2014/09/10/meet-the-...
https://fifthperson.com/3-companies-own-us-soft-drink-market...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anaswanson/2014/09/10/meet-the-...
This seems entirely reasonable to me -- I shouldn't have to check products every time I rebuy them to see if they are smaller. If you want to make a smaller package, change the product in a clear way.
I'd rather they mandate uniform unit-volume price labeling. This feels like micromanaging.
I agree with you - I've seen this in other countries, where whatever you buy, companies can have their easy-to-manipulate price, but there's -always- the price per 100g/litre, so it's always easy to compare, even across products of different brands.
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?".
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?".
Having the price per kg or liter on the label is great to compare across the similar products on the same shelf. I do it all the time and in some cases it's the only information I look at.
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.
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.
I think unit pricing is already law in California, or at least lots of products have a price per unit. It's in smaller text on the price tag on the shelf, not on the items themselves.
Unit prices are the law where I live. I'd say I am very price-conscious shopper. I have a clear feeling about unit prices of many products. But I absolutely don't care about package size(1) or package price.
(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.
(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.
lets be honest, while unit-volume pricing is useful (though to me, mostly for comparing different products), they don't always result in memorable pricing values that are easy for most consumers to remember.
Also a big fan of unit pricing, though it is almost useless on toilet paper (rolls? sheets? square inches? what about ply?). Grams would probably make more sense.
Shrinking only works once though. When a customer is duped, they adjust expectations accordingly, and some consumers even 'punish' the brand by stopping buying that product altogether.
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.
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.
To make a product cheaper ingredients / process can be changed. How will product quality be protected? A law against “crapification”?
If laws make product changes difficult what might the second order effects of these laws be?
If laws make product changes difficult what might the second order effects of these laws be?
Too late for law, prepackaged foods are mostly garbage in
iirc, many businesses have deals about companies distributing products: they can’t sell the product for less than what it is sold at store #1, they cannot increase prices for a contract length, and more.
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.
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.
Close to half of all inflation went to increased profits. That's a coy way of acknowledging markets used public awareness of supply chain and other real issues as cover to jack up prices. How is that not profiteering?
>Close to half of all inflation went to increased profits.
source?
source?
> 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.
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.
So .. a massive conspiracy which involves nearly all companies and all industries across the entire country, which all, in unison, jacked up prices, not because of valid economic reasons, but because they're all universally run by evil greedy mustache twirling villains that are all in cahoots?
You do not need to be evil villains in a dimly lit boardroom for such things. It is simply a matter of self interest, and each actor can easily independently arrive at it. There is a general atmosphere of confusion and chaos and the public knows there are issues with supply chains and manufacturing, so who's to know the increase in prices is really due to legitimate issues or just a silent hike in profiteering. The consumer is none the wiser at that moment.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste" is commonplace knowledge.
That's just herd behavior
"Massive conspiracy" is a bit of a straw man. Self-interest among a group of people with power can lead to convergent behaviour that is to the detriment of wider society. No conspiracy needed.
There doesn't need to be a conspiracy and they don't need to be in cahoots. They just need to all recognize a situation that allows price gouging.
Is this what happens when I buy a box of cereal for $4 in 2014, and the same box of cereal for $4 in 2024, but the contents weigh 20% less in 2024?
yes.
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.
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.
You are telling me that I pay more and I only get smaller stuff? That is horrible... They are stealing silicon from our products...
Not smaller, denser.
(Although in some cases still smaller)
(Although in some cases still smaller)
I think there's a reasonable case to be made that new GPU SKUs are also good being released at higher price points or with more inflated product names than they would have had historically. E.g. a 4060 looks a lot like a product that might have been released as a xx50 series part in more historically normal market conditions.
Yes.
Hope this gains some traction in Congress. Shitflation is a thing that's been happening as well. [0]
[0] https://jonatron.github.io/shitflation/
[0] https://jonatron.github.io/shitflation/
I don't understand this media campaign against shrinkflation, it's not Coca-Cola and Heinz' fault if inflation exists. Is it more egregious if price rises from 90 cents for a 100g ketchup bottle to 90 cents per 90g bottle, instead of 1 dollar per 100g bottle?
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.
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.
> Is it more egregious if price rises from 90 cents for a 100g ketchup bottle to 90 cents per 90g bottle, instead of 1 dollar per 100g bottle?
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.
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.
Raising the price in a visible way comes with a higher cost (risk that consumers will stop buying your product/pick a competitor). Doing it in a hidden way through shrinkflation means many consumers don't notice, making it easier for companies to raise prices.
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.
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.
Laws against shrinkflation are sunlight laws. They're so that when companies change the price of goods (which is fine) the buyer-visible price actually changes.
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.
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.
We do this in the UK but A: it's really small, as in a person with 20/20 vision has to get physically close to the price tag to read it. And B: all supermarkets seem to offer lower "membership card" prices which don't have to list this.
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.
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.
>I don't understand this media campaign against shrinkflation
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.
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.
Does this apply to digital services too? Isn't it basically making inflation illegal?
I think it means that you need to keep the size the same and increase the price or keep the price per unit the same and decrease the size. I don't think digital services are considered to have shrinkflation.
I think the closest analog to this is digital services getting worse rather than more expensive. For example, recently rather than increasing the price of Amazon Prime Video, the price has remained the same, but the product is worse (now has ads).
That said, I don’t think this bill would target something like that, as it clearly discusses the “size” and “amount” of a product.
That said, I don’t think this bill would target something like that, as it clearly discusses the “size” and “amount” of a product.
I agree, but it would be a total quagmire if they allowed it to extend to digital services and other non-traditional uses of the term. Seems like it would have to relate to buying typical consumer commodity goods only or things would get weird.
When I was a kid, a season was 26 episodes, although they did have fill up and clip show episodes. Nowadays you're lucky to get 6 episodes, but sometimes these are really good episodes.
Episode runtimes are up to the full hour thanks to streaming and lack of ads (the golden age is probably passing sadly) instead of being 20 minutes with room for 10 minutes of ads to fill the 30minute broadcast slot.
I'm getting a kick out of the idea of Amazon charging the same amount for ebooks but the font size slowly shrinking over time
I recently moved to Ireland, and what I noticed in the stores is that all products have a second €/unit price on the shelf label. So a per KG, per L, per gram, per unit, etc.
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.
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.
I've seen that in American grocery stores as well. I think it's pretty standard. The main issue is that you constantly have to be alert and remember prices across trips.
America has per weight pricing on labels but the units are often inconsistent.
I have seen this in every store in a bunch of EU member states, so my guess is it's an EU thing
Kroger and dollar stores have this
Cloudflare "protection"1 workaround:
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...
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...
Or, I don’t know, don’t add $3 trillion to the national debt in 9 months.
I didnt hear people complaining when their wages went up and their stonks portfolio doubled.
Most people don’t own stocks (at least not directly) and wages only went up for the bottom quartile on an inflation adjusted basis.
We have price per g/kg/l here which should help, but in practice manufacturers keep packaging sizes the same to disguise the fact there is less inside. So now we generate much more environmental waste per unit purchase.
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!