Maybe they will be fooled into losing some weight.

And when your recipe calls for "2 cans of kidney beans" or the like, are you going to need to figure out what the standard for "a can" was at that point in time so you know how many cans to buy of what the standard size is now?

Just about everyone I spoke with said they'd rather pay a higher price than get less for the same price. As Princess Bride said above, as well as the three-boxes of spaghetti woman in the article, this screws with the way you cook. Remember the 6 oz. bar of chocolate? Well, the recipe still calls for it. But the bar is now 3.5 oz, sometimes 3.75, depending on the brand. So for that home-made gourmet chocolate pudding I make, I now need two bars, minus three squares, if the chocolate is Lindt bitter sweet. If I can't get Lindt, and buy Ghirardelli instead, I may be getting a slightly smaller or larger bar, pre-formed into different-sized squares. You get the point.

What makes me so angry is not the higher prices, but the basic dishonesty of it all. And not just because of smaller packets made to look bigger. The other day I bought something that said, directly under the brand name, "No sugar to add." Obviously, they want you to look at it and read "No sugar added." Then there are the "8 Whole Grain Waffles" that turn out to be 6 waffles, made of 8 grains. But the way it's printed on the box is totally deceptive, making it look like you're getting 8.

Someone once said that an optimist is someone who expects the candy bar to be the same size as the package. But I don't think even the worst pessimist would expect half or more of the package to be air.

It's a sign of the times, I think. No honesty, no integrity in most of the business community, and a great big target painted on the back of the consumer.

They aren't fooling anyone. I noticed the difference for years now. When a case of soda is no longer a case it's a twenty pack. When a roll of toilet paper comes in a new size or they change the width or number of sheets. When a bag of potato chips is over half air but put up to an incredible price so they can discount it to get you used to thinking you are getting a bargain. Or when they say the Europeans are used to paying $8.00 a gallon for gas so don't complain about paying $5.00. I really like it when the government says excluding the volital food and fuel indexes inflation is at zero per cent. Of course nobody eats anything or drives anywhere and no they are not shrinking the packages. (Sarcasm) I actually do things about the situation. I planted thirty fruit trees and am expanding my garden. Stop by and buy some fruit for $1.00 a pound.

There is no inflation, the government has said so, there is no inflation you can substitute soy for meat, corn should not be used for feed, it is needed to make ethanol, use powdered eggs instead of real eggs; this inflation is just your imagination, our government would not try to fool us, they are there to guide us children , there is no inflation, keep saying it , big brother is watching over you, corporations are our best friends, Congress knows best (are you hypnotized yet ) !

Talheur, read again, and more carefully. This is NOT about prices, or sizes, or packaging. It's about DECEPTIVE PRACTICES and dishonesty. Did you read my first sentence? It said: just about everyone I talked to said they'd prefer a higher price for the same sized package, and then I went on to EXPLAIN WHY.

This is not about companies charging more for less, it's about them doing everything they can to deceive the consumer into thinking nothing's changed. It's not just highly dishonest, it's an enormous disservice to the consumer. As that mom who could no longer feed her family on three boxes of pasta found out. I'm sure she'd rather have paid a few extra pennies for the old-sized box, rather than come up short at dinner. Get it?

Less food = smaller people. Just like in the Middle Ages. When 5'-2" is considered tall, those reduced sized packages will look HUGE!

what gets me is the price of corn (or whatever ingredients) goes up and they blame that for the increase in prices in the store, then they lower the price farmers get, but don't lower the price in the store.

That box of cornflakes you had for breakfast this morning has only around 5 cents worth of corn even with the increase in farm price. http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2007/08/27/cost-of-corn-in-a-box-of-corn-flakes-22-cents-why-are-corn-prices-being-blamed-for-food-price-increases/

That gallon of skim milk you just spent nearly $4 for? Right now that milk price is the highest it's ever been, yet the farmer only gets $1.67 and that $4 is after all the fat has been removed and sold for butter.

We're getting taken for a ride folks.

Jeff brings up a good point. Europeans are used to paying $8 at the pump, but they have established mass transit systems that are state subsidized and the towns are small enough that they don't have to drive.
It's a lot like living in Manhattan, very few people in the city of New York need cars. Even if they live outside the metro, they park and take the subway or train into town.
Those of us who live and work in the midwest are required to have a car, if we are lucky enough to live within biking distance, the point is mute.
The point I am making is; transportation is driving this train. The additional costs of transporting food and goods is the reason for the out-of-control inflation and "shortening" of rations. After Bush ignored the economy for 8 years and allowed the oil complanies free reign in establishing "profit-margins" on oil and oil products, we the consumers are left to bear the brunt of the costs. Until the government steps in and applies pressure, both here and over seas to get the prices back down to reasonable levels, we are going to continue to see higher and higher prices and shorter "rations".

I still say we don't have inflation, Ben told me so. As long as we don't have to eat, drink, go to the doctor, go to school, drive to work, and as long as we get our cheap i phones and i pads, we are A-OK.

talheure - my, aren't you a bitter soul? Why did you decide to attack Eve in particular?

