Retail

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Skimpflation Hits Imperial Margarine

We told you a couple of years ago how Conagra inconspicuously reformulated Smart Balance margarine by reducing its fat content from 64% to 39%.

Now comes the Flora Food Group (formerly Upfield), the maker of Imperial margarine, tinkering with the recipe for its product.

When it was advertised in the ’70s, Imperial had 80% vegetable oil, tasted like butter they said, and made you “feel like a king.”

Boy how times have changed. (For purposes of this story, we will still refer to the product as “margarine” although it no longer meets the legal definition since it has less than 80% fat.)

*MOUSE PRINT:

Imperial margarine

The most recent previous version had 53% vegetable oil. Clearly there had to have been many interim versions to get from 80% down to just 53%. Now, the current version has only 48%. And the calories dropped from 70 per tablespoon down to 60.

How did they accomplish this? Like Smart Balance, they literally watered down the product. Looking at the nutrition label reveals the change.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Imperial nutrition label

In the previous version of Imperial, vegetable oil was the primary ingredient. In the current version, water predominates. But strangely, the fat content remains seven grams per serving. How is that possible?

We asked Flora for an explanation. All a company spokesperson would say is:

Regarding the nutritional information on the label, the serving size and nutritional values are determined through detailed analytical testing in accordance with FDA guidelines. While the overall fat content of the product has been adjusted, the fat content per serving is declared accurately in accordance with FDA guidelines.

Perhaps it is a rounding issue on the number of grams of fat. Who knows?

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

CT Bill Would Require Shrinkflation Notices for Products

shrinkflationA bill to regulate shrinking products was recently filed by the Connecticut Attorney General. It is one of the first of its kind pieces of state legislation in the United States. (Some other countries have laws requiring disclosure when a product is downsized.)

The proposed law in Connecticut does not ban shrinkflation, but is a disclosure law requiring notice to shoppers if a product now contains less than it did but the price has not dropped proportionately.

In particular, it says in abbreviated form:

*MOUSE PRINT:

(Effective July 1, 2025) (a) No vendor shall downsize, or reduce the quantity, amount, weight or size of, any consumer product, unless such vendor: (1) Reduces the price charged for such consumer product by an amount that is commensurate with such downsizing or reduction; or (2) Clearly and conspicuously discloses that such vendor has made such downsizing or reduction during the twelve-month period beginning on the date on which (A) the downsized consumer product is first sold, or (B) the consumer product is first sold in such reduced quantity, amount, weight or size.

That last part is not clear, but what is certain is that the “vendor” has to clearly disclose that the product has been downsized. Missing are details like what form the notice has to take, where it has to be displayed (like on the package or shelf), and what specifically has to be told to the consumer other than the fact that the product now contains less. Presumably regulations by the attorney general’s office will have to be promulgated, and I would advocate that they should require a statement that includes the old size or the percentage reduction in size.

Who is responsible for the disclosure? According to the bill, the “vendor” is. “Vendor” is defined as including the distributor, manufacturer, retailer, supplier or wholesaler. So both the manufacturer and retailer would have responsibility for making the required disclosure.

Good luck getting this bill passed, Connecticut. Expect huge opposition from the businesses affected.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Valentine’s Day Candy Hearts May Mislead

Little has changed in the Valentine’s Day candy business since we called out companies two years ago for grossly overpackaging their large heart-shaped boxes given the few pieces of chocolate inside.

Perusing the candy aisles last week, MrConsumer found the same large Russell Stover candy heart — 10 inches high — still with only 9 pieces of chocolate inside for $7.99.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Russell Stover heart with 9 pieces of chocolate

You would think, however, that a better brand charging $20 a box wouldn’t play these games. Think again.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Lindt Valentine's heart

This big box of Lindt chocolate isn’t even half a pound and only has 12 pieces. At least some brands are putting the number of chocolates inside right on the front of the box.

Others make you do the math by checking the nutrition facts statement and multiplying the serving size by the number of servings in the package. This Ghirardelli box, which is only 5.5 ounces, has 15 pieces of chocolate. They must be very small. And this large Godiva box has only four ounces of tiny chocolates for $18.99.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Ghirardelli heart

Godiva heart

It seems like manufacturers strive to maximize the box size while minimizing the contents. So don’t let their large packages deceive or embarrass you. Check what’s actually inside before you buy.

And if you find that chocolate hearts are just not your thing this year, the Walgreens online weekly ad has some other gift suggestions for your valentine. Warning: risqué content…not for prudes!