Portion control is going to cost you, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. They took a look at the new “100 calorie” portion control fad and guess what they found? You’re paying a hefty premium for your portion control. Those packs cost, on average, about two-and-a-half times as much as bigger bags.
“Cheese Nips” were the worst offenders—charging an unbelievable 279% markup on their 100 calorie pack. Other price offenders: Keebler Chips Deluxe Cookies (250%), Chex Mix (248%),Ritz Crackers/Snack Mix (229%) and
Goldfish Pretzels (196%.)
“Hundred-calorie packs are an ingenious way for companies to charge consumers more for less,” said CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson. “Manufacturers get the best of both worlds–they make more money, and they look like they’re helping people control their weight. But consumers could save money by divvying up their regular box of Cheese Nips themselves if they are worried about downing the whole container. Or better yet, they could skip the junk foods altogether and reach for a piece of fruit.”
CSPI says companies get away with charging an arm and leg because the packages look and cost about the same as a regular box of crackers and cookies. It’s only when you look at the prices per ounce that sticker shock sets in. Keebler Deluxe Chocolate Chip Cookies in the regular box, for example, are $.17/ OZ at internet grocer Peapod. The same cookies in the 100 calorie packs weight in at a hefty $.82/ OZ. Both boxes cost about the same $3.59 for the 100 calorie packs and $3.07 (on sale) for the regular box.
Eating smaller portions of snacks is a great idea, but do you really want to pay, on average, 146% more?
Consumers Pay Hefty Premium for Air, Packaging in 100-Calorie Packs [CSPI]
100-Calorie Pack Cost Comparison (Full Results, PDF) [CSPI]
More From Consumerist
-
Coke & Pepsi Vending Machines Will Get Calorie Counts, Push Low-Calorie Drinks
-
Kids Will Gorge Themselves On Anywhere From 3,500 To 7,000 Calories This Halloween
-
New York City Might've Gotten A Bit Too Slash-Happy When Cutting Calories From School Lunches
-
Big Pizza: Calorie-Count Menu Boards Make No Sense For Our Product
-
Restaurants Making Big Money Off Diners’ Decisions To Eat Healthy
Well, if you think about it, it’s like getting double-bang for your dieting dollar:
If you buy the pack, you waste money that you could have used to spend on more food. So it’s less calories while spending more money, siphoning off the food fund. Wonderful dieting strategy!
(This is all in jest, btw. Please don’t throw anything. lol.)
As several commenters have said, the product is different. This resulted in a bit of disappointment for me when I discovered the 100 cal packs from Hostess use malitol as one of their sweetners. I avoid pretty much all artificial sugars and sugar alcohols, so I passed them off to my sister.
But if that’s an issue for you, check those ingredient lists carefully. They’re not just a smaller product; they could be very different.
@meghannmarco: Meghann-
The typos certainly aren’t that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, but don’t they make all the recent postings of Wal-Mart’s misspelled aisle signs a bit hypocritical?
@RECTILINEAR PROPAGATION: Actually, you are missing the point. The reason the CSPI is responding is that the producers are being intentionally deceptive by selling junk food as “healthy options”, packaging the box with the same volume as the normal kind and adding a huge price markup. For instance, you can buy a low sugar version of Tropicana OJ for the same price as regular. However, the low sugar version is simply half water and half regular OJ.
Or take Oroes Carb Well Cookies, weighing in at – you guessed it – 100 calories per serving. Regular Oreos on the other hand have 160. Here’s the kicker – the Carb Well ones are two cookies per serving and the regular ones are three. Eat these “healthy” cookies and you save 3 1/3 calories per cookie and get a healthy (no pun intended) dose of acesulfame potassium, an artifical sweetener. Source: What To Eat by Marion Nestle.
“Healthy” junk food is a scam and I praise the CSPI for exposing it.
Who thought of this? I need to know who’s responsible.
Absolutely outrageous.
@meghannmarco: Have you considered hiring a proofreader? I’m bored, nitpicky, and unemployed…
Gosh, that doesn’t sound as appealing as I meant it to.
“Bachelor Chow…now in 100 calorie packs and now with flavor!”
I was in the store the other day when I saw tiny 8 ounce cans of Coca-Cola that exclaimed “100 calories!” Of course, they were twice the price of 12 ounces cans. Less really is more (profitable).