The article is about deceptive practices of manufacturers, not whether they are consistent with how much of an item is packaged or if they change prices. Personally, I would prefer that the packaging remain the same and that the price is increased. At least that method approaches honesty on the part of the manufacturer.

Eve in no way suggested that manufacturers owe the consumer products that are packaged in the precise right size for our recipes. She didn't even hint at that. If you cooked, you would know that many recipes, especially those old recipes from our grandmothers that we cherish, often call for "a small bottle of vanilla" or one package of chocolate. Since the recipe does not specify weight or volume, there is no way to know how much to add. I used to assume that this is a peculiarity of old recipes and antique cookbooks, but have noticed that modern women still are often not specific enough so that a recipe is exactly reproducible. I solve the problem in my own kitchen by keeping precise records of weights and volumes added to a recipe when I cook so that the next time I make the dish I will know exactly how to reproduce it. That way, if a manufacturer changes the amount it packages my dish is not affected.

One item that the article did not mention is that manufacturers are deceptive when packaging variations on the same product that differ by only one ingredient. For example, Fage yogurt is produced with whole milk, 2% milk and skim milk. All are packaged in seemingly identical packages with the only noticeable different being the large lettering on the label that states 2% milk, etc. However, look more closely and one will see that the skim milk yogurt comes in a 6 ounce container and the other two varieties come in 7 ounce containers. The only way that I ever noticed a difference was when I was stacking the containers for recycling and found that the 2% containers will not fit inside the skim milk containers. The manufacturer does this because it knows that people mindlessly reach for the fat free product, so they are making an additional profit on the fat free product for something that does not cost them more to make. Danon yogurt tried the same BS a few years ago when they downsized their packaging from 8 ounces to 6 ounces and claimed that consumers were requesting a "snack size" container. Problem is that they did not reduce the price accordingly. Solution...I completely stopped buying Danon yogurt. That was to my advantage because I discovered Fage, which is better. My next step is to start making my own.

Has anyone been to In & Out Burger lately? Their prices have stayed the same, but the same thing can not be said for the size of their burgers! Anyone besides me remember when it actually took two hands to handle the Whopper, back before the 1982 recession? Is it just me or are many things that we buy getting smaller lately?

You think things are bad now, wait until the dollar is replaced as the world's reserve currency and inflation really settles in. The question then won't be on portions, but how many cans of corn can you get with an ounce of silver.

To strictly blame consumers is inane. Don't talk unless you read the entire label of every package of everything you buy every time you go to the store. Don't do that? Yeah, didn't think so.

Having said that, people should at least have been aware enough to notice something was up. This has been going on for a while. For my family, it has given us the opportunity to be smarter shoppers. And after a while, you learn to buy less of what you don't really need anyway. We've eliminated soda entirely from our diet over the years. Treats are down to, basically, one thing per trip (usually ice cream) and we spend on that. Certainly beats the craving of needing something sweet every single night. We drink less coffee. Eat less bread. And yes, we spend more on veggies and fruits who's price has gone up. But we make up for it in buying meat in a smarter way. Net ends up our grocery bill has somewhat gone up, but really not that much.

I think this is going to be a long term problem, so people have to come up with ways to deal if they haven't already.

Way back when coffee was really expense, it dropped down to 13 ounces. The latest changes have been going on hot and heavy for almost 2 years. Duhh, and now somebody notices it. Yeah, let's keep devalueing the dollar and watch prices skyrocket at WalMart.

There is no inflation because the decline in the housing market is factored in.

There is so much myopia sprawled across these boards borne of an inherent and decided distrust of corporations. Flat out, what do you want them to do? The price of raw materials/resources is growing and the price of energy is increasing, all creating more expensive manufacturing. Couple in the rising price of fuel, and now even transport and delivery have become astronomically higher. In order to maintain sustainable revenue, you need to increase the cost of the product. This is Economics 101.

People (yes, you know... like you and me) pay tens of thousands of dollars to gain an education on sociology and best marketing practices so that they can work for a major corporation, recomp their student loans and make a living. These educated and seasoned professionals have decided (rightly so, according to the article) that the best way to maintain revenue and market acceptance is to reduce per volume packaging. I'm not going to pretend to know more than the people who have dedicated their lives to studying market performance. I have not; I'm a bartender.

As a bartender, however, if the owner says we need to cut costs because a bottle of Goose has gone up per inflation and our current pour levels are financially unsustainable (i.e. pour smarter or we close), then I know to drop the level of a martini a smidge, weigh more on the dirtier side when one is ordered that way, increase my use of tonic or mixers in the appropriate drinks, and maybe we can get an extra drink or two out of each bottle. That goes a long way over the course of 52 weeks.

