Shrinking food portions

[kepstein8888]

(I hope I put this in the right spot. I assume it falls under "economics.")

Ice cream, tuna, cereal, and pretty much everything else these days. At this rate, pretty soon you'll have to do your grocery shopping with a magnifying glass.

Apart from the obvious annoyance of getting less for your money, I find it insulting. I understand the concept of inflation, and would rather they raise the price a few cents than shrink the portions and expect us not to notice. When called on their practices, manufacturers will say they weren't trying to be sneaky; but if that's the case, why do they paint a giant yellow stripe saying "free N% extra" on those rare occasions when they actually increase the portions?

Does it piss you off? Or do you empathize with the producers who (supposedly) must deal with higher ingredient and/or shipping costs?

[Nightsun]

Shrink it further, occidental country are going obese.

[ArtistTyrant]

it's to be cheap while simultaneously pretending to be doing it to help with the obesity issue

[Causa Mortis]

I doubt your claim could be empirically verified. I shop at Trader Joe's and Costco and eat very, very well for 40-60 per week.

Furthmore, if it is happening, its happening because of routine government intervention into farm productivity to limit output.

[Takeru]

Shrink it further, occidental country are going obese.

I am skinny enough, I don't want to get even more skinny because they decide to change the food portions to "accommodate" FAT people. I don't care how obese America is, don't shrink my food portions because of them :p.

[Arkeph]

It can be a good move, profit-wise. In fact, fast-food restaurants are arguably the ultimate example of this strategy--the ingredients are cheap, but people are willing to pay a high premium for a small portion that's already prepared.

So long as consumers don't buy from bulk suppliers or lower their purchases, it works.

At any rate, I've only seen portion size fall for a few specific items, but not generally. Price fluctuations seem much more common.

[Causa Mortis]

It can be a good move, profit-wise. In fact, fast-food restaurants are arguably the ultimate example of this strategy--the ingredients are cheap, but people are willing to pay a high premium for a small portion that's already prepared.

The margins on fast food are fairly tight. Most fast food restaurants are making economic losses right now, some are even suffering from perpetual accounting losses. It costs 2-3x's as much as cooking the food because of overhead and labor. There's little overhead on bulk purchases.


At any rate, I've only seen portion size fall for a few specific items, but not generally. Price fluctuations seem much more common.

They don't fall because they government won't let food prices fall. Per person food productivity in America keeps going up, but government just pays them to do less and less. I'm not opposed to intervention generally, but paying farmers not to plant so that you and I have to pay higher prices is fucking retarded.

[Takeru]

They don't fall because they government won't let food prices fall. Per person food productivity in America keeps going up, but government just pays them to do less and less. I'm not opposed to intervention generally, but paying farmers not to plant so that you and I have to pay higher prices is fucking retarded.

The government does that so that there wouldn't be an overproduction in a certain vegetable. Generally, the more a crop is grown, it results in deflation because of competing farm workers. The government buys it or gives it to less developed nations so that the crops don't suffer the deflation.

Because of that however, my damn sodas are going up in price... I still remembering buying a 12 pack for $1.30. Stupid usage of corn as fuel.

[Causa Mortis]

The government does that so that there wouldn't be an overproduction in a certain vegetable. Generally, the more a crop is grown, it results in deflation because of competing farm workers. The government buys it or gives it to less developed nations so that the crops don't suffer the deflation.

A) Your facts are off
B) Your rationale is off

Starting off with Stiglitz, a Nobel prize winner who is a very pro-intervention generally:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Summary: the combination of price floors+subsidies that go mostly to corporate farms is a terrible idea. Industrialized nations' protection of their farming is clearly harming the 3rd world. Economists and political economists on the political spectrum from Cato to Mankiw to Chomsky oppose them.

Farm subsidies are a terrible idea. Its corporate welfare of the worst kind. Its only explained by what borders on political corruption.


I don't know exactly what all the factors are that are driving food price increases, but this is the worst kind of government regulation: paying people to be unproductive and preventing exchange with the 3rd world.

[Silverity]

The amusing thing about some of this is if you look at the history behind size of restaurant plates of food, they grew LARGER. We might just be returning to "regular" size.

I think (by think I mean I'm not quoting facts here) that it's okay if the amount of food lessens so long as the nutritional/calorie intake remains the same. One of the problems we face now is we're getting more and more BAD food. We consume more of less, essentially. So I don't mind if we get less, but I want it to be less of more!

[kepstein8888]

The margins on fast food are fairly tight.

From what I recall from a business course a long time ago, it depends on the product. Their margins are tight on the main course items, and large on the watery sodas and fries, which is where they make their money.

[Mader]

Hhhmmm.

When I go out to eat I am served so much food that I cannot finish it all, and I can really eat.

Canned tuna and processed foods. Well, these folks are in the business to make a profit and costs go up from time to time. Smaller portions??? servings of most foods have been 1/2 cup (or so) for a very long time, we just ignore the portion part of the labels.

Marketing: reducing portion size makes the product "lower calorie". For example, in the late 1970's, one serving of Dannon yogurt had 260 calories, if we had a yogurt that was all we ate for lunch. Now, the serving size is down to what, around 100 calories and yogurt is now a snack or "part of a balance meal".

Also, marketing has found that 100 calories is a magic number. However, if they package everything in 100 calorie packages, many products would never sell, so that little package of chips may say that a serving is 100 calories, but there are 2 or 3 servings in the package.