HOME > Chowhound > General Topics >

Ice cream container size question

2
2chez mike Dec 16, 2010 06:10 PM

When did the standard half-gallon container of ice cream that you buy in the supermarket shrink to 1.5 quarts? I just noticed this a couple of months ago when I brought home some ice cream and the container seemed a little small. I went back to the supermarket and checked out the other brands. All 1.5 quarts. How long has this been going on?

I've noticed this shrinking trend of standard supermaket sizes in other food and drink products, as well. Off the top of my head:
-canned tuna. Previously 6 oz. can, now 5 oz
-frozen vegetables in a bag. Previously 1 lb., now 12 oz.
-dried pasta. Previously 1 lb., now many are appearing in 12 oz. boxes

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. monku RE: 2chez mike Dec 16, 2010 06:51 PM

    According to this article the downsizing of ice cream containers from half gallons started in 2006. Haven't you bought ice cream since then?

    http://consumerist.com/2008/04/breyer...

    4 Replies
    1. re: monku
      2
      2chez mike RE: monku Dec 16, 2010 07:50 PM

      For the longest time I'd just buy pints of Hagen Dazs or Ben And Jerry's. About a year ago I started buying 1/2 gallons, er, ah, 1.5 quarts of Dreyer's, Breyer's or supermarket house brand to stretch my grocery budget.

      Thanks for the link. But it the date was 2008, not 2006.

      I also noticed the chain supermarket where I usually shop, Ralph's, recently repackaged it's house brand "Private Selection" ice cream and doubled the price.

      1. re: 2chez mike
        r
        racer x RE: 2chez mike Dec 23, 2010 06:38 AM

        ^ "For the longest time I'd just buy pints of Hagen Dazs or Ben And Jerry's."

        Looks like someone's been snookered.
        http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/634275
        http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/588516

        1. re: racer x
          2
          2chez mike RE: racer x Dec 23, 2010 02:19 PM

          LOL!

      2. re: monku
        c
        Chowrin RE: monku Dec 19, 2010 02:27 AM

        costco still sells a full gallon.

      3. s
        SherBel RE: 2chez mike Dec 18, 2010 10:04 AM

        It's a very interesting trend, isn't it? Here in Canada, for ages, ice cream was sold in 2 litre containers. Gradually, they starting shrinking to 1.89 litres. Now they're all edging down to 1.5 litres.

        It reminds me of the ongoing toilet paper scam. A roll used to be 200 sheets, so a double roll was 400 sheets. Now the packaging explains that a 'single' roll is 140 sheets! So a 'double' is 280 sheets! I Wow!

        I fully expect than in the near future, we'll be buying "quintuple" rolls of toilet paper....and ice cream will be measured by the molecule, or possibly the atom.

        18 Replies
        1. re: SherBel
          v
          Violatp RE: SherBel Dec 18, 2010 10:12 AM

          So, I'm not the only person in the tp aisle comparing sheet count?? There's a brand sold here (not sure about Canada) called Angel Soft that has the best sheet count / bang for my buck.

          As for ice cream, it's really annoying as the price either stays the same or creeps higher and higher. And some "pints" are 14 oz. now. It's going to start getting wonky with recipes...

          1. re: Violatp
            Will Owen RE: Violatp Dec 18, 2010 04:57 PM

            The sheet count isn't the only thing getting smaller with TP: one of our bathrooms has an inset paper holder, and I used to have a hard time getting both ends of the axle thingy to go into the holes. I was congratulating myself recently for having gotten much better at it, then realized that I didn't used to be able to see both ends at once … but now the paper roll is narrow enough that can!

            Back on topic, however, I cannot express how annoyed I am with shrinking "standard" sizes. It does seem to me that dairy products should all be sold in standard sizes, whether it's ice cream or milk or whipping cream: pints, quarts, half-gallons, whatever. Or liters or half-liters. What next, 1.5-pint cartons of milk? 12 oz. packages of butter?

            1. re: Will Owen
              ipsedixit RE: Will Owen Dec 18, 2010 05:13 PM

              Whats so special or important about so-called "standard" sizes?

              Is milk somehow less tasty or not as nutritious because it comes in a 1.5 pint container as opposed to a 1/2 gallon?

              I've never known toilet paper to be more or less efficacious because a roll contained 100 or 100" sheets.

              1. re: ipsedixit
                2
                2chez mike RE: ipsedixit Dec 18, 2010 05:41 PM

                It's a sneaky way of raising the price by gradually giving you less and less. Yet the price gradually creeps upward at the same time. I'm talking about standards that have been in place as far back as I can remember since being a kid in the 1960's, and probobly way before that, as well.