Inflation hits everybody, small business owners and corporations, as well as individual consumers. Mind you these are businesses that exist because they make money; that's kind of their lot in society... to make money so that they can maintain employment and provide jobs to "the little guy" as you'd like to romanticize him. All this rash abasement of the practice referenced in this article fails to appreciate that corporations are actually a construct of real people, and are equally as subjected to market increases as are consumers.

Hey everyone! So, there's really not much I can add to the discussion of food price increases or the devious size shrinkages, but I wanted to throw my two and a half cents in here about how our family manages things!

Over the past 4 years (or so), we have become our extended family's 'hippies'! Yeah, it's true. And I'm sure that will not come as any surprise to those who catch some of my other posts on political issues! LOL! But my purpose for 'going natural' has more to do with healthy living and some fiscal frugality than any disdain for corporate America! (Don't worry, I gripe about them just as much!) As a doctor, I am sick and tired (no pun) of our collective health in this country going down the cruddy tubes! so here's what we have done thus far.....

1) Chickens! Raise chickens if you don't already! Now, this will be hard or impossible for some, especially if you live in the city. But raising chickens is simple! They generally take less effort to raise than a dog or cat!! I keep 7 Rhode Island Reds for eggs, which yields about 3 dozen eggs a week in the summer! I'm adding 6 more Buff Orpingtons for eggs this year, and will raise a dozen meat-birds this summer in my backyard! I only have to feed/water them every other day, I clean out their coop once a month, and they tend to themselves for the most part! This is becoming big, folks! A magazine I love called Backyard Chickens recently stated that over 500 towns and cities in the past 2 years have revised their ordinances to allow chickens in people's yards! My 7 birds eat about one 50-lb bag of grain every month which runs me about $14. Join the movement! You can also easily and cheaply raise rabbits for meat. They reproduce CONSTANTLY (obviously, lol!), and with the right set-up you can have fresh rabbit meat (tastes like chicken!) every 4-6 weeks from a hutch containing 15-20 rabbits.

2) Soaps and cleaning agents! I make my own soaps! It's SO easy! It takes me about 20 minutes to whip up a batch of castile soap in my kitchen, and runs me about $6-7. I only use olive oil, coconut oil, lye and water for my plain batches. I buy in bulk, and the raw ingredients will last forever. This batch yields about 15-20 large bars of soap. I use ONE bar to make a 5-gallon bucket of laundry detergent, along with a cup of borax, and a cup of washing soda! It costs me about $4 for a 5-gal bucket!!! For the rest of my house I clean with vinegar (lots, doesnt smell when dry!), rubbing alcohol, and lemon juice! All of which can be purchased in bulk as well. I also make most of my own toothpastes, deodorant (for my wife, I use the heavy duty stuff still), shampoo (easy!), lotions, potions, and witches brews......

3) Gardens!!!!! More time consuming, certainly, but worth the trouble, imho! Many people think they do not have the space to grow vegetables, but you don't need much! If you have ANY size backyard, a 10' by 20' plot can grow the majority of the veggies you will use for a 4-person family! I know, because we do it!!! The trick is in "square-foot gardening", which is exactly what it sounds like. Look up a book of the same name, and you'll be amazed! You can also grow in window boxes, bay windows, on top of fence posts (nail down boxes like for your windows!), in containers on your porch or deck, etc. etc.!!

4) Grow fruit and nut trees, berry bushes, and other perennial plants that will reward you with Nature's bounty every year!! They will take a few years to grow to maturity if grown from seed, but it's worth it!! You can also buy the saplings and short bushes from plant nurseries, which will speed up the maturity timeframe. Consider dwarf trees if you have a sunny place indoors, or a actual sunroom/indoor greenhouse.

I'd love to add more, but my time is short, and I have to return to work! You can find instructional videos on Youtube for most of these things! I'd love to hear some other ideas from cyber-space as well! Cheers!

talheure - yes, thankfully there are laws to prevent outright fraud. It's just annoying that manufacturers think that the American public is so stupid that they can pull a fast one. In some case, they are right in that people don't pay enough attention to catch the changes.

While it angers me that manufacturers try to deceive the public, I am appreciative in some respects because it has alerted me to changes that I can make to save money and eat a healthier diet. I have completely stopped dining at fast food joints. Our local Wendy's raised the price on the item that I usually order by approximately 25 cents after the New Year. I stopped going there on principle but this has also benefited me from a health standpoint. Same thing with a local Chili's style restaurant. I haven't returned since December when they reduced the size of a bowl of soup but kept the original price. I pay more attention to which items are on sale at the supermarket and buy accordingly. For example, Kroger recently had a super sale on the cat treats that my stupid cats prefer. I bought enough to last 6 months or longer but saved $20 in the long run. (Yes, I could simply deny my cats the treats and save even more but that's like refusing to give your kids ice cream.) The best result is that I'm cooking almost all of my meals and learning to enjoy cooking again. The homemade food is healthier and much tastier.

