The NYTimes recently pointed out that “food” manufacturers have been surreptitiously reducing their packaging size so they can sell less product for the same amount of money, all the while hoping consumers won’t notice.
As if we needed more reason to feel vindicated in our food choices. So here’s an industry that thinks they can sell us these edible food-like substances full of questionable ingredients, tell us it’s good for us, follow the economy up, down, and all around with their packaging, and not bother to inform us that we’re getting less value? And then to suggest that smaller packaging is better for us because it’s a reduction in calories?! Wow.
Sure is hard to fool Paleo/Primal consumers when we get to pick which apples and steaks we want. Which isn’t to say we won’t be affected by rising food prices—we will (see my previous food prices piece here). But at least it’s all upfront.
The San Francisco Chronicle details the dangers of BPA and food packaging. After only three days off packaged foods, study subjects’ BPA urine levels dropped by 60%. Mostly good news for those of us who rarely touch the stuff, but check out the graph at the top of the page. Coconut milk is a major offender and canned fish (i.e. tuna, salmon, sardines) doesn’t fare so well either. Yikes.
Anyone know a coconut milk brand that has BPA-free cans?