Inside the Bag, Less Food for the Price
To the Editor:
Re “Smaller Bags Hide a Surge in Food Costs” (front page, March 29):
I understand the motivation of food producers in reducing the amount of product inside the packaging, but I resent their assumption that I won’t notice. I do notice, and expect them to label packages accordingly.
I look forward to the day when toilet paper is more accurately called toilet ribbon, tissue boxes specify that they are for single-nostril use, and a can of tuna, which once contained enough fish to make two sandwiches, will be labeled “tuna garnish.”
ELIZABETH OGUSS
Montclair, N.J., March 29, 2011
•
To the Editor:
I was not the first in my home to face the repercussions of shrinking food content in same-size packages. After feeding my cat what I thought was her usual 6.5-ounce can of food (half a can, twice a day), she began to protest. Nothing organized, of course, but she kept letting me know that she was hungry, although she had just been fed.
Eventually, I read the can and saw that it had dropped to 5.5 ounces. Not only was there no notification, but the instructions for feeding, one can a day, were still the same.
I wondered how many others who could not be heard — babies, young children or the elderly — have been given less when they expected and even needed more.
BARRY PEARL
Elwood, N.Y., March 29, 2011
•
To the Editor:
Why not take the repackaging of food to hide increased costs in a different direction, and similar to stock splits to make purchases seemingly more affordable, apply this “revaluation” to some of the most pressing and controversial problems of the day?
For example, short of going metric (as in Europe), sell gas at the pump by the quart. The price would change to around $1. Imagine the water-cooler conversation on how the price of gas will reach $1.25 in the summer!
I think that if the collective minds of marketers and politicians work together, as the economy continues to stagnate, they can find palatable ways to express other unpleasant values: national debt, credit card interest rates, retirement age and executive bonuses.
DANIEL FARKAS
Pleasantville, N.Y., March 29, 2011
•
To the Editor:
As a college student and the child of a frugal family, I am concerned about the price of my food. I shop around to find which stores are cheapest for which item, and whether or not it makes up for the cost of gas to go further. The change in quantity in food packaging, however, has not escaped me.
Whenever I enter a store, the first thing I look for is the “price per unit” tag, and if the product does not have one, I use the calculator on my cellphone to determine the true price.
Thus, I encourage people to ask for price-per-unit tags, or use their calculators.
STEPHEN EISING
Grand Rapids, Mich., March 29, 2011
•
To the Editor:
Food package contents keep shrinking. The only thing shrinking faster is my dollar.
ROGER SUMMERS
Arlington, Tex., March 29, 2011