The same applies to other services. Comcast has raised rates in my area twice within six months. After this second increase, I thought long and hard and realized that there are very few programs that I actually choose to watch. The TV is turned on in the evening mostly to keep me company and make noise, but I usually have it turned to a channel with reruns that I have seen hundreds of time. Most, if not all, of the shows I intentionally watch are available on the Internet. I have never subscribed to HBO or other extra channels. So, as a result of this second increase, I'm planning on cancelling my cable TV service at the end of April and switching to a digital converter box with antenna. Rather than getting the extra $14 per month from me, Comcast is losing around $70 per month.

Most grocery stores now include the price per unit on their shelf tags. It is in small print, but it is there for you to read. This makes comparing the real cost of different sizes/brands much easier. All it takes is to actually pay attention to what you are doing. I realized the shrinking package game a long time ago and adjusted accordingly. It is somewhat deceptive when they keep the size of the package the same but put less in it, but it just means you need to stop acting like a robot and pay attention.

indy patriot, good for you; however do not advertise what you are doing IRS can tax you on the amount in relationship to what the consumer item would cost in commerce, as stupid as this sounds, it is in fact a IRS regulation and has the same effect as a law passed by Congress; that's right, government agencies can by pass Congress and make their own laws !

JS... a lot of stores do have the unit price which are nice, but they can be kind of slippery with that too. One item will be oz, another lb, then they'll throw in a metric too. Sam's club is terrible for this. Unless you have an actual calculator to do the converting, they make the math kind of hard to do in your head.

Calculators are cheap...check the dollar store near you!

Yes talheure, they are, but didn't you hear? You have to buy the number keys separately now!

Look the beev is already ok with it because we the consumer are responsible for reading the labels. When you get to the check out you are still responsble for paying the higher price for less food. Duh! They are trying to hide inflation, but they can't sweep it under the carpet for long.

It costs you more because it cost them more to get it to you. They are trying to keep the same price level because wages have been stagnant. With the current energy policy it will only get worse as the cost of everything continues to rise.

Hold on. Contact your Representatives and demand we begin using our resources as we pursue new avenues of viable energy.

The two reporter write:

" companies in recent months have tried to camouflage price increases by selling their products in tiny and tinier packages."

More like two years ladies.

When was the last time you bought a "pound" of coffee?

The cans of coffee have not weighed a pound for a long time.

Just one example. But you caught them didn't you?

It is hard for them to fool two bright MSN reporters.

Mr Cool- I buy a pound of coffee every two weeks from my local roaster. She weighs it out and fills my can.

Yes, this has been happening for a while but it is trickling down in to most all products now which, in either case, is a good reason to report on it.

Also, the difference between a 50 lb sack and a 20 lb sack is apparent. When they package 10 oz of coffee in the same bag that used to hold 16 oz, or 14 oz of vegetables in a 16 oz size can, and do nothing except change the printing or add fluid, THAT'S deceptive. I don't have a problem with them reducing weights, or with raising the prices on the current weights, but they should be up front about it.

I have done a great deal of thinking about this, and I have the answer:

!. Landfill Surcharge: Less food in a package, means more landfill: so county commissioners of every county should impose a "Landfill Surcharge" on THE MANUFACTER, in the form of a usage tax.

2. Seems how the State and Federal governments are totally emasculated by corporations, every county (commissioners) should require all packaging to be informly posted in Bold Lettering of at least 1 inch, in standard American measure, the content in ounces, pounds in whole numbers ( no fractional: example 13.35 ounces), before it can enter the landfill.

3. Every manufacturer, must standardize packaging, no more incredible shrinking bar of soap.

It is time to sue the hell out of people who deceive, lie, cheat, steal, as a matter of everyday commerce, and the Our Wonderful Senators and Congressmen, need a good ass-kicking for allowing it, shame, shame, shame, our Government bombs the sh-- out of people, but can't read a product lable, how pathetic.

I wonder how long it will be before the government starts taking its cue from the food manufacturers ...

"Fewer jobs means fewer commuters, which means fewer vehicle emissions. Unemployment is good for the environment!"

talheure

It's not the government's job to read the labels, Jensen. It's yours

I get it, thanks, now I understand why the Government pays $4000 for a toilet, "they" must have not read the carton label, "Contains 1, not 1 dozen."

Not unethical...the sizes are plainly marked...unethical would be keeping the size label the same and actually putting less in the package...it is not a good thing that they are disguising the price increases, but unethical....no....

Yeah... the cost of doing business must be cutting into those profits they're no longer paying taxes on. Good thing we have the lavish lifestyles of the poor, the old, and the civil servants to trickle up the economic food chain.

Unethical is when you buy tuna or orange juice in a container or a can that looks pretty much the same. You must be smarter than everyone else in this world if you can tell the circumference of a can being 10% shorter by looking at it. the rest of us can't and there is where the deception comes in. The old adage you can fool most of the people most of the time and some of the people some of the time. You belong to the latter and that is the corporate America's creed. Wake up.

Once again, people blame companies. This isn't the companies fault here people. The price of their raw materials is going UP, because the FED is purposefully raising inflation.

