5 ms·

Nice idea. A couple of small suggestions: - Perhaps choose some base rate of inflation and determine if the product price has increased in line with that or sl

Nice idea. A couple of small suggestions: - Perhaps choose some base rate of inflation and determine if the product price has increased in line with that or slower/faster. - Use a bold font to highlight the product weight. - Use an archived version of the product page today - that will reduce maintenance time moving forward. And a question: are you using net or gross weight? When using gross weight it may very well be an update in packaging that is impacting the reported number.

arcticbull 3y ago
Also, there's a lot of questionable things going on here. For instance, a big red flag on the bacon that went from 90% pork to 89% pork. That sounds like a rounding error to me. Certainly not worthy of calling out. Then tomato sauce (a preserved product) moving from raw tomato to preserved tomato getting called out when by all accounts, I can't imagine why that would matter. The product is after all, a preserved tomato product. Benefit of the doubt I'd just call it a recipe change. It may be better now. Just because it's different doesn't make it worse. Finally the Chicken Tikka going from 26% marinated chicken to 14% cooked marinated chicken. That line item includes the marinade in both cases - which evaporates during cooking. How much of that is lost water and fat? How much of that was just the marinade cooking off? Why is "deflation" just as red as "inflation" and "shitflation" - isn't that what you want? Lower prices? I'm confused, I think this is a pretty weak presentation all around. It would be really interesting to learn the magnitude of these effects but the way it's presented here it's hard to learn anything.
- lazide 3y ago
  Eh, shrinkflation is a number of small things like 90% pork to 89% pork. Do that 5-10 times, 1-2% at a time - and now you're at 75% pork. 26% marinated chicken to 14% cooked marinated chicken - what makes you think the lost fat made it into the meal, and wasn't skimmed off and sold off to (for example) a broth company, or a rendering plant? Maybe it was. If they could figure out how to make money off it though, chances are it wasn't. Also, how would you know it wasn’t really 20% chicken cooked down to 14%? It's a good way to lose actual calories and nutrients while thinking you're not losing anything. Which is also either shitflation or shrinkflation, depending on how you count it. Totally agree on deflation, etc. though. That could also be from switching to reasonable quality ingredients to total crap ingredients that technically can be listed as the same thing on the label. The challenge in general is it's the economy wide equivalent of shaving silver dollars - lots of small, invisible losses done by potentially many individuals that eventually add up to real visible differences and economy wide losses. In a way it's really hard to figure out who actually stole things.
  - geodel 3y ago
    Agree. If I go by 1% in 9 years, In just 810 years we will 0% pork in bacon. I for sure do not want to live in the world where zero percent pork in finest bacon is normalized.
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      Just a packet of preservatives with some pork flavoring. Truly sad.
- jonatron 3y ago
  > Then tomato sauce (a preserved product) moving from raw tomato to preserved tomato getting called out when by all accounts, I can't imagine why that would matter. The product is after all, a preserved tomato product. Benefit of the doubt I'd just call it a recipe change. Compare the nutrition information per 100g. Less carbs, sugars, fat, protein, fibre, but more salt.
  - 8organicbits 3y ago
    Since the product always contained salt, perhaps they now add less salt to compensate for the salt present in the preserved tomato? Is tomato sauce getting saltier?
    - lozenge 3y ago
      The nutrition information would show salt regardless of which ingredient it came from.
- brvsft 3y ago
  https://vegetarische.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/understanding-canned-tomato-products/ https://vegetarische.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/understanding-... > Tomato Puree > Made from cooked tomatoes that have been strained of seeds and skins. Often this is just “reconstituted tomato paste,” made by adding water to tomato paste. This product has weak tomato flavor and isn’t called for in many recipes. Use in chilis, soups, and other long-cooked recipes where smooth, rich tomato texture is required. Many American commercial pasta sauces have tomato puree as their first ingredient (because tomato paste is cheaper to ship) which is why they’re not as fresh tasting as homemade sauces. I don’t think this exists in Germany, but it doesn’t matter so much because you’re going to be adding it to recipes that calls for long cooking times and many ingredients. If you have a recipe that calls for it, you can make it by adding water to tomato paste, or cooking down passierte tomatoes. No idea how accurate this is, but I would assume it's true and thus "partially reconstituted tomato puree" is less ideal for a pasta sauce (where you likely want more of a tomato flavor).
- karaterobot 3y ago
  > For instance, a big red flag on the bacon that went from 90% pork to 89% pork. That sounds like a rounding error to me. Certainly not worthy of calling out. The reason you can say that there is no consequential difference being illustrated here is precisely because he recorded that difference. It's just data collection, it's not shady unless they hide the numbers and still draw the conclusions for you.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    That would be fine if it were consistent, but in the tomato sauce only "tomato" is highlighted despite the tomato in both coming from tomato and puree. What happened for the most part wasn't a net decrease in tomato but a shift in the relative proportions of the kinds used. Why not highlight the shift in proportion instead of just the drop in one component? What happened wasn't a drop from 73% tomato to 46% tomato as the highlighting would have you believe. Instead it's a change from 73% tomato/14% puree (total 87% tomato) to 46% tomato/43% partially reconstituted puree (total 89% tomato). It's actually more tomato than ever - while costing 20% less. Calling this "shitflation" seems like quite an arbitrary judgement from someone who hasn't tried it? Especially when it's 1/5 less expensive. What if it tastes better? What if it takes less than 20% worse?

