Stop Shrinking My Food!!! (the continuing saga)

As an investor, I understand that companies are squeezed with inflation too, and many are reluctant to raise prices as their costs go up, because they're afraid consumers will stop buying their products.  But consumers aren't stupid, and many realize that their packages are smaller (and the prices went up anyway).  Shrinking product sizes now, when you've been shrinking product sizes for years is adding insult to injury, and I want it to stop.

124 Of The Worst Examples Of “Shrinkflation” Shared In This Online Group

The Very Real Danger of Genetically Modified Foods

Frankenfoods scare the bejeezus out of me.  Companies like Monsanto are rushing all sorts of genetically-modified foods to market, and they appear in nearly every product in the supermarket.  The effects of these products is not well known due to insufficient testing, and I do not buy their claims that the foods are safe.  The worst part?  By the time the dangers are proven, it'll be too late.

From The Atlantic:


New research shows that when we eat we're consuming more than just vitamins and protein. Our bodies are absorbing information, or microRNA.

Chinese researchers have found small pieces of ribonucleic acid (RNA) in the blood and organs of humans who eat rice. The Nanjing University-based team showed that this genetic material will bind to proteins in human liver cells and influence the uptake of cholesterol from the blood.
The type of RNA in question is called microRNA, due to its small size. MicroRNAs have been studied extensively since their discovery ten years ago, and have been linked to human diseases including cancer, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. The Chinese research provides the first example of ingested plant microRNA surviving digestion and influencing human cell function.
Should the research survive scientific scrutiny, it could prove a game changer in many fields. It would mean that we're eating not just vitamins, protein, and fuel, but information as well.

The Chinese RNA study threatens to blast a major hole in Monsanto's claim. It means that DNA can code for microRNA, which can, in fact, be hazardous.

That knowledge could deepen our understanding of cross-species communication, co-evolution, and predator-prey relationships. It could illuminate new mechanisms for some metabolic disorders and perhaps explain how some herbal medicines function. And it reveals a pathway by which genetically modified (GM) foods might influence human health.
Monsanto's website states, "There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans." This viewpoint, while good for business, is built on an understanding of genetics circa 1950. It follows what's called the "Central Dogma" (PDF) of genetics, which postulates a one-way chain of command between DNA and the cells DNA governs.
The Central Dogma resembles the process of ordering a pizza. The DNA knows what kind of pizza it wants, and orders it. The RNA is the order slip, which communicates the specifics of the pizza to the cook. The finished and delivered pizza is analogous to the protein that DNA codes for.
We've known for years that the Central Dogma, though basically correct, is overly simplistic. For example: Pieces of microRNA that don't code for anything, pizza or otherwise, can travel among cells and influence their activities in many other ways. So while the DNA is ordering pizza, it's also bombarding the pizzeria with unrelated RNA messages that can cancel a cheese delivery, pay the dishwasher nine million dollars, or email the secret sauce recipe to WikiLeaks.
Monsanto's claim that human toxicology tests are unwarranted is based on the doctrine of "substantial equivalence." This term is used around the world as the basis of regulations designed to facilitate the rapid commercialization of genetically engineered foods, by sparing them from extensive safety testing.
According to substantial equivalence, comparisons between GM and non-GM crops need only investigate the end products of DNA translation: the pizza, as it were. "There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods," Monsanto's website reads. "DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard."
The Chinese RNA study threatens to blast a major hole in that claim. It means that DNA can code for microRNA, which can, in fact, be hazardous.
"So long as the introduced protein is determined to be safe, food from GM crops determined to be substantially equivalent is not expected to pose any health risks," Monsanto's website goes on. In other words, as long as the pizza is OK, the introduced DNA doesn't pose a problem.
Chen-Yu Zhang, the lead researcher on the Chinese RNA study, has made no comment regarding the implications of his work for the debate over the safety of GM food. Nonetheless, his discoveries give shape to concerns about substantial equivalence that have been raised for years.
In 1999, a group of scientists wrote a now-landmark letter titled "Beyond Substantial Equivalence" to the prestigious journal Nature. In the letter, Erik Millstone et. al. called substantial equivalence "a pseudo-scientific concept" that is "inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests."
To these charges, Monsanto responded: "The concept of substantial equivalence was elaborated by international scientific and regulatory experts convened by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1991, well before any biotechnology products were ready for market.
This response is less a rebuttal than a testimonial to Monsanto's marketing prowess. Establishing the concept of substantial equivalence worldwide was a prerequisite to the global commercialization of GM crops. It created a legal framework for selling GM foods anywhere in the world that substantial equivalence was accepted. By the time substantial equivalence was adopted, Monsanto had already developed numerous GM crops and was actively grooming them for market.
The OECD's 34 member nations could be described as largely rich, white, developed, and sympathetic to big business. The group's current mission is to spread economic development to the rest of the world. And while that mission has yet to be accomplished, OECD has helped Monsanto spread substantial equivalence to the rest of the world, selling a lot of GM seed along the way.
The news that we're ingesting information as well as physical material should force the biotech industry to confront the possibility that new DNA can have dangerous implications far beyond the products it codes for. Can we count on the biotech industry to accept the notion that more testing is necessary? Not if such action is perceived as a threat to the bottom line.