That little slip of paper you are trading for a product isn't worth as much as it used to be. Why should companies keep giving you the same amount of product when you aren't returning the same amount of valued good to them?

Of course, MSNBC portrays this as a 'evil' company decision and all the little leftist lemmings nod and agree. Anyone with a brain understands that companies costs are rising, but the ability of the consumer to simply pay higher prices isn't there. So to keep the same number of purchased goods being sold, they have to reduce the amount of product they are selling for the same price. This isn't rocket science here. Unfortunately, most people in America don't realize that they are generally laying the blame on the 'evil corporations', instead of the government where it belongs.

Watch the other hand....No companies are getting sneaky. Look at the bottom of a cup of yogart....they indent it while keeping the same size container. It contains less and they do say the number of ounces. Funny thing about food once you use the container you throw it away. After a while people start to think that the container was always that way. Who really notices when the gallon now contains six less ounces. That my friend is shear sneakyness.

This is not about prices, it's about ethics and deceptive practices. Yes, the costs go up, we all know that. But to cut the amount of the goods while retaining a large package AND raising the price per ounce, or whatever the measure -- you don't suppose they're trying to fool us?

And for all those rude little people trying to lay the blame on the consumer: (of COURSE it's the consumer's fault! Why should Big Business be held to any sort of ethical code?) YES, we do read the labels; YES, we've noticed -- for years now -- that the content of packages has been shrinking; YES, we check the label, and the per-ounce price. Anyone who cooks knows this has been going on for a long time. And it's accelerated tremendously in recent months.

And what can we do about it? Complain? Isn't that what this article is about? So what exactly is your point when you sneer at us and call us dumb? And what makes YOU so smart? Patting the cheats on the back and saying, "There, there! We don't mind your deceptive practices; we're happy to pay more for less, as long as we think we're getting a good deal. After all, it's not about honesty, it's about not getting caught cheating."

Jeff, you don't seem to understand. The company doesn't want to sell you less product. They would MUCH prefer if they could keep the same standard size packaging they always use. However, when the cost of their materials increases, they MUST increase the price that they sell their product. However, there is 'sweet spot' range where people will still pick up their product off the shelf and put it in their cart. If the price is too high, people simply won't buy the product at all. Reducing the amount of the product allows companies to still sell the product at a price that people will still buy it.

Example: You have $10 in your pocket and you need to buy the ingredients to bake a cake. 10 years ago you could buy a 5 lb bag of flour, 5 lb bag of sugar, a dozen eggs, and frosting and lets hypothetically say it would have come to a total cost of $9.50. You have plenty of ingredients for the cake plus a LOT of left over product, since you don't need the full 5 lbs of flour or other ingredients for the 1 cake.

Now, the actual value of the currency you are trading for those products has dropped over the last 10 years. If you were to try to buy the same quantity of those products in todays value, it would come to $17. However, you still only have the same $10 to spend. So you give up on trying to make a cake since you can't afford to buy all the ingredients. No one wins here. You don't get your cake and the companies don't sell their products. The companies realize this and start offering smaller sizes. Now you can get a 3lb bag of flour, 2lb bag of sugar, 6 eggs, a few less ounces of frosting for $10. You go ahead and buy those ingredients. You make your cake, but just have less left over, but you were still able to use your $10.

The ONLY thing that is changing is the actual value of the currency that you are trying to trade for a product. Companies are simply compensating for the fluctuation in the value of your dollar bill. Your money isn't static.

Maybe now people will realize this is how all businesses work...every company, in every industry, is out to maximize profits.

If people would realize this, and adjust their spending habits accordingly, there would be much fewer economic problems in this country. Instead, we rely on the government to bail out the "good" comapnies and punish the "bad" ones, while continually spending and spending ourselves into debt.

WatchTheOtherHand, I have to say, when it comes to buying into the delusion, you are at the top of the heap. How's that for mixing metaphors...
What a load. Companies are doing exactly what has been spelled out in the article. They are shortening the ration. They are still demanding the same money, but providing less for it. I can see why they are doing it, but it is a crappy strategy, none the less.
I don't know about you, but I am getting sick and tired of these people assuming I am that stupid. Companies in the US have bought into the feeding frenzy. They are doing everything in their power to steal every possible dime from the American public. We have been suffering outrageous inflations, most of which is padded. This is just a ridiculous example of it.

Yeah... the cost of doing business must be cutting into those profits they're no longer paying taxes on. Good thing we have the lavish lifestyles of the poor, the old, and the civil servants to trickle up the economic food chain.

Except America has the highest corporate tax rate in the world now that Japan has lowered theirs. Try again.

OK I will... What difference do our corporate tax rates make when two thirds of American corporations loophole their way out of them?

Heck, GE just got what equates to a 3 billion dollar refund on 14 billion in profits.

Like I said, good thing we turnips are still here to get blood out of.