arcticbull 3y ago

Also, there's a lot of questionable things going on here. For instance, a big red flag on the bacon that went from 90% pork to 89% pork. That sounds like a rounding error to me. Certainly not worthy of calling out. Then tomato sauce (a preserved product) moving from raw tomato to preserved tomato getting called out when by all accounts, I can't imagine why that would matter. The product is after all, a preserved tomato product. Benefit of the doubt I'd just call it a recipe change. It may be better now. Just because it's different doesn't make it worse. Finally the Chicken Tikka going from 26% marinated chicken to 14% cooked marinated chicken. That line item includes the marinade in both cases - which evaporates during cooking. How much of that is lost water and fat? How much of that was just the marinade cooking off? Why is "deflation" just as red as "inflation" and "shitflation" - isn't that what you want? Lower prices? I'm confused, I think this is a pretty weak presentation all around. It would be really interesting to learn the magnitude of these effects but the way it's presented here it's hard to learn anything.

lazide 3y ago
Eh, shrinkflation is a number of small things like 90% pork to 89% pork. Do that 5-10 times, 1-2% at a time - and now you're at 75% pork. 26% marinated chicken to 14% cooked marinated chicken - what makes you think the lost fat made it into the meal, and wasn't skimmed off and sold off to (for example) a broth company, or a rendering plant? Maybe it was. If they could figure out how to make money off it though, chances are it wasn't. Also, how would you know it wasn’t really 20% chicken cooked down to 14%? It's a good way to lose actual calories and nutrients while thinking you're not losing anything. Which is also either shitflation or shrinkflation, depending on how you count it. Totally agree on deflation, etc. though. That could also be from switching to reasonable quality ingredients to total crap ingredients that technically can be listed as the same thing on the label. The challenge in general is it's the economy wide equivalent of shaving silver dollars - lots of small, invisible losses done by potentially many individuals that eventually add up to real visible differences and economy wide losses. In a way it's really hard to figure out who actually stole things.
- geodel 3y ago
  Agree. If I go by 1% in 9 years, In just 810 years we will 0% pork in bacon. I for sure do not want to live in the world where zero percent pork in finest bacon is normalized.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Just a packet of preservatives with some pork flavoring. Truly sad.
jonatron 3y ago
> Then tomato sauce (a preserved product) moving from raw tomato to preserved tomato getting called out when by all accounts, I can't imagine why that would matter. The product is after all, a preserved tomato product. Benefit of the doubt I'd just call it a recipe change. Compare the nutrition information per 100g. Less carbs, sugars, fat, protein, fibre, but more salt.
- 8organicbits 3y ago
  Since the product always contained salt, perhaps they now add less salt to compensate for the salt present in the preserved tomato? Is tomato sauce getting saltier?
  - lozenge 3y ago
    The nutrition information would show salt regardless of which ingredient it came from.
brvsft 3y ago
https://vegetarische.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/understanding-canned-tomato-products/ https://vegetarische.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/understanding-... > Tomato Puree > Made from cooked tomatoes that have been strained of seeds and skins. Often this is just “reconstituted tomato paste,” made by adding water to tomato paste. This product has weak tomato flavor and isn’t called for in many recipes. Use in chilis, soups, and other long-cooked recipes where smooth, rich tomato texture is required. Many American commercial pasta sauces have tomato puree as their first ingredient (because tomato paste is cheaper to ship) which is why they’re not as fresh tasting as homemade sauces. I don’t think this exists in Germany, but it doesn’t matter so much because you’re going to be adding it to recipes that calls for long cooking times and many ingredients. If you have a recipe that calls for it, you can make it by adding water to tomato paste, or cooking down passierte tomatoes. No idea how accurate this is, but I would assume it's true and thus "partially reconstituted tomato puree" is less ideal for a pasta sauce (where you likely want more of a tomato flavor).
karaterobot 3y ago
> For instance, a big red flag on the bacon that went from 90% pork to 89% pork. That sounds like a rounding error to me. Certainly not worthy of calling out. The reason you can say that there is no consequential difference being illustrated here is precisely because he recorded that difference. It's just data collection, it's not shady unless they hide the numbers and still draw the conclusions for you.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  That would be fine if it were consistent, but in the tomato sauce only "tomato" is highlighted despite the tomato in both coming from tomato and puree. What happened for the most part wasn't a net decrease in tomato but a shift in the relative proportions of the kinds used. Why not highlight the shift in proportion instead of just the drop in one component? What happened wasn't a drop from 73% tomato to 46% tomato as the highlighting would have you believe. Instead it's a change from 73% tomato/14% puree (total 87% tomato) to 46% tomato/43% partially reconstituted puree (total 89% tomato). It's actually more tomato than ever - while costing 20% less. Calling this "shitflation" seems like quite an arbitrary judgement from someone who hasn't tried it? Especially when it's 1/5 less expensive. What if it tastes better? What if it takes less than 20% worse?