• @AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    35 months ago

    Executive branch regulation can and should enforce honesty and transparency about changes, including shrinking package size. Then it’s up to consumers to vote with their wallets

    • FuglyDuck
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15 months ago

      You mean… like printing content measurements on the package?

      Not saying shrinkflation isn’t wrong, but interfering in private enterprise to that extent is both illegal and excessive.

      You wouldn’t want to live in a country where the chief executive has that kind of power.

      • @AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        15 months ago

        Shrinkflation may be a valid business choice: misleading the customer should not be. Yes the label was required, which is a great starting point, but if the box appears the same size, who looks at the label? If the old size is not present, what do you compare with? Are you holding the customer responsible for memorizing the net weight for every product over the time range they may use it?

        You want to reduce the size, that’s your choice, but honesty means the customer will notice

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          If the old size is not present, what do you compare with?

          the relevant regulations that mandate package weight in the US has been a thing longer than I’ve been alive. So you compare it to the weight of the old package.

          There’s also some justification for using the same size packaging- they’d have to retool some of the filling machines, for example. or at least, adjust them, which adds increased associated production costs. But again, you’re talking about a government executive pushing extremely intrusive interference into a company’s operations.

          Is shrinkflation pretty scummy? absolutely. but there’s really no workable way to stop it, that doesn’t have a lot of much worse consequences.