Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shrinkflation Tracker

shrinkflation.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 240 posts

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#111

Post by sgu999 »

Nice project, very clean etc.

Now about that shrinkflation thing... There isn't a single product in that list that is actually healthy. Highly processed food is horrible for us and our environment, and the gigantic conglomerates making and selling them are a plague to our economies.

Veggies at my local farmers' market didn't shrink in size, prices went up slightly for some and it's very visible from the tag. Same goes for the bread I buy at the bakery, and the pasta I get in bulk in a small store nearby. If you have no choice but to rely on these products bought in a supermarket, you've been conned way before shrinkflation hit.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#113

Post by chongli »

wppick wrote: post #97

Another source of shrinkflation is changing ingredients. Something that used to be 50% water is now 75% water as an example. Another is changing from olive oil to canola or palm or, and things like that.

One of the worst offenders in this regard is packages of frozen meat products such as chicken wings, chicken fingers, nuggets, etc. They used to just contain the breaded meat with the net weight printed on the box (usually 2 lb).

Now they've started including frozen sauce packets as well. I've weighed some of these and found, for example, a 2 lb box of chicken wings that comes with more than half a pound of buffalo sauce. The net weight stays the same (2 lb) but if you weigh the chicken you're getting less than 1.5 lb of meat! The rest is all sauce!

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#114

Post by KomoD »

ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #55

Love the idea, but how far back do the data go? And someone pointed out the preponderance of junk food; I want to see core items that are often used in recipes. To me this is the most offensive aspect of these scams: You know your favorite recipe takes four cans of tomatoes, cans that have been the same size for decades. Now... WHOOPS, your meal is messed up because the manufacturer is too gutless to simply raise the…

> but how far back do the data go?

Anywhere from 1297 to 9248 apparently, I guess he must have some kind of time traveler

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#115

Post by throwanem »

sgu999 wrote: post #111

Nice project, very clean etc. Now about that shrinkflation thing... There isn't a single product in that list that is actually healthy. Highly processed food is horrible for us and our environment, and the gigantic conglomerates making and selling them are a plague to our economies. Veggies at my local farmers' market didn't shrink in size, prices went up slightly for some and it's very visible from the tag. Same goe…

Toothpaste and soap aren't healthy?

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#116

Post by prepend »

sgu999 wrote: post #111

Nice project, very clean etc. Now about that shrinkflation thing... There isn't a single product in that list that is actually healthy. Highly processed food is horrible for us and our environment, and the gigantic conglomerates making and selling them are a plague to our economies. Veggies at my local farmers' market didn't shrink in size, prices went up slightly for some and it's very visible from the tag. Same goe…

I don’t rely on candy. I enjoy it a few times per year.

It sucks that Cadbury eggs get smaller and smaller. Not because I need their nutrients to survive.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#117

Post by chongli »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #8
ilyt wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, till you need to get 2 burgers instead of one to feel full...

That is the point, people eat fewer burgers because they cannot afford more.

This has not worked out so well for other products. I live in Canada where cigarettes are enormously expensive due to taxes. Yet I know people who continue to smoke.

They're a lot poorer now, and so they have less money to spend on healthy food. So not only are they destroying their health by smoking, they're stuck eating crappy food as well.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#119

Post by prepend »

alex_young wrote: post #110

I don't really understand the recent focus on this. Shrinkflation has always been a thing, and it seems like it shouldn't be strongly correlated with actual inflation, since the critical equation is something like how much material should a given product contain to provide enough value to consumers, or in other words it's equally advantageous to optimize the value of your product in times of low or high inflation and…

It’s not a recent focus, it’s a continual focus.

Shrinkflation is important for understanding true price increase. It’s not enough to say “toothpaste went up 20%” in price because you really want to know “toothpaste went up 35% based on weight.”

It’s also frustrating because it’s just another level of bullshit to sift through when shopping. It would be nice if manufacturers and retailers didn’t do this.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#120

Post by ajsnigrutin »

In an ideal world, one UPC code would identify only one product with one set of ingredients and one weight. Want to make a "+20% free!" package? New UPC! Want to change the contents from 16% cacao to 14% cacao and some more sugar? Sure, new UPC.

The manufacturers would have to publish the contents for each UPC in a machine readable format.

Then the retailers would have to publish daily prices, again in a machine redable format.

...and the world would be a much nicer place for the consumer. Everyone could build apps on top of that, you could compare retailers, comparable items could be crowdsourced (eg, 1L of 3.5% fat milk and a list of all UPCs for that), shopping list apps could calculate the cheapest options to choose the cheapest store, or in cases with multiple stores in a cluster, tell you what to buy where, etc.

And the best thing is, that nobody actually regulates any prices or item sizes, just the consumer gets more informed.

Post reply on HN