But then again, hey, if you know that and don’t mind paying the premium for “portion control”….knock yourself out!
And now, introducing the 100 calorie Oreo cookie pack…contents: 1 cookie.
I just get the big boxes and then allot myself portions into my small reusable tupperware.
@selectman: Actually I didn’t. My reply to wishlish was about the cost of those foods. Several other people said the same thing: it isn’t new that smaller portions cost more. The only thing new here are people like lullaby having a fit because there are people in the world not following the diet they think people should. I wasn’t talking about how they make their diet versions diet in my last comment at all.
I buy these packs at BJ’s in bulk, so I think in the end the prices average out. Plus, the snacks are different, and I am someone who struggles with portion control. These are perfect for work. I know it’s not healthy food, but they’ve been a godsend for when I am craving non-healthy food and will not be satisfied with an apple.
Don’t bother with the 100-calorie “Nutter Butters” though. They are NASTY.
Portion control isn’t that hard… open the bag of Doritos. Put 11 Doritos on a plate. Put Doritos back in your cabinet. Go into another room. Eat Doritos, savoring them as you can clearly see when your portion is going to be gone. If you want more you have to go back to the kitchen and portion them out again, which makes you fully aware that you’re eating more than one portion.
Don’t eat directly out of bulk bags! Don’t even eat in the same room as them! That also goes for ‘healthy’ stuff like dried fruit, trail mix and nuts, which are pretty high in calories too unless you watch the portion size.
If you have no self control whatsover skip the fried snacks and buy a bunch of grapes!
“If you have no self control whatsover skip the fried snacks and buy a bunch of grapes!”
I’ll remember that the next time I’m at work late and the choice is between:
a. Snickers bar from the vending machine
b. 100 calorie pack
c. spoiled grapes in the fridge from previous week
d. stale crackers I portioned out a month before
“And now, introducing the 100 calorie Oreo cookie pack…contents: 1 cookie.”
Exactly the point. This is what you’d get if you portioned out Oreos whereas Oreo cookie packs have a whole bunch of thinner, smaller cookies.
While I love Consumerist, this is another instance where you have failed to paint the entire picture. While I’m sure the companies are increasing their profit margin on these a bit by raising the price, there are a couple other factors you neglected to mention which are completely valid reasons for a price increase of some extent:
New Product Launch – As other posters have noted, sometimes these new versions are a different product entirely made to be smaller, contain less sprinkles, etc. To do that they have to retool their factories to make this change. Add in new packaging that needs to be designed and produced, the additional marketing expenditures for launching a new product and the additional shelf space they may need to purchase to bring to market, and the costs add up.
Additional Packaging – The reason the bulk packages get you more bang for your buck is that compared with these individually packaged portions, they use overall less packaging and it tends to be cheaper as well. Going from a single box with one bag inside to a single box with MANY individual bags inside costs more. Period.
Without actual numbers to go against, there is no point in accusing them of gouging consumers since you are unaware of the actual costs involved in bringing a product to market. Not to mention the fact that it is ultimately up to the consumer to decide if the value of the product justifies its cost. They are simply filling a demand in the marketplace.
@MagicJewball:
They don’t have Three Musketeers bars in your work vending machine? 40% less fat than the leading chocolate bar! (and about 80% less chocolate!)
My work hours are unpredictable so I usually have a wide selection of snacks at hand… granola bars, almonds, low-fat graham crackers and peanut butter are all shelf stable for a while, and daily I bring in a cup of yogurt and a piece of fruit.
3 Musketeers = 260 calories
100 calorie pack = well, you know
All those things you mention are definitely better choices but again, lose their shelf stable quality once you divvy them into ziploc bags per the example. I’ve tried with grahams and they just don’t stay fresh past a few days or so. So I get a few days worth of snacks and the rest of the box is wasted, no savings there. Granola bars are the same as 100 calorie packs, really. Small amounts of food individually packaged and higher priced.
I’m not into yogurt but I do try to bring fruit. However, the day I don’t need a snack is the day I remember the fruit and it languishes in the fridge, and the day I’m starving is the day there’s no fruit around. The 100 Calorie Pack is genius and I’m willing to pay for it.