                Where does it all end? Theoretically, like the poster above mentioned, somewhere in the future, some will be paying a million dollars for a molecule of ice cream if the trend continues.. :)

                1. re: ipsedixit
                  s
                  Sharuf RE: ipsedixit Dec 19, 2010 01:43 AM

                  "Whats so special or important about so-called "standard" sizes?" Here's what:

                  -- Many recipes are based on standard sizes -- e.g. a can of tunafish
                  -- You get accustomed to counting on getting a certain number of servings out of a can or package of whatever
                  -- plus there's a matter of trust. When somebody's marketing department starts short-sizing you, you feel like you're being had, and you are!

                  1. re: Sharuf
                    ipsedixit RE: Sharuf Dec 19, 2010 09:25 AM

                    >>> Many recipes are based on standard sizes -- e.g. a can of tunafish

                    That's an issue with the cookbook. Why would a manufacturer cater to a cookbook or a recipe?

                    >>> You get accustomed to counting on getting a certain number of servings out of a can or package of whatever.

                    One can and should learn new customs.

                    >>> plus there's a matter of trust. When somebody's marketing department starts short-sizing you, you feel like you're being had, and you are!

                    No, you're not being had. The smaller sizes are clearly labeled on the products. It would be entirely different if the can said 10 oz. and you got only 8 oz. Clearly not the case here.

                    1. re: ipsedixit
                      Will Owen RE: ipsedixit Dec 20, 2010 04:14 PM

                      If you've been buying the same size can of the same product for 30-some years, not only have you long ago stopped reading the label, you're probably even less likely to now that you have to dig out your reading glasses! And take it from a genuine geezer: light-face numbers printed on a dark green metallic label in 12-point type does NOT constitute "clearly labeled" for lots of us.

                      1. re: Will Owen
                        ipsedixit RE: Will Owen Dec 21, 2010 10:46 AM

                        Will,

                        All of those issue you raise (e.g. settled expectations, small print, etc.) are issues with the consumer, not the manufacturer.

                        Resizing a package or container and then labeling it with the new size is neither (1) deceptive (2) illegal or (3) improper.

                        The manufacturer has done everything well within its rights.

                        Maybe time to visit your optometrist?

                        1. re: Will Owen
                          jfood RE: Will Owen Dec 21, 2010 01:06 PM

                          And don't get me started on changing cell phones and they ask you for the ESN number inside the back of the phone. That is in 2-pt font.

                        2. re: ipsedixit
                          jgg13 RE: ipsedixit Dec 21, 2010 01:06 PM

                          When something is reduced from a gallon to a quart, it's obvious to the consumer. When something is reduced from 9oz to 8oz it's an attempt to trick the consumer.

                          1. re: jgg13
                            Will Owen RE: jgg13 Dec 21, 2010 04:02 PM

                            Yes, and printing the size in ounces with no further notice is the kind of excuse some of the self-righteous snots we knew in grade school would pull. Excellent illustration of what's the difference between Legal and Right.

                            Some of these old brands have a legacy of trust that goes back for generations. When we learn that Smucker's, Hellman's and Meadow Gold are sneaking things by us - by which I mean no obvious public notice - many of us feel like Grandma just flipped us off. Of course it's LEGAL, but that is very much beside the point, unless you're a lawyer.

                            1. re: Will Owen
                              jgg13 RE: Will Owen Dec 21, 2010 07:47 PM

                              I have to say that I really don't care that much if someone wants to jack up a price on something. But when they very subtly reduce the size and keep the same price, it smacks of deception to me. As you note, yes, a vigilant person can notice this, but the key is that subtlety - if it's clear that they're trying to deceive, I'm not so fond of it :( Exactly the way you put it - legal, but kind of sleazy

                              1. re: jgg13
                                ipsedixit RE: jgg13 Dec 21, 2010 07:59 PM

                                But just about everything a manufacturer does can be considered "deception" (your word).

                                From the color schemes, to the package shape, to a product's name are all a part of what manufacturers do to get you to buy their products.

                                How is using Tony the Tiger to sell cereal any different than maintaining prices but reducing product size, esp. if doing so will not decrease (or maintain) consumer interest and/or demand.

                                Perhaps for people like yourself and Will Owen, paying more for the same product size may not be an issue, but for many people who are on fixed incomes they cannot pay more for the same package sized product.

