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?

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Total Wireless’ Too-Good-to-Be-True Offer

It sounded like such a great deal from Total Wireless: $25 a month for cell service on four lines, taxes and fees included, and four free 5G phones.

Here’s their commercial:

Apparently, that is not the real offer. The free phones part of the offer is for more expensive plans and not the $25 a month plan. Who could tell that? And, it is not in the unreadable fine print either.

But the National Advertising Division (NAD) of Better Business Bureau Programs figured it out and ruled against Total Wireless.

NAD determined that the phrase, “and to top it all off, we’ll give you up to four free 5G phones,” implies the last part of a single offer. NAD determined that the commercial conveys the unsupported message that Total Wireless customers can get both four lines of wireless service for $25 per month and get four free 5G phones regardless of the plan they select, and recommended Total Wireless modify its advertising to avoid conveying such a message.

Total Wireless is part of Tracfone, owned by Verizon. The company said it disagreed with NAD’s decision, but would abide by it in the future.

Share this story:

 

ADV
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.

Share this story:

 

ADV