Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Here We Shrink Again – Summer 2024 – Part 1

Some big brands are continuing to downsize their products despite some easing of the inflation rate… so shrinkflation continues. Here is the latest batch of products that have gotten smaller, and next week we’ll feature more.

Tropicana Orange Juice

This is a big one in a category that has seen so many downsizings over the years. Remember when you could always buy half a gallon of orange juice? Those days are long gone (except for a few store brands). Tropicana has gone from 64 ounces to 59 ounces to 52 ounces and now to 46 ounces, depending on which size the retailer wants to stock.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Tropicana 52 ounces to 46

Here, they don’t even pretend to keep the carafe looking roughly the same. In their current product line, they have eliminated the 52-ounce carafe and substituted a 46-ounce unimaginative bottle. These are all the container sizes they are now offering:

Tropicana sizes

Thanks to Edward E. who was the first to spot the Tropicana change, and to Barry R. for the photograph.

And it is not just their orange juice that has downsized… other beverages lost six ounces also, like this limeade.

Tropicana limeade

Kashi Go Cereal

People may think of Kashi as a new-age type of company but with old-fashioned values. They are actually owned by Kellogg’s, which has been playing cereal shrinkflation games full time in the past several months. This example comes from Sean M. (Boston Globe readers may be able to figure out who he is) who was distressed to find that his favorite morning cereal went from 13 ounces down to just 9.7 ounces. While you used to get six bowls of cereal out of every box, now there are only four.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Kashi Go

At the same time the company shrank the product, they also reformulated it. And consumers are not very happy — posting nearly four dozen one-star reviews on their website.

Purina Pro Plan Veterinary Diets

Bruce B. forwarded an email to us from Chewy announcing that Purina was downsizing its kidney function dry dog food in the next couple of months:

Purina warning via Chewy

That’s a 26-percent reduction with no decrease in price. Yikes.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Purina Kidney

Kellogg’s Frosted Mini-Wheats

Leif S. and Phil K. discovered that Kellogg’s removed two ounces from Frosted Mini Wheats between the middle of June and the beginning of July. Thanks for this picture that we annotated.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Kellogg's Frosted Mini Wheats

Walmart Whole Almonds

Our ace shrinkflation spotter, Richard G., found a major size reduction on Walmart’s Great Value Whole Almonds. They went from a 30-ounce bag to one that was only 25 ounces. And the price stayed the same at $7.98. The one-pound bag also lost two ounces.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Walmart whole almonds

Downy Fabric Softener

Brendan B. found a big change in Downy fabric softener at Sam’s Club. The old one was 170 ounces and provided 251 loads. The new version was the same price, with 20 fewer ounces. but supposedly provided 257 loads. The new equation must be less = more.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Downy

And who knows what “5x softening power” and “7x softening power” really mean. Further, to add to the confusion, in conventional stores like Target, there is a 140-ounce size of Downy and it only gets 190 loads. That’s 67 fewer loads with only a 10-oz. loss of liquid?

Kellogg’s Fruit and Yogurt

Shoppers lost about a bowl of cereal in each box of Kellogg’s Fruit and Yogurt. And note how the new box is actually taller than the old box. How did they do that? They made the new box more narrow.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Kellogg's Fruit & Yogurt

Clif Bars

Clif Bar has reduced the number of bars in each box. In the case of the old 12 packs, there are now only 10 bars. And the six bar pack is down to only five. Thanks to Richard G. for spotting this.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Clif bars

Signature Oatmeal Packets

Following Quaker’s lead, Albertson Companies’ store brand, Signature, found at their various chains around the country including Star Market and Shaw’s in the Boston area, has reduced the number of packets in their oatmeal packages from 10 to a box to just eight. And the price stayed the same.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Signature Oatmeal

If you spot a product that has recently downsized, please try to take a picture of the old one and the new one showing the net weight or net count statements. Then email your find to Edgar (at symbol) MousePrint.org . Thanks!