                                So, instead of paying $1 more for that gallon of milk, they simply forgo it entirely because their fixed income budgets won't allow for that $1 increase. But if the price did not increase by $1, that person on a fixed income could still buy milk, but just a smaller container of milk.

                                So for that person on the fixed income or an EBT card, the tradeoff of paying the same for less is much better than paying more for the same.

                                1. re: ipsedixit
                                  s
                                  Sharuf RE: ipsedixit Dec 23, 2010 10:07 AM

                                  Buying the shrunken size is not necessarily practical or do-able. If a product that formerly gave you two servings now gives you one-and-a-half servings, your choice is to buy two of them and have leftovers or get something else.

                                  1. re: ipsedixit
                                    c
                                    Chowrin RE: ipsedixit Dec 23, 2010 02:35 PM

                                    tony the tiger is just as bad! i don't need people telling me what to eat -- and I want things to fluctuate at the rate of the market. Costco had a sign posted "no more than 10 bags of flour per customer". Fifty pound bags. That's because costco has smart customers who know when flour is headed up.

                                    I don't buy it: "same for less" versus "sameish for more"... I look at my costco receipts for milk, and they really don't change that much.

                                    person on fixed income is probably more ripped off by buying small quantities of milk (1 qt has a MUCH higher price per oz. than a gal)

                                    1. re: Chowrin
                                      coll RE: Chowrin Dec 23, 2010 02:50 PM

                                      Milk has been very stable lately, but a year or so ago was up at least 25%. Most wholesale milk comes in half gallons by the way.

                              2. re: jgg13
                                thew RE: jgg13 Dec 23, 2010 07:54 AM

                                not really. they know that eople shop by price more than size. marketing will have determined that people will not pay more than $5 for product x. it is not long cost effective to sell product x in the original size for the original price. they can either raise the price or shrink the container. but the aforementioned marketing research shows they won't pay more, so the container shrink is a better sales option.
                                it isn;t dishonest - it's just indicative of how people shop

                    2. re: SherBel
                      f
                      fletchandme RE: SherBel Feb 2, 2011 05:16 AM

                      Actually, the single roll was 280 sheets in 2000. In April of 2000, Charmin and Northern began shrinking the rolls, and then adding double and triple rolls of the new smaller sheet count. Making the new 600 sheet per triple roll, just a few more sheets than the old double roll of 560 sheets. BUT, they didn't stop there. They made each 4.4" sheet into 4" sheets. So now, the triple roll actually becomes 2% smaller than the old double roll. I think the shrinkage of toilet paper and other paper products far surpass the shrinkage in food products.

                    3. coll RE: 2chez mike Dec 19, 2010 01:49 AM

                      The reason/excuse I always hear is that consumers don't want to pay about a certain price, so they have to make the packages smaller. Possibly true for the general public, annoying to me. Hellmanns mayo barely lasts a week anymore at just 30 z, and I can't freeze a perfect quart of stock in their (stupid plastic) bottles anymore either. But life goes on....

                      4 Replies
                      1. re: coll
                        c
                        Chowrin RE: coll Dec 19, 2010 02:29 AM

                        "passing on the price to the consumer"... slowly, and with much lag, because of the damn redesign! Give me costco's "prices fluctuate on a weekly basis" (no, I shop there once a month, but milk and ice cream certainly fluctuate together), anyday...

                        1. re: Chowrin
                          coll RE: Chowrin Dec 19, 2010 10:32 AM

                          All food prices fluctuate, up AND down believe it or not. Meat and produce is a daily thing; all dairy is connected at the commodity level and tightly controlled. Wheat and grain is the new high now, and that affects meat prices since US uses grain to feed.

                          Grocery chains lock in ahead so there's your lag, sometimes in your favor and sometimes not. If you're a bargain hunter like me, you can figure it out to your benefit.

                        2. re: coll
                          2
                          2chez mike RE: coll Dec 19, 2010 10:07 AM

                          coll-

                          Yikes! Mayo too? I just ran to the fridge and checked. How long have we been being short changed on the "quart" of mayo?

                          1. re: 2chez mike
                            coll RE: 2chez mike Dec 19, 2010 10:13 AM

                            A couple of years, at least. Since Hellmann prices went through the roof, when oil was sky high.

                        3. s
                          SherBel RE: 2chez mike Dec 19, 2010 09:59 AM

                          "One can and should learn new customs" is not only patronizing and insulting, it's missing the point.