Stop Shrinking My Food - the continuing saga

I've written about this before.  But, since new stories keep emerging, I'll keep writing.  


Food companies are shrinking packages as a way of increasing prices without actually increasing prices.  They say they're holding the line on price increases, but since you're getting less, the price per ounce is going up - often by quite a bit.


Among the problems with this are the increase in packaging per same amount of food, increasing the cost of freight, etc.  Personally, I think each food item has an ideal size, and that's what it should remain at.  What happens after they can't shrink anymore?  "New larger size!" they're sure to boast.  What they'll omit is that it's the same size they sold you five or ten years ago, but now the price is two or three times as much.

From The Consumerist:

Myron Reducto is at it again, turning his Grocery Shrink Ray Gun on Odwalla juice, zapping it down to 12 oz from 15. The price is the same. Like other food packagers, Odwalla is combining the shrinkage with a packaging redesign that it hopes will get more press. In this case, they are simultaneously rolling out bottles that are made from 100% plant based HDPE plastic.

The incredibly shrinking food packages

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one noticing it.

 

And this from Consumer Reports:

Stop shrinking my food!

If you're the slightest bit observant, you've noticed how the product sizes in your grocery cart are getting smaller.  Is this a move by the food industry to combat your expanding waistline?  No, it's their way of sneaking in price increases without actually raising the posted price of an item. 

So your can of tuna, which was 6 oz. about a year ago is now 5 oz.  The price looks the same, but since there's 17% less product in the can, you're paying 20% more per ounce than before.

From orange juice to kielbasa, soup to nuts, and everything in between, look at the sizes of the products you're buying.  The odds are good that they've all gotten smaller.

I recently wrote to Classico about their Pesto Sauce.  It was pretty obvious the jar was smaller, and my suspicion was confirmed when I compared it to the older one in my food cabinet.  I was dismayed by the response I received. Either they're using the same spin doctors that politicians use to craft their double speak, or they've been duped themselves into believe the bogus claims they spew out.

Someone from the "Heinz Consumer Resource Center" wrote that "the cost of our ingredients and the materials used to make our jars and lids have risen considerably."  Odd they should say that, given that the Producer Price Index (PPI) hasn't increased much.  In fact, the PPI for the "Fruit and Vegetable Canning" industry was lower in October 2010 than it was in October 2008!

Then this corporate hack proceeded to claim that "'the smaller jar size' also had a positive impact on the environment because it reduced Classico's carbon footprint, since less glass means less fuel used in transportation."  Huh?  The smaller size means more glass and metal per ounce of product.  On an ounce-by-ounce basis, they've actually increased their carbon footprint!

Classico's blatant price increase means I just have to buy more jars to get the same amount of product.  But what about Hillshire Farms kielbasa?  They cut their size from 16 oz. to 14 oz.  But when you buy a jambalaya mix or open your cookbook for a kielbasa recipe, it calls for one pound (16 oz.) of meat.  So now you can't even make your favorite dishes the same way.  And you're paying more per ounce for your food.

I don't think any of these companies gave this move enough thought.  First of all, why do they need to raise prices in a tough economic situation when their costs aren't going up?  Secondly, how often can they do this before we're buying miniature sizes of everything?

I know what's going to happen.  Maybe they'll slash the sizes again to sneak through another price increase.  But eventually they'll have to return to the original size.  And I guarantee you they'll splash a big banner on the label that says "new, larger size!"