OT: Tuna fish

By the time you squeeze out the fluid, you've got your single serving. Get the best you can buy. Better yet, get fresh.

Wes, I just want to encourage you, losing weight is very healthy. Check out wikipedia article on "calorie restriction".

i

to put into

oz of tuna in

Your not dreaming, the manufacturers are shrinking the amount instead of raising the price. Sneaky S.O.B's, check the other packaged products you buy.

Bruce

This was covered on Mouseprint a while back:

with other things like ice cream, peanut butter, and tons of other things.

Steve

Seen a bar of Dial soap lately?

Looks like Dita Von Teese.

No! And I don't want to - It gives me a rash. Gerry :-)} London, Canada

a couple months ago i bought some canned tuna. i had a few cans in my cart and i JUST BARELY noticed something was different, almost imperceptible. i can't remember now if i had to wait till i got home and compared it to the other cans i had on the shelf or if i knew right away in the store, but i was like "WTF?!" it's an insignificant problem but i was totally outraged. yeah, the cans i had at home were 6 oz. cans at the store were 5 oz.. i don't ordinarily contact product manufacturers about piddly little stuff like this but this seemed sneaky to me, i was outraged, i sent them an angry email, they replied something like "everyone's doing it", that didn't make me any less angry, instead of just dropping it like i ordinarily do or should've done i sent back a reply "if everyone was jumping off a bridge would you too?!", they didn't reply to that.

b.w.

(i also only just recently noticed the rectangular plastic lidded containers they put take out chinese food in are SLIGHTLY shallower than they had been(!). i save the containers to put small parts in, the most recent take out chinese i got i washed the container and stacked it with my other containers and it didn't fit right and i was like WTF?, that's when i noticed it was about 3/8 or 1/2 inch less deep than the others. WTF?!

Buy the tuna in the soft pacs. Much better taste. They have to overcook tuna in the cans to get the temps high enough.

You should listen to this hilarious complaint recording along these lines:

Well, at least Tom isn't making his wire brushes' wires 1/32" shorter yet -- or _is_ he? :) (Fairly Odd Parents reference)

Those I got from him are still going strong long past the time others have deteriorated into rust and forge kindling.

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:33:57 -0500, the infamous "William Wixon" scrawled the following:

Try some Alaska Red Salmon next time. It is not only much more flavorful than tuna, it comes in 7.5 oz cans. ($1.50 on sale at BiMart here)

Taco Bell downsized their pintos and cheese cartons by 3/4" in height a couple years ago, with some smartarse comment like "we're cutting down on styrofoam usage". The only problem is that they can no longer put as much food in the smaller container so we're shorted by 33%.

Have you noticed that the "pounds" of coffee are now just 13.5 ozs?

All together now "It's for the planet!"

-- The doctor can bury his mistakes, but an architect can only advise his client to plant vines. --FLW

isn't it amazing when you find things your parents said coming out of your mouth?

I think they are just playing games, kidding themselves. After you do this half a dozen times people take notice, but they still want the product so they buy it anyway in the smaller size. Not because it still costs the same, but because it is something they want/need.

Have you been paying attention to the "1/2" gallon ice cream containers. First step was 56 oz, then 48 oz, 40 oz... now they are pushing the 16 oz sizes hard. I quit buying it at the first drop, doesn't seem to have matter much though, other than I can eat more of other things...

Kellogg just recently started marketing "new and improved" boxes for their cereal. They made a big deal of how much less space the new box takes up on the shelf and how it stacks so much better. Mmmm, seems the old full sized box with much less in it wasn't working out so well anymore...

No, stuff like that is generally done for the bottom line of free enterprise. Nearly every vendor these days is operating on some form of two-price model. There's one price/brand for people paying attention, and another for those who are lazy and/or not very bright. People who like impulse shopping and hate sales and coupons etc. get to pay more. If they're addicted to brand names and fast food and single-serving packaging and bottled water, then they should think of the cost as a voluntary self-reaming. There's really not much wrong with that part of the system unless you're of the mind set that the government needs to protect consumers from the need for them to use calculators and common sense.

On a related note: my wife tells me that the quality of fruits and vegetables is getting noticeably worse, which requires more of her time picking out anything that might be worth buying. Yet while she's spending that time, usually three or four other shoppers will come along and just grab what's on top, even if that's her reject pile, and even if it's obviously crap. Want to know why the stores keep selling stuff you don't like? It's because people buy it.

