Mysterious Shrinkage, or, When Does 1.5 = 2?

I noticed this a while ago. Apparently lots of people have missed it. But some time in the last several months, groceries started shrinking - a lot.

All sorts of groceries. But I guess it's not surprising that I first noticed that ice cream had shrunk. Maybe you remember: when you buy ice cream in the supermarket, the usual sizes are a half gallon or a pint. But when I routinely checked the label of a carton of Bryer's ice cream, I was amazed to see that it was only 1.5 quarts - it had been shrunk by a full 25%! And the price definitely hadn't gone down. I did a little research, and EVERY ice cream manufacturer has magically reduced their ice cream packages from 2 quarts to 1.5!

Incidentally, the package had been re-designed to make it look bigger than it was; it looked a lot like the old version, but the sides were sloping more. I think that difference caught my attention somehow, which is why I looked at the label. I've also noticed that whereas the cartons were almost always full of ice cream in the past, the ice cream is much looser now, if that makes any sense. There's consistently more air around the sides.

Lots of other products have silently started shrinking, too.The Consumerist calls it "the grocery shrink ray".

Apparently one typical tip-off is when the packaging is redesigned. They may claim that the new package is more environmentally friendly and easier to ship - but the odds are that it also contains 10% or so less product. In some cases, the price for the new package is actually higher than the old, more generous one! But usually it's just the same. Chips, juice, toilet paper...anything which isn't sold by a unit of weight or volume is subject to shrinkage. They can't pull this stunt with gallons of milk or with store-packaged meat, since that's sold by the pound. But in some cases, larger packages are being replaced with subtly smaller ones. For example, the Jimmy Dean sausage roll which was normally 16 oz. is now 12 oz.

Obviously manufacturers are counting on the vast majority of consumers being too stupid or apathetic to notice the change. That's a bet they'll probably win. The question is, how far can they push this particular technique before consumers notice and get angry? My guess is that they're studying this issue carefully, and that before they reduce packages to the point that people notice, they'll do a price hike - probably en masse, so they can all claim that it's a necessary response to the economy.

Incidentally, I don't dispute their right to pass on increased production costs to their customers (because I know that at least one person on my flist will make that very point). What I object to is this sleazy, underhanded repackaging scheme. A half-gallon of ice cream has been just that for decades. Tricking people into thinking they're buying a half-gallon when they're not is simply unethical.

Oh, it's also worth pointing out that these changes also screw up recipes. Many recipes call for a certain standard amount of an ingredient, such as a 6-oz. can of tomatoes (or something; I'm just making up the numbers, okay?). And now that no package exists in that size, the cook is faced with either buying TWO packages and wasting part of one, or trying to reduce the rest of the recipe - which can be difficult, since the amount of reduction isn't always easy to translate into other sizes (i.e. it may be 3 out of 14 oz., for example).

I also read over on the Consumerist that milk is often turning out to be sour as soon as it's bought, or very soon thereafter - this is apparently a lot more common than it used to be. That may be because manufacturers are selling milk that they would normally have thrown away. Or perhaps milk-truck drivers are turning off their refrigeration to save gas. Apparently this hasn't been a problem with organic milk, although much of this is anecdotal. I wouldn't have notice that particular problem anyway, since we always buy our milk straight from the nearby Wright's Dairy Farm. Their milk isn't trucked anywhere! :D

Mysterious Shrinkage, or, When Does 1.5 = 2?

I noticed this a while ago. Apparently lots of people have missed it. But some time in the last several months, groceries started shrinking - a lot.

All sorts of groceries. But I guess it's not surprising that I first noticed that ice cream had shrunk. Maybe you remember: when you buy ice cream in the supermarket, the usual sizes are a half gallon or a pint. But when I routinely checked the label of a carton of Bryer's ice cream, I was amazed to see that it was only 1.5 quarts - it had been shrunk by a full 25%! And the price definitely hadn't gone down. I did a little research, and EVERY ice cream manufacturer has magically reduced their ice cream packages from 2 quarts to 1.5!

Incidentally, the package had been re-designed to make it look bigger than it was; it looked a lot like the old version, but the sides were sloping more. I think that difference caught my attention somehow, which is why I looked at the label. I've also noticed that whereas the cartons were almost always full of ice cream in the past, the ice cream is much looser now, if that makes any sense. There's consistently more air around the sides.

Lots of other products have silently started shrinking, too.The Consumerist calls it "the grocery shrink ray".

Apparently one typical tip-off is when the packaging is redesigned. They may claim that the new package is more environmentally friendly and easier to ship - but the odds are that it also contains 10% or so less product. In some cases, the price for the new package is actually higher than the old, more generous one! But usually it's just the same. Chips, juice, toilet paper...anything which isn't sold by a unit of weight or volume is subject to shrinkage. They can't pull this stunt with gallons of milk or with store-packaged meat, since that's sold by the pound. But in some cases, larger packages are being replaced with subtly smaller ones. For example, the Jimmy Dean sausage roll which was normally 16 oz. is now 12 oz.

Obviously manufacturers are counting on the vast majority of consumers being too stupid or apathetic to notice the change. That's a bet they'll probably win. The question is, how far can they push this particular technique before consumers notice and get angry? My guess is that they're studying this issue carefully, and that before they reduce packages to the point that people notice, they'll do a price hike - probably en masse, so they can all claim that it's a necessary response to the economy.

Incidentally, I don't dispute their right to pass on increased production costs to their customers (because I know that at least one person on my flist will make that very point). What I object to is this sleazy, underhanded repackaging scheme. A half-gallon of ice cream has been just that for decades. Tricking people into thinking they're buying a half-gallon when they're not is simply unethical.