                          The point is that we are spending more and getting less for products that we purchase. It's escalating to ludicrous degrees, and we're a wee bit pissed about it. It's a financial issue, not an education issue, for God's sake.

                          No "learning" is necessary, thanks.

                          8 Replies
                          1. re: SherBel
                            c
                            Chowrin RE: SherBel Dec 19, 2010 10:12 AM

                            vote with your pocket book. and your retirement fund. 1 in 6 americans got food poisoning last year.

                            Profit uber alles. We're paying them to kill us.

                            Suggest buying from places like Costco, that have higher food standards, and cheaper prices via less advertising.

                            1. re: SherBel
                              ipsedixit RE: SherBel Dec 19, 2010 10:15 AM

                              Prices always increase -- on just about everything, not just food.

                              Save for a few things like gasoline, adjusted for inflation, just about everything we buy today is more expensive than it was in days of yore.

                              Plus, companies are in business to make money, not provide charity. And I, for one, want these companies to make money. I either directly or indirectly own a stake of some sort in these companies (e.g. stocks or bonds) in either my portfolio or my retirement funds. I'd imagine most people do as well.

                              Don't begrudge companies for trying to make money. Better to be just a more savvy shopper.

                              1. re: ipsedixit
                                c
                                Chowrin RE: ipsedixit Dec 19, 2010 10:50 AM

                                I don't need to spend money to be told what to buy. And I don't need to spend money to be poisoned. yes sir, i will begrudge companies for selling inferior products to make a buck, and ones with poor food standards. I strongly urge you to invest in companies that have better charters. 1 in 6 americans got food poisoning last year. what's the cost of botulism these days? on a per human basis?

                                1. re: ipsedixit
                                  c
                                  Cachetes RE: ipsedixit Dec 21, 2010 04:51 PM

                                  No one has disputed that companies are in it to make money, nor has anyone suggested they should be doling out charity. However, there is an issue of good faith here, part of many relationships between consumer and producer. And a company that purposely hollows out a huge convex cave in the bottom of a bottle to make it look like it's delivering the same amount of product for the same price is simply not acting in good faith, nor is one that redesigns a bottle to look like it's delivering more product when in fact it is delivering less. To place the entire onus on shoppers is akin to suggesting that we should jettison all notions of the social contract that is one of the foundations of modern morality.

                                  1. re: Cachetes
                                    ipsedixit RE: Cachetes Dec 21, 2010 05:01 PM

                                    If the packages are labeled correctly, the notions of "social contract" which you contend are the "foundations of modern morality" are still in place.

                                    1. re: ipsedixit
                                      c
                                      Cachetes RE: ipsedixit Dec 21, 2010 05:06 PM

                                      We are all just going to disagree about this. Our visions and frames for arguing these points are simply distinct. We can go in circles and circles, but I doubt that would lead anywhere except to the Team locking this thread. So, Happy Holidays to you and yours!!

                                      1. re: ipsedixit
                                        s
                                        Sharuf RE: ipsedixit Dec 23, 2010 10:10 AM

                                        Ipse - you're sounding like a spokesperson from a marketing dept.

                                        1. re: ipsedixit
                                          c
                                          Chowrin RE: ipsedixit Dec 23, 2010 02:36 PM

                                          grok that. rathair contained inside should also be labeled, as well as percentage chance of botulism, based on current market research. Truth in Labeling, it's your friend!

                                  2. l
                                    leepinleemur RE: 2chez mike Dec 21, 2010 12:31 PM

                                    http://consumerist.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-...

                                    1 Reply
                                    1. re: leepinleemur
                                      s
                                      Sharuf RE: leepinleemur Dec 23, 2010 10:14 AM

                                      Great link! Thanks, Leeper.

                                    2. j
                                      jjw RE: 2chez mike Dec 21, 2010 01:00 PM

                                      We eat a lot of cereal at our house...and those boxes certainly contain less than they used to.

                                      1. t
                                        therealdoctorlew RE: 2chez mike Dec 21, 2010 01:21 PM

                                        Try to buy a pound of coffee or an 8 oz container of yoghurt or any remembered size of canned or jarred products. It's bizarre, but apparently inflation makes things shrink!

                                        1 Reply
                                        1. re: therealdoctorlew
                                          Will Owen RE: therealdoctorlew Dec 21, 2010 05:06 PM

                                          Look into any Betty Crocker or BH&G cookbook pre-'60 and see how many recipes call for a "#2 can" of something. There was a time when everybody knew the standard sizes for everything, and all the containers were made to those standard sizes. Perhaps it passed because we got all "free-markety", but I'm going to agree with Cachetes: it's greed, pure and simple, and an expression of bad faith on the part of the food industry. Do they truly think that if they have to raise the price of a pound of coffee, we'll stop buying coffee? Guess what - I STILL buy coffee by the pound - I go to Peet's and pay twelve bucks for it, and they weigh it out in a bag for me.