Talheure, I completely agree with your premise. I would just like to say that while we are certainly responsible for our own shopping practices, and the wisest amongst us will learn to calculate their food options, the fact remains that companies are reducing their package sizing in a manner that is surreptitious and slightly devious. Understandably, they won't come right out and advertise this, but it is still being done "under the radar", if you will. I believe that is where many people fing their issue with the subject.

Sneaky? If the kept the size the same and instead raised the price of the product by dollar or two, would you still buy it?

Face it, the government is inflating the currency. Prices rise because of it. When people stop buying a product because it is 'too expensive', companies compensate by selling smaller amount of product that people can still afford to buy at a time.

If companies didn't do this, everyone would be complaining that food has gotten so expensive and companies are too blame for rising prices.

michelle-1073610

Haven't folks been saying for a while now that spending what you don't have can cause inflation, maybe if you paid attention to that you wouldn't have these problems now.

All of you are not getting the point. Let me make a choice, buy smaller size, get less. Buy standard size, pay more. It's the deception that bothers me. You don't mind? Great, just keep buying whatever big co's. tell you to, and swallow it. And they will just keep screwing you.

michelle-1073610 It's the deception that bothers me.

Now that you are aware of the problem, maybe you will read the packages before you buy them...

Reading through these comments, I've started to guess that talheure sits on Nabisco's board or is a major stockholder. Watchtheotherhand is just trying to put a sad economics-class spin on the hucksterism that these companies are spewing out. (I say this tongue-in-cheek, of course.) The "cake ingredients" story was masterfully spun, and sure sounded reasonable on the surface, but really, it was just woeful. Inflation is to blame, he says! That's why companies are putting 13 fewer chips in each same-sized bag of Doritos and charging the same price. It's just because of the effects of currency devaluation over time! Yeah! Rubbish.

I do agree that price increases are often a necessary evil, and I further agree that not all packaging change is rooted in deception. Definitely not. But face facts, boys: When a company specifically maintains the height and width of their package, but decreases its depth -- ostensibly so it looks the same on the shelf as it did two weeks ago, or just keeps the same size package, but decreases its contents by 5% -- and either maintains or increases the price... come on. COME ON. Even you two corporate shills have to concede that's at least a little deceptive. Illegal? Of course not. Fraudulent? Nope. But sneaky and a bit underhanded...? Oh yeah.

Bottom line; When it is not profitable to make or sell a product at a profit, poof, its gone. Most operations around the world know first hand the laws of commerce even it the consumer does not.

We noticed the Fritos were too salty and greasy for our taste. The more natural corn chips from the Dollar Tree were actually better and cheaper, but then they stopped carrying them at our local DT. We just don't buy Fritos any longer.

We end up buying more natural and organic products for the flavor improvement, but you don't get much bang for the buck there...but at least we are supporting smaller companies with ethics, rather than the huge conglomerations.

I did notice the size of her family too. I cannot imagine having the budget to feed that many children in today's world.

As for food, DH and I splurge on really good tasting stuff, since we don't spend much on other things. We do have cable TV, but we don't go to the movies. We take a cheap vacation, if any at all. We only buy things we really need.

We've found we can get much better tasting, quality food at Whole Foods or Trader Joes and since we enjoy cooking and eating, we find the flavor and ethics behind the organic brands to be worthwhile.

Yea...nine? Consider population control. Anyway, the food and other industries have no legal obligation or otherwise to disclose anything of the sort. You/consumer have every right to buy it or not to buy it. Period. They're not hiding anything, it's right there on the label. Read it! The manufacturers owe you nothing. Not an apology, reason, nothing. Stop whining people, we are so spoiled. The cost of food in the US is incredibly lower than every country I have ever traveled in. The variety the freshness. Stop looking for a conspiracy and just read the labels. Or better support local farmers and or grow your own garden.

Fun Fact: What is one of the top tourist attractions in the US when a foreigner visits? Yea, Grocery store! Just to see all the food and variety is for some just amazing.

I know and I have experienced the same. Not worse than what you described but not much better. Really it would be humbling for so many to just see, just once see what we have.

Did it occur to anyone that maybe some of those "nine children" you're harping about might be adopted or foster children?

I've noticed the clothing thing. It seems like everything I buy (it doesn't matter what store) is awful. It looks nice when you buy it, then the first trip through the washer/dryer or to the dry cleaner destroys it. Collars don't lay right, hems curl up and twist, jean seams twirl around your leg, etc. I've tried various stores and catalogs, no luck. The odd thing is when you buy two of the same thing and one washes up nicely and the other does the twist thing.

On subject- I bought a can of green beans the other day, a major brand, when I opened it, there were 4 cut green beans in the can and a LOT of water. I was laughing when I showed it to my family, and said "see, what did I tell you about grocery prices and sizes- same can, less product". I hope it was just a production error, but now I wonder. We had corn with supper that night.

My answer is to buy my clothes at Goodwill. They have already been worn and washed. If they look good when I buy them, they will still look good after washing, (unless I screw up).

