this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
257 points (93.0% liked)

News

23367 readers
3520 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Wooster@startrek.website 56 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Article mentions nothing with regards to holding corporations accountable nor any plan or threat of action on the president’s part.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 28 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

These kinds of comments frustrate me... They fundamentally conflate the presidency with a more king-like position.

The system is setup against him doing anything other than speaking out about the issue and trying to motivate others to do something about it. The president ultimately has little power ... it's more of a oversight/cheer leading position (with some extended powers over the years to deal with imminent issues -- e.g., authorize short term military operations, which is still scary in the wrong hands) while congress is the office workers that are supposed to actually get the law writing done.

Unfortunately, we've had roughly a decade of Republican lead stagnation due to slim majority Democrat representation or outright majority Republican representation -- the Republican platform is after all the "do nothing because more government is bad" platform.

He's doing exactly what he should be doing, using the office to call people out and bring attention to issues/start conversations. That can result in brands either going "... lets make a voluntary change to get the heat off" or the public going "yeah that's a good point calls congressional rep to complain."

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Well put!

The president ultimately has little power … it’s more of a oversight/cheer leading position

And let me emphasize this is a good thing, even if the previous officeholder ignored legal restrictions on his power

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

What are you suggesting he do about it?

edit for the knee-jerk downvoters: Everything the government is authorized to do is codified in federal statute, including agency powers. If Congress doesn't give an agency the power to regulate the size and shape of a peanut butter cup, the agency cannot regulate the size and shape of a peanut butter cup, full stop. The reason the President isn't proposing a fix to this is that Congress hasn't given anyone the authority to fix this problem. The FDA can sorta kinda regulate slack fill (i.e. the empty space in your bag of chips) but only if it's non-functional or deceptive. Shrinkflation is quite legal, so long as the size/weight of the product is clearly labeled. If companies get away with it, that's because we're stupid, clueless consumers who never read labels. And they will continue to do it until a) we stop buying their product, or b) Congress passes a law to make it illegal. Unless that happens, we're stuck with it because the President is not an all powerful god who can will things into existence.

Once again, civic literacy in this county proves profoundly lacking.

[–] Fisk400@feddit.nu 19 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Make it expensive to change the weight of a product. Standardize the size and weight of a given type of product. Require the packaging to alert consumers that the weight have changed in the last year and how much it has changed. Tie the trademark of a given product to a certain weight.

Are these good ideas? I don't know, I literally made them up just now while shitting. I am sure the president of the United States could hire at least one dude to come up with better ones.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Make it expensive to change the weight of a product.

The President literally can't do that.

Standardize the size and weight of a given type of product.

The President can't do that. Not sure the FDA can even do that, as just about all they can weigh in on is product safety (i.e. "does not contain more than X of any harmful substance") and categorical definitions (i.e. "ice cream must meet this definition"). They can't say, "all M&Ms must be this big and weigh this much".

Require the packaging to alert consumers that the weight have changed in the last year and how much it has changed.

Neither the President nor the FDA can do that. The FDA doesn't have the regulatory power to do anything even close to that.

Tie the trademark of a given product to a certain weight.

That's....not how trademarks work, at all.

Look man, it's as frustrating to me as it is to anyone, but y'all can't just make up a bunch of fanciful, largely illegal remedies to the problem and then lay the blame for their impossibility on the President's desk. That's just ridiculous.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

All great ideas if it weren't for the fact that we have a court system heavily weighted towards pro-corporate conservatism, so none of that would survive legal challenges and there would be a shit ton of corporate challenges.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

All of these things would have to be done by Congress. The President is really not the dictator that the internet thinks he is (outside of some particular domains). But just to go through those:

Make it expensive to change the weight of a product.

How? Make the government track the size of ever possible consumable product and mandate a fee when changed? Beyond the enormous logistical effort for no obvious purpose, this would also make it costly for a company to add more product. Perhaps you only apply the fee when a size decreases, but then,, how do you handle the case where a company intentionally launches a smaller sized version for a different market, eg individual or snack sized portions? What if they launch a new size and then discontinue the older, larger one, so it technically didn't change? Does that have a fine? Sure, you can try to track all of this stuff carefully and determine what the net effect is, but that costs time and money all for no significant benefit.

