Part of the problem with the current food supply chain is the disconnect between producer and consumer. Information about where food is grown or manufactured as well additional information about growing techniques or specific manufacturing process are not available to consumers. Even after extensive research, it is often difficult to know where our food comes from. It is easy to disguise products as local and to hide their origins or details concerning their production.

I am currently reading a Twinkie Deconstructed which is dedicated to examining and tracing the origin and method of manufacture of each of the ingredients in the popular cake snack Twinkies. Ever wonder what Polysorbate 60 is? This book drive the point across of how far we have become separated from our food sources and how little information we really have about the food (and food like substances) that we eat.

Tracking the food we eat

I’ve already written about pilot programs that use RFID to track food from farm to plate but other initiatives using barcodes could also be effective in tracking food. Several companies including FoodReg and TraceTracker are trying to address issues surrounding traceability of items in the food supply chain. Databases can track origin or specific growing conditions of the food being tracked. For examples TraceTracker and Intel are teaming up to develop a system that allows tracking of halal foods.

Maybe someday I will really be able to tell whether the apples for my apple juice came from the farmer down the road or from some tree halfway around the world.

Have you ever noticed that certain food items that you buy don’t seem to last as long as before? This could be due to the practice known as short sizing.

What is short sizing?

The practice of short sizing consists of slightly reducing package sizes while keeping the prices near the same level. This has the effect of reducing the amount of food required to be manufactured thus reducing the manufacturer’s cost. In some cases, the packaging remains identical but the amount of food in the package is reduced. As prices are kept the same, manufacturers increase their profit margin. Some manufacturers claim that the practice is used to prevent the need to raise prices but the effect for the consumer is the same, less food for the same price.

Short sizing can and does happen in other retail packages such as shampoo and cleaning supplies but it can be seen most often in food products.

Does it really matter?

Short sized packages are typically slightly smaller than the previous packages which they replace. For example, a 1 litre jar of peanut butter might be reduced to 975 ml or a 500 g box of crackers might get replaced by a 450 g box. The small change has the effect that many consumers will not notice the smaller size and simply purchase the product as they had before.

Slight reductions in sizes, especially to odd sizes can also make it more difficult for shoppers to perform unit cost calculations for comparison shopping. 5$ for a 500 ml can of juice makes it easy to calculate a 1$ per 100 ml unit cost. 5$ for a 475 ml can of juice however is a bit tougher to calculate the unit cost of $1.05 per 100 ml. By making it more difficult to compare unit costs, it is hard for grocery shoppers to know if they are really getting a good value for their food dollars. Although I can’t find the original study, reportedly, in a UK study : “When provided with only the total price and weight for six different sizes of baked beans, just 7% of consumers could accurately calculate the lowest unit price.”

People are taking notice

Many consumers are growing frustrated with short sizing and recently the mainstream media such as the NY Times and the LA Times have picked up stories of consumer frustration.

Does it bother you that packages are shrinking without getting any cheaper?

Update: Another article about short sizing: http://www.moneyville.ca/blog/post/1033350–why-juice-boxes-are-10-smaller-but-cost-the-same

In 2007, the Canadian government announced new regulatory changes with respect to cheese sold in Canada that may affect the quality, content and perhaps the price of cheese in your supermarket.

Cheese labelling changes

The changes are fairly minor but the updated law will require imposes compositional standards for cheeses. In other words there will now be minimum percentages of milk and cream required to make and sell cheese under certain labels such as cheddar in Canada. This is in contrast to today where cheese manufacturers have no limits on the percentages of other milk ingredients (modified milk ingredients) which can be used to manufacture cheese.

The entire list of regulations concerning not only cheese but other dairy products can be found at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-0.4/SOR-79-840.

Not everybody views this change as positive

While the dairy industry and smaller cheese producers support the amendments, the industry’s biggest cheese processors such as Kraft Canada and Saputo are fighting the labelling changes as they claim that the reduction of modified milk ingredients (mostly imported) from their cheese making process in favour of raw milk (local I might add), will raise prices and in the end hurt cheese consumption.

As previously stated on the CBC’s Marketplace, there is more to the story however. Modified milk ingredients can be imported into Canada tariff free unlike milk and cream which are typically used to make cheese and ice cream. These low cost milk ingredients are then used to make lower quality products.

Quick resolution?

Hopefully the legal challenges will be quickly struck down and Canadian can finally be assured that what they are buying in their stores really is the cheese that they expect.

See also: http://www.theholmteam.ca/Canadian.cheese.pdf