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

When Boneless Wings Had Bones And Caused Injury, A Consumer Sued

Back in 2016, an Ohio consumer went to a family-owned restaurant and ordered his usual — boneless wings. After eating some of them, one bite went down the wrong way and got stuck in his throat. A few days later, still having the problem and now a fever, he went to the emergency room. There, doctors discovered that a 1-3/8th inch chicken bone had pierced his esophogus causing an infection and other medical issues.

So the consumer sued the restaurant, the restaurant supply house, and the farm where the chicken came from.

The lower court and appeals court both ruled against the consumer. And last week, the Ohio Supreme Court did the same thing.

It its decision, the high court applied two tests to help determine fault. One is the foreign-natural test: “whether the injurious substance found in the food was foreign to or natural to the food.” Ohio courts have determined that if a foreign object like a stone or piece of glass is unexpectedly found in food, then the restaurant may be liable. In this case, finding a piece of a bone in a slice of breaded chicken breast is naturally occurring and would not rise to the level of negligence in their view.

The second test that the court applied is the reasonable expectation test. Ohio courts say they use both these tests to determine liability.

*MOUSE PRINT:

To determine whether a supplier of food breached its duty of care by failing to eliminate an injurious substance from the food, we look to whether the presence of the substance was something that the consumer could have reasonably expected and thus could have guarded against. And whether the substance was foreign to or natural to the food is relevant to determining what the consumer could have reasonably expected.

The consumer had claimed that since the restaurant advertised its food as boneless wings, they should have been boneless. The Supreme Court, going a bit off the rails, replied:

… it is common sense that that label [boneless wings] was merely a description of the cooking style. A diner reading “boneless wings” on a menu would no more believe that the restaurant was warranting the absence of bones in the items than believe that the items were made from chicken wings, just as a person eating “chicken fingers” would know that he had not been served fingers. The food item’s label on the menu described a cooking style; it was not a guarantee.

The majority of the judges ultimately ruled that the consumer could have reasonably expected and guarded against the naturally occurring object (the bone). But the minority was very vocal in their disagreement. They said just because an object is natural doesn’t mean it could be anticipated by the average consumer in the finished product.

The minority categorized the majority’s assertion that “boneless wings” was merely a cooking style as “jabberwocky.” They believed that a jury should have been given the opportunity to determine if this consumer could reasonably have expected there to be bones in his boneless wings, and whether the restaurant and its suppliers were negligent.

What do you think?

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

This Coppertone Sunscreen Is Not So Special

A while back, a California consumer sued the makers of Coppertone sunscreen for deceptive practices alleging she overpaid for their product.

In her complaint, the consumer said she bought Coppertone Sport Mineral “Face” at twice the price of the regular version believing it was specially formulated for use on one’s face. The label said “Won’t Run Into Eyes” and “Oil Free.” Sometime thereafter she learned that the “face” product was identical to the regular Coppertone Sport Mineral product but cost twice as much.

Coppertone[Not to scale… Enlarged for readability]

*MOUSE PRINT:

Her lawyers assert:

Based on the prominent “FACE” marking and face-specific representations on the front label of the Coppertone Sport Mineral FACE products, reasonable consumers believe that the lotion is specifically formulated for use on the face. In other words, reasonable consumers believe that there is something different about the Coppertone Sport Mineral FACE lotion that makes it better suited for use on the face, as compared to regular Coppertone Sport Mineral lotion.

The pricing of Coppertone Sport Mineral FACE reinforces this reasonable belief. Per ounce, Coppertone Sport Mineral FACE costs twice as much as regular Coppertone Sport Mineral.

In short, Defendant is tricking consumers into thinking they are buying sunscreen lotion specially formulated for the face, when in reality, they are just buying Defendant’s regular Sport Mineral sunscreen in a smaller—and far more expensive bottle.

For its part, the company admits that the formulation of the two products is identical but marketed in two different packages. They say everything they state on the package is absolutely true, there is no deception, and the case should be dismissed.

The case has not been resolved yet.

We have previously reported how Excedrin sells several versions of its pain relievers all with the exact same ingredients but markets them for various different uses, such as for migraines or menstrual cramps.

So what do you think? Is it deceptive for a company to market the exact same product in two different ways, and charge twice the price for the one presented as a specialty use?

Share this story:

 

ADV