Standardize the size and weight of a given type of product

Who determines the standard, and why? Why should it be illegal to sell a smaller or larger bag of chips or soda?

Require the packaging to alert consumers that the weight have changed in the last year and how much it has changed

This would just be one more tiny disclaimer line on the back that nobody would read. Not to mention, the size and weight is already on the package. Consumers are already perfectly capable of seeing the weight and deciding if the value for that price is good. I somewhat doubt most people would actually change their behavior by learning that there were ten more chips in the bag a year ago, and at any rate, companies know that consumers would rather pay the same price for less than pay a higher price for the same amount.

Tie the trademark of a given product to a certain weight.

That is categorically not how trademarks work.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShadowRam@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Law requiring all prices to be in a format of

$ per actual measurement unit and include all applicable taxes.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Presidents can't pass laws and the House Republican majority is basically dedicated to going against whatever Biden proposes.

[–] franklin@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (26 children)

Absolutely it's very frustrating watching them try to do so much only to have it curtailed by a Republican majority Congress.

People think the president can issue an executive order for anything they want. That being said I hope his cabinet does move on proposing this because it would be a huge win for pricing transparency.

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] ZeroCool@slrpnk.net 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Presidents can't pass laws

Yeah, this thread is beyond frustrating. We need to prioritize teaching civics in high school because it could not be more obvious that a large number of people out there have no idea what they’re even talking about. It’s just ignorant rage.

The top comment in this comment section is so ignorant it should embarrass everyone using Lemmy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShadowRam@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Right, but he could get the ball rolling by getting someone in congress he knows to start a bill for the idea.

If Repub's shoot it down, then he's got more ammo in his ads

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

We have that in the Netherlands; it’s very helpful. You usually see a price per kilo or a price per liter. Makes it really easy to just look at product X, Y and Z and see which one is actually more expensive, without having to do math in your head. That really should be the law everywhere.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

$ per actual measurement unit

I've already seen this in essentially every supermarket ever, usually per ounce. Sure, you have to have some vague intuition about what that is relative to the product, but you can still make standardized comparisons across, say, different kinds of chips, very easily.

It'd be nice to include taxes, I agree.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

It's all about lip service. Neither party really gives a shit about the American public.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 28 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

If politicians were serious in their criticism they would vote for laws forcing comparison price to be displayed next to the purchase price.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Require that $/oz is always displayed in equal size as the per package price.

[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

That's what I meant with "comparison price".

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)

My opinion is regulate it so any shrinking has to be marked in large bold caps lettering NOW X% SMALLER for at least 1 year. Then people might actually stop buying shrunken goods and opt for a competitor.

[–] Xabis@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That won’t solve ingredient swaps.

[–] ProfessorScience@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

It'd be better than nothing, though

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BritishDuffer@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

Stop! Or I'll say stop again!

[–] LocoOhNo@lemmus.org 10 points 9 months ago

I was talking to a friend recently and mentioned that Lil Debbie Fudge Rounds used to be the same diameter as the "Double Decker" ones.

Now they're smaller than the diameter of an air hockey puck. And don't even get me started on how regular Oreo Cookies used to look like the double stuff Oreos. The gall to cut the product in half, add the other half back to it, then charge more and have the balls to call it "double..."

[–] Smacks@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Did he say anything about actually doing something about it? Some-sort of shrinkflation law or something?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I'm happy to just see him talking about anything other than green line go up.

[–] buzz86us@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

I wouldn't mind a reduction in plastic packaging if I could get a few more snacks.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 5 points 9 months ago

90% of the snacks I buy are the store brand. Particularly, Walmart since it's the cheapest place to get foodstuffs here. So far, while all the big names have visibility shrunk in size and value, the store brands have remained the same while just continuing to grow in value compared to the other brands that are giving you less for more.

[–] AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

At what point during the shrink does the packaging cost more than the single serving of potatoe chip fumes?

[–] ohlaph@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

I basically reduced my snack intake by about 75%. It is almost to expensive to snack now.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 4 points 9 months ago

As President should do something about the tiny size of Pringles in Australia, which are a sad shadow of their former glory now.

load more comments
view more: next ›