261
Joe Biden criticises snack makers for ‘shrinkflation rip-off’
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
261 points (93.1% liked)
News
22507 readers
3899 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.
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
Article mentions nothing with regards to holding corporations accountable nor any plan or threat of action on the president’s part.
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."
Well put!
And let me emphasize this is a good thing, even if the previous officeholder ignored legal restrictions on his power
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.
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.
The President literally can't do that.
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".
Neither the President nor the FDA can do that. The FDA doesn't have the regulatory power to do anything even close to that.
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.
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.
Food in general doesn't even go through the FDA, does it? They only get involved if there's a problem. If it was pre approval, it would be a super slow process likely.
Edit: my train of thought was if it needed approval, any size changes would go to a slow line, but in reality, any small company would go to slow lines also, which would truly suck.
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:
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.
Who determines the standard, and why? Why should it be illegal to sell a smaller or larger bag of chips or soda?
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.
That is categorically not how trademarks work.
I hope your bowl movement went well
Law requiring all prices to be in a format of
$ per actual measurement unit and include all applicable taxes.
Presidents can't pass laws and the House Republican majority is basically dedicated to going against whatever Biden proposes.
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.
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.
It was more frustrating two years ago when it was being curtailed by a Democratic majority congress.
Yeah well Dems stopping tax cuts for the rich don't hurt us as much as Reps trying to shut down the government because we refuse tax cuts for the rich but by all means "both sides"
Who said anything about them stopping tax cuts for the rich? I was talking about stuff Democrats did 2 years ago, like stopping the minimum wage increase and BBB. You know, their accomplishments.
How in the world can you contribute that to the Dems when they were split and Republicans almost unanimously voted against it.
If you're issue is that they should have all voted to push it through then absolutely I wish they would too and you should vote in a way that reinforces what you'd like to see.
That being said of our two options Dems support it the most. If your argument is that we should have more options to vote for what we really want then we agree again, we need voter reform to make 3rd options viable via multi-choice voting
BBB never made it to the floor, thanks to the only Democrat whose voice matters, Joe Manchin.
My issue is that the party is useless on purpose. Your issue is that I don't worship them for it.
There is no available way to vote that will ever reinforce what I'd like to see. Democrats oppose me less than Republicans do and that's the best they'll ever be willing to do.
Based insane take divorced from reality.
What in my reply made it seem like I worship them, they're the best we have and I long for better way but the only way we're going to get better is voteing reform on many levels.
Voting in fascists out of spite does no good.
And predictable as the dawn, there it is.
The assumption that anger at Democrats' deliberate uselessness means advocacy for voting for Republicans.
These people are just as blind as the fringe right conspiracist nutjobs. It's like they're arguing that McDonalds is better than Burger King because they only spit in your food 75% of the time rather than 95% of the time, while you're arguing that we shouldn't be eating at either of these restaurants to begin with. To top it all off they call you insane and a fascist for not agreeing with them.
This country is so fucked.
Centrist Democrats can't imagine that people who don't want any spit at all in their burgers actually exist.
But it does, due to the unfortunate way our voting system is structured until massive voting reform voting for anyone accept the big two is literally voting for the other. It sucks but unless we change it we have to live with that
What a convenient excuse to silence all criticism.
Nope, I'm very vocal about criticism and fixing it but the solution you suggest has already horribly backfired once but by all means shoot yourself in the foot again
What solution did I suggest?
Oh right. You don't care. You don't want to listen, just lecture.
I'll listen when you say something that isn't just deflection
So what solution did I suggest?
Your responses were implicit that the only way to teach Democrats was to either vote Republican or third party.
Of course you did not come out and say this because you take a hard line stance on nothing instead, playing contrarian to everyone else.
Because as I've said before you only deflect you don't actually State what you believe. The entire time we've talked all you've done is call down existing institutions without offering up any actual solutions and anytime one is presented you deflect.
Hogwash. Democrats will never learn, and teaching them is a fool's errand. You seem to be operating under the misguided and all-too-common assumption that anyone who is critical of Democrats in the slightest is somehow in favor of Republicans or not voting.
Democrats are shit on purpose, and if that ever stops being true, I'll stop saying it.
Nope never said anything of the sort and you're arguing in bad faith and criticize while proposing no solutions so at this juncture I would like to say agree to disagree and leave it at that.
There never was a Democratic majority congress. West Virginia and Arizona both sent senators who had a D next to their name, but were really Rs.
Not only that, but you need a super majority in the senate to get anything real through, which means you need 60+ Democrats who ALL need to be on board, along with a majority of Democrats in the House, AND a Democrat president.
That hasn't happened since early Obama, and he squandered it by trying to pass bipartisan legislation with the Republicans, instead of just railroading the right things through.
50 plus a tiebreaker is a majority. You lied.
West Virginia and Arizona sent senators who represent party leadership to absolute perfection. They define the party.
The filibuster can be done away with forever with a simple majority. Manchin's party never will.
He got the bailouts passed. Democrats could have destroyed the relic of Jim Crow that is the filibuster to pass the public option. But they didn't wanna.
When was the last time Republicans held a majority like that and how is it that despite that majority, they still manage to pass all their vile legislation?
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
How do you know that hasn't already happened? Bob Casey's office released a report on shrinkflation, and sent a letter to the GAO to identify transparency measures that the federal government can implement to help consumers recognize shrinkflation. Sounds like there's a lot already moving.
Why is him getting out in front of the issue in the media not considered "ammo for his ads"? If all he needs is something to virtue signal about, then isn't that exactly what he's doing right now?
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.
Yeah, and in the UK I noticed that tax is included on the listed price as well. So again, no surprises for people when they check out, and don't need to do the math to account for the extra tax.
Same in the Netherlands. A shop legally must show a price that includes taxes. I’m always amazed that that’s not a thing in the US. Because you’re still forced to pay those taxes anyway, so why confuse things by not just showing the tax included price?
Here, what you see is what you pay.
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.
Including taxes doesn't really matter for that measure.
The bigger issue is that they're unreliable. They're often not updated if there's a sale, for instance.
Oh don’t expect an answer from that OP. They’re here to blame Biden. It doesn’t matter if there’s anything he can actually do about the issue.
It's all about lip service. Neither party really gives a shit about the American public.