The reason downsizing is so offensive is the underlying fact that manufacturers are hoping that the consumer will not notice any change and continue to buy their product. They do not want us to change brands, so every attempt is made to hide the price change. They will often leave packaging the same and reduce contents, change packaging leaving the size the same, then at a slightly later date reduce the size, flash some buzz words like “New Improved Scentâ€ or “No Preservativesâ€ to distract us, and even change the font size and location of the package’s weight. For most of us the change continues unnoticed until the day we discover that roll of toilet paper is being changed way too fast. The example of Tide is maybe not one of the best to use as many detergent changes get same results using less of the contents. There are many examples where the reduction does not give you the same usage. As I mentioned above toilet paper is a prime example. While assisting a cleanup at a friend's deceased aunt’s house, we can across a misplaced package of toilet paper from pre 1980's. The STANDARD SHEET count was 480 per roll. I am old enough to remember standard counts of 400 per roll but missed the 16% sheet reduction. We must also keep in mind that a 16% reduction will require you to spend an additional 20% to get the sheet lost back (80 sheets / 400 sheets/roll * 100=20%) I find it funny that today a 400-sheet roll is referred to as a double roll as it is smaller than an old single roll. Today I went to buy some yogurt. The brand I USED TO BUY was $2.50 for 750 grams. The same product is on the shelf today for $2.50 but contains only 650 grams. There was no packaging change to the yogurt except the weight is lower and the words “No Fatâ€ are 50% larger. In short, to get the 100 grams back I will have to pay an additional 39 cents (100 grams / 650grams/pkg * 100 =15.38% increase) The downsizing problem is wide spread and most people will say there is nothing we can do about it. Basically they are right, but we do have some control on the package laws. Have you ever notice when a product provides what the manufacturer deems as an improvement, a good portion of the packaging indicates this to you? NEW BIGGER SIZE ... MORE RAISINS .... and my favorite “FEWER CALORIESâ€ ... a chocolate bar that is Â½ the size but sells for the price of the full bar (the full bars almost doubled in price a couple of weeks later ). I cannot remember a company ever flashing “NEW LOWER VALUEâ€ ... “NOW HIGHER PRICEDâ€ ... “LESS FOR YOUR DOLLARâ€ and maybe it is time to force them to do this! I believe packaging laws should ensure consumers are aware of changes in a products value. Packing laws should impose a 3 month notice placed on any product that changes its size. The notice should be visible on the front of the package, have predefined color and sizing to indicating the change. Three border colors should be used: - Green, when a manufacturer increases the contents you get - Yellow, when a manufacturer decreases the contents but the same usage can be obtained, such as when a laundry soap improves its cleaning power and requires less per load. - Red, when the manufacturer decreases the content size. I am sure some manufacturers would argue that a change to include this indication would be unfair, but they could always include comments somewhere on their package explaining the reason for the change. I buy a lot of lumber and have seen numerous price increases, but a standard sheet of plywood is still 4 feet by eight feet. I cannot even image buying a standard sheet of plywood and getting a sheet 6 feet by 3 feet. Why manufactures feel downsizing is acceptable is beyond me and whenever possible I stop supporting them. Inflation will always drive costs up and consumers have a right to expect increases to be clearly visible.