                                        2. b
                                          beachmouse RE: 2chez mike Dec 21, 2010 04:30 PM

                                          Publix's house brand ice cream is still in two quart containers, and their premium flavors are better than Breyers, IMO.

                                          2 Replies
                                          1. re: beachmouse
                                            c
                                            Cheez62 RE: beachmouse Dec 21, 2010 08:32 PM

                                            Other house brands, as well as some local or regional brands, still package in half-gallon containers. I've found some produced near here that is not sold in the grocery stores I usually shop, but is available at other nearby stores, that is in half-gallons. Along those same lines, I was in Texas for work last week and I passed a Blue Bell truck on the highway...it said on the side "still in half-gallon containers", or something to that effect.

                                            1. re: Cheez62
                                              a
                                              aggiecat RE: Cheez62 Feb 2, 2011 06:28 AM

                                              YUMmmmm, Blue Bell. It's still good stuff and if you have a chance to eat it, you should, in half-gallon containers. Although I wasn't crazy about the new Blueberry Pie flavor.

                                          2. ChrisOC RE: 2chez mike Dec 22, 2010 04:54 AM

                                            Talk about deception, what about Skippy peanut butter. The jar appears to be the same size as always, but a large dome in the bottom has reduced its capacity.

                                            1. r
                                              racer x RE: 2chez mike Dec 23, 2010 06:42 AM

                                              I totally agree that subtly dropping the container size while maintaining the price is SNEAKY. It's dishonest.
                                              I can deal with manufacturers' raising prices to meet their costs -- to a certain point, anyway.
                                              I cannot deal with them doing it in underhanded ways.

                                              That was the main reason I gave up Häagen-Dazs. Used to go through several pints per every week. Now just have a few pints a year.

                                              1. f
                                                FarFar RE: 2chez mike Dec 23, 2010 07:28 AM

                                                I'm pretty sure that I'm getting ripped off by the ice cream people. I notice that the cartons say that there are 12-14 servings in the carton, but I only get 4-5!! ;>)

                                                1. SanityRemoved RE: 2chez mike Dec 25, 2010 02:20 PM

                                                  Byrne Dairy has actually changed their packaging to let consumers know they are still getting a half gallon of ice cream. Good for them, the others think they are slick, plain and simple. My choice is simple too. If you want to lower the amount in a package that suddenly shrank after selling it in a larger size then you are no longer getting my business. Labeling a package correctly does not mean that a company is not trying to be deceptive. It's evident that many consumers do believe it to be deceptive especially when the price is identical when the switch takes place.

                                                  9 Replies
                                                  1. re: SanityRemoved
                                                    thew RE: SanityRemoved Dec 25, 2010 04:07 PM

                                                    how is it different from raising the price unannounced?

                                                    why is more reasonable to assume people will notice the price than the size of what they purchase?

                                                    1. re: thew
                                                      ipsedixit RE: thew Dec 25, 2010 04:16 PM

                                                      why is more reasonable to assume people will notice the price than the size of what they purchase?
                                                      ______________________________

                                                      Because ...

                                                      ... people are lazy
                                                      ... people are slaves to cookbooks that use "standard" pkg sizes
                                                      ... people have bad-eyesight
                                                      ... people are gullible
                                                      ... people have nothing else better to do than complain

                                                      1. re: ipsedixit
                                                        c
                                                        Cachetes RE: ipsedixit Dec 25, 2010 04:18 PM

                                                        You seem to know an awful lot about people.

                                                        1. re: Cachetes
                                                          ipsedixit RE: Cachetes Dec 25, 2010 04:21 PM

                                                          By the way Cachetes ... I forgot to reciprocate and wish you a happy holidays. Apologies for the belated holiday greetings!

                                                          1. re: ipsedixit
                                                            c
                                                            Cachetes RE: ipsedixit Dec 25, 2010 04:23 PM

                                                            Many thanks. We had many good meals and lots of cheer - hope you and yours did as well.

                                                            1. re: Cachetes
                                                              ipsedixit RE: Cachetes Dec 25, 2010 04:25 PM

                                                              Always good food and even better company. With so much of the latter, sometimes the former becomes (almost) irrelevant.