Darthdon- what a great idea. I always drop stuff off there, I've never shopped there. I think I will go inside on my next trip. Thanks.

Wouldn't it be nice to go back about 50 to 60 years. When we didn't have greedy CEO's the stock market wan't so corrupt and Government wasnt for big Business's that F**ked the little man a time when big business failed new small business would restart. I say it's almost time to restart this country over again.

Bush SA:

If you did a bit of research into our history you may be surprised what you find. I know the "bygone" days sounds so enchanting. Simpler yes...more moral and ethical? Not so much. You can trace these characteristics back to the days of UG in the cave. It is human nature.

It has and always will be the one's with the education and status are and will take advantage of those less so. I mean hey, you never hear of a Mayan King ever getting his heart cut out or his head lopped off. As a matter of fact to bring that closer to home, look how many time Dick Cheney dodged the draft. (5 I believe) So it goes as it always has and will be.

What is unethical here is that all of you consumers are trying to buy the same amount of product with less valuable dollars. That is the immorality here.

Maybe we should pass a law where the physical dimensions of the dollar must be scaled down each year to the equivalent value of the dollar in the year it was minted. Maybe if people saw that the dollars being printed this year were HALF the size of the dollars that were minted 10 years ago, people would understand that it is their DOLLAR that is changing. Then companies wouldn't have to change the size of their products. They could just demand a certain size of money.

Talheure....You mentioned the candy bar. I had a little concession stand in 1970 and I sold Hersheys candy bars for a nickel a piece. Bags of chips and coffee were a dime. Superbubble was one cent. Wrigleys was a nickel a pack of five sticks. The minimum wage was $1.25. Excluding sales tax you could buy twenty five bars for one hours worth of work. Now minimum wage is $7.25 let's say you could buy the same size candy bar for .50 cents each. That would give you less than fifteen and I am not counting the income taxes you would pay on your wages. Yes, times were better and you could get things cheaper not only in cost but in units of time worked for the same product.

1970....A new house $15,000.....new car $4,000....gasoline .29 cents a gallon....Sandy's hamburger....15 cents.....Coke ....10 cents....milk shake....25 cents .......movies .....35 cents ......swimming pool .....25 cents.

Back in October I was with a coworker while she was car shopping w/ her 6 1/2 y.o. son. She sent me off to get him a sandwich while she spoke to one of the dealers. The sandwich came with a bag of chips and he eagerly tore into that bag. If only you could have seen the look of disappointment on that boy's face when he opened the chips and said, "There's not many chips here, it's almost empty." I had to explain that, technically, he wasn't being ripped off by getting an under-filled bag. Try having that conversation with a child. "Well, they don't always fill it up.... Okay, umm.. sometimes they... need the air to... protect the chips... and.... uh.." You not only feel ridiculous, but you feel like you kicked a puppy as well, especially when once you have to level with him.

nice site bizzer lots of good reading there

TEE.....HEEEE...HAHAHA

Reason number 2 "Why the mfg. think they can get away with it"......

401k you've been faithfully paying into. Not only is there less money in it, it's worth way less than when you put it in.

"By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens … and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some … The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose." John Maynard Keynes, Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920.

And people in general have gotten considerably more lazy. Most people in the US today would not last half a day doing what our ancestors did. And those that still have factory jobs...push buttons, pallet lifts, shrink wrap automated machines. (actually the last 4 very large distribution centers I was in recently the palet wrapping was ALL mexican labor) I asked why? His responce did not surprise me..."Because we can't get any American that works here to do anything but sit on their asses and ride the forklifts all day." The physical work has to be jobbed out. SAD.

I noticed the same Betty Crocker brownie bait-and-switch, so now I add a handful of chopped walnuts to the recipe. That mixture will fill up a 9X13 pan. The nuts help make a healthier brownie, assuming such a thing exists.

BTW the dark metal 9X13 pan baking directions were/are 29-32 minutes at 325 degrees for lower altitudes. Some things you never forget.

They make a 7X11 pan? That's a new one on me. So they expect you to buy yet another pan? Lovely. The walnut idea is better, but then again skipping the mix and making scratch is better yet.

Tell you what... start paying for a product with the same amount of valued currency as you did 10 years ago and they wouldn't HAVE to reduce their product size.

Its the consumer that is "cheating" here by wanting to use less and less valuable currency to purchase the same amount of product.

Go take an economics class.

sounds like republicans dont it and when has wages gone up the only thing gone up is the cost of living and now the republicans want to take even moor from us and the co.`s want to carge more for less what a country

The Republicans? Alboyano...don't you know how dumb that makes you sound?

