this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
1280 points (99.8% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2540 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Liz@midwest.social 85 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Really we just need to standardize sizes for consumer goods. For example: drinks can come in 250, 500, 750, 1000, and 2000 mL sizes. Sold soap must be sold in units of 100, 500, or 1000 grams. And so on...

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 39 points 6 months ago (3 children)

But then you get shrinkflation in the product itself. Less emulsifiers in the soap, drinks with corn syrup replacing sugar, and powders like cinnamon cut with lead powder.

Not saying it couldn't be done, just that businesses are really incentivised to find the loopholes and exploit them.

[–] DillyDaily@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

In Australia we call this "skimpflation" because they aren't shrinking the final product, they're skimping on ingredients to lower production costs.

It's the bane of my existence because brands I know and love will change their ingredients without warning and without changing anything on the packaging (sometimes not even changing the ingredients list! If the ingredients list has always just said "starch" they don't have to change anything going from arrowroot starch to cheaper potato starch)

I have allergies and I've bought two boxes of the same product at the same time, and had an allergic reaction to one, but not the other.

I used to always blame it on my housemates not washing the cooking utensils properly, but I now use separate cooking equipment and I clean down the kitchen before I start and cook at odd times so I'm the only one using the kitchen.

I've started emailing companies after my allergic reactions to determine if they have changed an ingredient, and 90% of the time they confirm they have changed the ingredients. Usually they put some PR spin on it about the new ingredient being more allergy friendly or sustainable (they don't clarify "environmentally" so I assume they mean "financially sustainable for the profits of our company")

[–] HolidayGreed@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago

Here they label this as “New Recipe!”. As if they’re somehow doing us a favour.

Oh gee I wonder what inspired you to change the recipe 🤔

[–] NotDiurnambule@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 6 months ago

They already do that. So no downsides for this proposal. There was some article some years ago about how the taste of things like cookies changed because they went for cheaper recipe.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Less emulsifiers in the soap, drinks with corn syrup replacing sugar, and powders like cinnamon cut with lead powder.

Standard formulas for a given product. Anything that isn't 40% sugar drink is "immitation soda drink". Anything that's under-emulsified can't be called real soap.

These are solvable problems at a regulatory level. But at some point, it may be more cost efficient to simply nationalize the under-performing industry. Perhaps Coca-Cola just can't cut it making soda drinks anymore, and the firm needs to be broken up and devolved to the various states as State Soda Bottling Company

[–] exanime@lemmy.today 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You are seriously underestimating the complexity of products and how easy it would be for them to skirt such legislation

It would be a massive endeavour for regulators which companies may bypass by industry... This is not the right approach

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You are seriously underestimating the complexity of products

Again, if the regulation process becomes too burdensome, sometimes the only practical solution is nationalization.

[–] exanime@lemmy.today 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Nationalize every food production branch? Hmmm sure, that's simpler

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Wouldn't be the first time the US has had to bailout and restructure the agricultural industry.

Ask John Steinbeck

[–] freebee@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 months ago

I don't think this is the ideal situation. The way food prices are advertised needs to be standardized: € / kg or $ / freedom unit. + size + unit price. I think it's already the law in EU, but supermarkets try to hide the per kg price in a tiny almost unreadable printsize.