                                                      2. re: thew
                                                        SanityRemoved RE: thew Dec 25, 2010 04:22 PM

                                                        When things are typically sold in certain units of measure, people can readily see a price increase based upon past purchases. We do this for eggs, milk, ice cream, meat is sold by the pound, etc. . Changing sizes is deceptive. New packaging does not have to indicate a lesser amount of product. I'm certain that anyone who went to fill up their car with gasoline and failed to notice that the gasoline was being sold as 3/4 gallon versus a gallon would not be amused.

                                                        1. re: SanityRemoved
                                                          Will Owen RE: SanityRemoved Dec 25, 2010 10:53 PM

                                                          "New packaging does not have to indicate a lesser amount of product." Now, there's a good idea! We've all seen those Hellman's/Best Foods jars that say "New Larger Package - 4 Extra Ounces FREE!" So how about requiring that they give equal publicity to changes in the other direction: "New Smaller Package - 6 Fewer Ounces AT THE SAME PRICE!" They could still tout some advantages, such as "Easier to fit in your fridge!" or "20% fewer Calories Per Package!"

                                                          1. re: SanityRemoved
                                                            thew RE: SanityRemoved Dec 26, 2010 05:37 AM

                                                            new packaging does indicate a change in size. pretty much all packaging in the USA has a weight or volume on it.

                                                      3. Tripeler RE: 2chez mike Dec 26, 2010 04:55 AM

                                                        The best solution in the case of ice cream is to sell it by weight, not by volume. Rather than a half gallon (volume), how about five pounds?

                                                        1. s
                                                          SherBel RE: 2chez mike Dec 26, 2010 04:36 PM

                                                          I'm just waiting for the the packages of a "dozen" eggs to contain only 10. They'll be the New "Light, Less Fat and Cholesterol" eggs. In all fairness though, they'll cost more, because they'll be healthier. Once that's caught on, the packages will be whittled down to only 8 eggs....even more healthy! Soon it will be marketing in the negative.....we can pay to take food BACK to the store, thus saving calories AND money! Because, like,...the trend is unsustainable, albeit highly entertaining to observe.

                                                          1 Reply
                                                          1. re: SherBel
                                                            Tripeler RE: SherBel Dec 26, 2010 06:03 PM

                                                            Eggs in Japan have normally been sold in packages of 10, but recently I have seen 8-packs.

                                                          2. f
                                                            fletchandme RE: 2chez mike Feb 2, 2011 05:32 AM

                                                            Monku is correct, the downsizing began in 2006 when the 1/2 gallon went to 1.75 qts. And 2chez is also right, in 2008, it shrunk again to 1.5 qts.
                                                            Still, not as big of a shrinkage as a single toilet paper roll that was 280 sheets in the year 2000, compared to what Charmin now calls a triple roll with just 300 sheets. That means the new single roll is 100 sheets, for a total of a 64% decrease in product for the buck.
                                                            If 1/2 gallon ice cream shrunk by 64%, the new carton would be 23 oz. today. You can bet people would notice and there would be an outcry.
                                                            But there is still not much of a whimper in regards to paper products. The companies are using much thinner cardboard in the middle, plus the cardboard is bigger around, causing a double whammy of pressure and no more round centers on your roll holder. But much worse yet, the companies are just winding the paper around the cardboard very, very loosely, and trying to deceive us into thinking we're getting the same thing we used to get.
                                                            Let me say that again.
                                                            A 64% decrease in the amount of toilet paper in a package...regardless of whether you're buying single, double or triple rolls.

                                                            And while on the subject of shrinkage, candy has also gone from standard one pound bags to anywhere from 8.8 oz to 12.2 oz. A Russell Stover candy box used to be one pound, or 16 oz., and now it's 11.5 oz. Shrinkage of almost 1/3.

                                                            2 Replies
                                                            1. re: fletchandme
                                                              2
                                                              2chez mike RE: fletchandme Feb 2, 2011 09:43 AM

                                                              "The companies are using much thinner cardboard in the middle, plus the cardboard is bigger around, causing a double whammy of pressure and no more round centers on your roll holder."

                                                              LOL! I've noticed that, too. A misshapen cardboard center defeats the whole purpose of having the toilet paper on a roll: ease of use.

                                                              1. re: 2chez mike
                                                                monku RE: 2chez mike Feb 2, 2011 03:24 PM

                                                                I'd heard the cardboard roll is being eliminated.
                                                                http://hamptonroads.com/2010/10/toile...

                                                            Show Hidden Posts