Nobody expects prices not to go up. That is just apparently the way it is for some bizarre reason. Nobody wants the same amount for the same price, but if you have been buying a certain size box of something for the last 6 months and it is the perfect amount that you need for a specific purpose, and now suddenly there isn't as much in the SAME SIZE BOX, wouldn't that be a little deceptive? Should you have to make sure on every single shopping trip that that gallon size bottle of milk is STILL a gallon? Do you packaging checkers memorize the number of ounces in every single product you buy every single week so that you know instantly if the number of ounces in the same size package is less than it was last week? You really do that? You have time to recompare every single thing you buy in the grocery store every week? I wish I had that kind of free time.

@Marlene - the poster did not say they were her birth children. Perhaps she is a foster mother, or adopted some? Or perhaps some were the children of her sister who died in a car accident. Who knows?

Marlene-447284...maybe she was a Republican.

Kill me now...I have 11 kids, all the with the same husband, all one at a time and yes, all on purpose. Scandalous, isn't it? How irresponsible of me! How awful! Welcome to America where we are still allowed to have freedom of all sorts - including family size. My kids will happily contribute to your Social Security, take care of you in the nursing home and lead wonderfully, happy productive lives. Overpopulation is a bomb that never exploded - our world is stronger than you think. Read the late, great Julian Simon's book - "The Ultimate Resource 2" for a realistic look at population issues.

This is an ethical issue but not one we should be focused on because it is distracting people from the real problem within this country. Financial institutions (banks, ratings agencies, hedge funds and investment houses) have gotten away with GRAND GRAND GRAND UBER GRAND Larceny. In addition, unions are being dismantled, wealthcrae for the wealthy and the most worrisome is the corporate take-over of our country through purchasing elected officials and by SCOTUS giving individual rights to corps. NO WHERE IN THE US CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT BUSINESS ENTITIES ARE HUMAN BEINGS WITH SOULS. WAKE UP and smell the corporate plutocracy!!!

notliborcon, I don't like it either. Big problems require big solutions. The need is growing.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits (i.e. money) to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England in the 1920's, from a 1927 speech given in Texas.

Yes, likewise, I vote with such small impact as I have at my disposal--and I don't owe anyone one red cent. I agree that abuse of provision must be defeated. However, I don't think it's asking too much of the greatest nation on Earth to provide work and living wage to those who want nothing more. It should not be too much for us to provide a system where a life of work rendered is rewarded with affordable basic necessites and other than destitution upon attainment of retirement age. There are those who do far more actual work in their given week than those who make hundreds of times more money. One example by James Kunstler... "Fred Mishkin, former Federal Reserve governor...wrote a cheerleading report for the Icelandic banking system about five minutes before it collapsed, then changed the report's title from 'Financial Stability in Iceland' to 'Financial Instability in Iceland', then denied it on camera in the face of obvious evidence, then forgot whether he got paid six-figures to write the glowing report,..."

I don't need to be prove (sometimes possible, but often not) collusion and impropriety to know that some people are taking more than they are due. They do it because they can. Their position of power allows them to acquire stunning wealth while many are unable to afford decent living standards. I don't say that higher education or investment risk should not be rewarded, only that some common sense should apply to the balance of living conditions. I don't approve of plutocracy, and I don't think the soldiers of our revolution fought to achieve this degree of inequality.
As for the banking system, I have many quotes attesting to historical recognition what it perpetrates and perpetuates, but here is another of my favorites.

"In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called 'Colonial Scrip.' We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to anyone. You see, a legitimate government can both spend and lend money into circulation, while banks can only lend significant amounts of their promissory bank notes, for they can neither give away nor spend but a tiny fraction of the money the people need. Thus, when your bankers here in England place money in circulation, there is always a debt principal to be returned and usury to be paid. The result is that you have always too little credit in circulation to give the workers full employment. You do not have too many workers, you have too little money in circulation, and that which circulates, all bears the endless burden of unpayable debt and usury." Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography.

We MUST fight the inevitable battle. The power and responsibility to coin money must be returned to Congress, where our Constitution places it.

Well, I agreed that abuse of provision should be defeated--that is to say that not everyone makes enough to afford iPads and luxuriant semi-annual vacations. I don't like the sense of entitlement which, I agree, has grown pervasive. I agree that those who invest in, and are capable of, higher education are entitled to a better standard of living--however even those with superior intellect do not all perform societally necessary duties so vastly superior to that of the lowly garbage collector. Many doctors, lawyers, scientists, pundits, researchers, and, yes, rocket scientists couldn't cook for themselves! I think that our society can, and should, provide a living wage (not extravagance) for all who perform those tasks necessary to functional society. The lack of balance is the problem I see. No one NEEDS BILLIONS of dollars--they accumulate such amounts at the expense of the society, people, around them. It's too much, it's out of balance. Sorry, but the fact that people are ABLE to accumulate enough wealth to provide many subsequent generations of progeny a lavish life-style (who may do NOTHING for society--may even be a bane upon it) doesn't make it right.

@momofmany: As long as you can support your children, provide for their needs and see to it that they obtain a good education to become productive adults and not rely on welfare or public assistance, go ahead and have 20 of them. From the article, I get the impression this woman is nothing more than a welfare queen with a wonderful sense of entitlement.