Oh, it's also worth pointing out that these changes also screw up recipes. Many recipes call for a certain standard amount of an ingredient, such as a 6-oz. can of tomatoes (or something; I'm just making up the numbers, okay?). And now that no package exists in that size, the cook is faced with either buying TWO packages and wasting part of one, or trying to reduce the rest of the recipe - which can be difficult, since the amount of reduction isn't always easy to translate into other sizes (i.e. it may be 3 out of 14 oz., for example).

I also read over on the Consumerist that milk is often turning out to be sour as soon as it's bought, or very soon thereafter - this is apparently a lot more common than it used to be. That may be because manufacturers are selling milk that they would normally have thrown away. Or perhaps milk-truck drivers are turning off their refrigeration to save gas. Apparently this hasn't been a problem with organic milk, although much of this is anecdotal. I wouldn't have notice that particular problem anyway, since we always buy our milk straight from the nearby Wright's Dairy Farm. Their milk isn't trucked anywhere! :D

Avatar end

I don't know if anyone on my flist watches Avatar: The Last Airbender. The series finale was tonight.

No spoilers here...but it seems to me that there are a couple of major threads which weren't cleared up by the finale.

One is the issue of Prince Zukko's mother. The other, far more major issue in terms of the world of the show, is a problem that has seemed obvious to me since I first started watching the show:

The world of Avatar is one in which there were four great nations, each following a different element: Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. The Avatar had the power of all four elements, and was reborn as a member of each nation in turn. The Avatar's role is to keep the world in balance.

But 100 years before the show begins, a comet passes through the sky. It temporarily empowers the Fire Nation, and under the Firelord they conquer most of the rest of the world. The Avatar disappears at this time, his fate unknown.

The Firelord, knowing that the next incarnation of the Avatar will be as an Airbender (i.e. a magician of the Air Nation) proceed to exterminate the entire population of the Air Nation. And he succeeds! Every member of the Air Nation is killed. That's why the show is called Avatar: The Last Airbender, after all!

Aang, the Avatar and last Airbender, is found frozen in an iceberg. He's thawed and begins the task of bringing peace and balance to the world throughout the show. But - and this is the problem - even assuming he succeeds (and I'm being careful not to do any spoilers here), he'll still have a world in which the Air Nation no longer exists! In which case, how can there be balance in the long run? And since the Avatar will be due to be reborn as an Airbender again in four incarnations, doesn't that mean that the Avatar cycle is broken?

Now, there were some people living in the ruins of the old Airbender temples in the lands of the old Air Nation. But as Aang said on first seeing them, they weren't Airbenders. They'd been living in that place for a long time, and none of them were Airbenders. Nor was there any hint that Aang could train them to become Airbenders (it seems that you really need to be born as one). So it would seem that Aang has a real problem: how to restore the missing 1/4 of the population of his world, along with their culture and powers. There's no sign that that's within the powers of the Avatar.

While I'm at it, it's a pity that Mako died before the third season was filmed. The replacement voice actor did a good job (as the former Fire Nation general, Iroh), but it just wasn't the same. Even the words themselves didn't seem as well-written.

By the way, if you haven't seen Avatar and would like to, all episodes including the series finale are now available to view online over at AvatarChapters.com. It's not the greatest show in the world, but it's very well done and more intelligent then most TV shows.

Avatar end

I don't know if anyone on my flist watches Avatar: The Last Airbender. The series finale was tonight.

No spoilers here...but it seems to me that there are a couple of major threads which weren't cleared up by the finale.

One is the issue of Prince Zukko's mother. The other, far more major issue in terms of the world of the show, is a problem that has seemed obvious to me since I first started watching the show:

The world of Avatar is one in which there were four great nations, each following a different element: Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. The Avatar had the power of all four elements, and was reborn as a member of each nation in turn. The Avatar's role is to keep the world in balance.

But 100 years before the show begins, a comet passes through the sky. It temporarily empowers the Fire Nation, and under the Firelord they conquer most of the rest of the world. The Avatar disappears at this time, his fate unknown.

The Firelord, knowing that the next incarnation of the Avatar will be as an Airbender (i.e. a magician of the Air Nation) proceed to exterminate the entire population of the Air Nation. And he succeeds! Every member of the Air Nation is killed. That's why the show is called Avatar: The Last Airbender, after all!

Aang, the Avatar and last Airbender, is found frozen in an iceberg. He's thawed and begins the task of bringing peace and balance to the world throughout the show. But - and this is the problem - even assuming he succeeds (and I'm being careful not to do any spoilers here), he'll still have a world in which the Air Nation no longer exists! In which case, how can there be balance in the long run? And since the Avatar will be due to be reborn as an Airbender again in four incarnations, doesn't that mean that the Avatar cycle is broken?

Now, there were some people living in the ruins of the old Airbender temples in the lands of the old Air Nation. But as Aang said on first seeing them, they weren't Airbenders. They'd been living in that place for a long time, and none of them were Airbenders. Nor was there any hint that Aang could train them to become Airbenders (it seems that you really need to be born as one). So it would seem that Aang has a real problem: how to restore the missing 1/4 of the population of his world, along with their culture and powers. There's no sign that that's within the powers of the Avatar.

While I'm at it, it's a pity that Mako died before the third season was filmed. The replacement voice actor did a good job (as the former Fire Nation general, Iroh), but it just wasn't the same. Even the words themselves didn't seem as well-written.

By the way, if you haven't seen Avatar and would like to, all episodes including the series finale are now available to view online over at AvatarChapters.com. It's not the greatest show in the world, but it's very well done and more intelligent then most TV shows.