Wayne

I think the only product not going this way is the quart of motor oil. I buy a case of 6 gallons at Costco and they also seem to be the same old gallons.

Paul

Hi,

I have needed to roofing coating lately. The 5 gallon buckets are now

4.75 gal.

Thanks Roger

PaulS wrote:

Hellofitis: If the years-old thing my uncle told me was or still is true, the box costs the cereal maker more than the product does.

I've heard the same about the drinks at restaurants and fast-food joints. Coffee and soft drinks being examples.

True, not true?

========= Its called price pack. Rather than rasing the prices, cut the amount of product per package.

This is the equivalent to inflation for money.

This will continue until the government steps in and mandates standard package sizes, to be accompanied by howls of rage by the packers who will claim interference with the free market [which it is]. Another example of "bringing it on yourself" (along with everybody else).

FWIW -- don't just complain on this NG. Below is an email I sent to Washington. Feel free to use all, any or none of it, but be sure to let them know how you feel.

{tip when you identify your 2 senators and representative, bookmark their URL, and the Preze's for easy reference in the future.} snipped-for-privacy@fda.hhs.gov {email} This appears to be the "controlling legal authority" for food to use Al Gore's famous phrase.

----- start of email ----- To: President Obama Senator Brownback Senator Roberts Representative Moran Representative Tiahrt Federal Trade Commission Food and Drug Administration,

• I *N*F*L*A*T*I*O*N* *A*L*E*R*T* - Not US money, but shrinking US consumer products.

The private sector is again attempting to, and in many cases succeeding in, deceiving the public by short filling traditional size containers with significantly less product, for example gallon sized ice cream containers with 56 ounces (or less) of product [12.5% short], 5 gallon sized roof sealer containers with

4.75 actual gallons of sealer [5% short], one pound coffee cans containing 14.5 ounces of coffee [9% short], and six ounce cans of tuna shrunk to 5 ounces [16.7% short]. To be sure this may be disclosed in fine print on the label, but is still a deceptive and unfair trade practice.

Other than concealing substantial price increases, there appears to be no reason for this deception.

I am not a fan of governmental regulation, but it has become clear that the majority of corporations will now gouge their customers in any way they can.

From another point of view, this increasing tendency to "pack to price" is not only deceiving the public into paying higher prices, but in many cases is resulting in a proliferation of non-standard containers, increasing the cost of container production and inventory.

Thus it is time to not only slam, but nail this loop hole shut.

It is proposed that the old standard of customary weights and measures be enacted into criminal and civil law by mandating the use of standardized quantities for retail sale, for the vast majority of consumer items. There are few plausible exceptions to be made for some consumer food items such as spices, but there appears to be no justification for packing ice cream, meat, cheese, etc. in anything other than 4 ounce, 8 ounce [1 pint], 16 ounce [1 quart], etc. increments, for shrinking packed tuna from

6 ounces to 5 ounces per can, etc. There is no justification for tinkering with the packaging of commercial products such as roof sealer. The standard size should be 5 gallons, period.

The most rapid process would appear to be to require the FDA to include a limited number of acceptable package sizes in their "standards of identity" for food items, and for the FTC to declare packaging of non-food items in other than standard pint, quart, 1/2 gallon, gallon, etc., is a deceptive trade practice, with substantial fines and seizure of the product for violation of the regulations of either agency.

Because of the large increase in international trade, accommodations will have to be made for products packed to metric standards, and imported into the US. If less than some reasonable amount, say 25%, of their total production is imported, it would appear to be adequate to affix a red "non standard quantity" warning label, however odd metric price packs must also be discouraged, and odd sized [imperial] imports by the trans-national corporations should be prohibited, if the same products are produced in the US in standard container sizes.

Given the current economic recession, the last thing that should be allowed is additional and continued gouging of the American consumer who is already in distress.

----- end of email -----

Unka' George [George McDuffee]

------------------------------------------- He that will not apply new remedies, must expect new evils: for Time is the greatest innovator: and if Time, of course, alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman. Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

It just doesn't cost that much more to make a "twice-as-good" wire brush! Especially when the Chinese set the bar so low.