Peter Pan Saves The Earth By Giving You Less Peanut Butter
Pedro discovered that ConAgra Foods focused the Grocery Shrink Ray on Peter Pan peanut butter and came up with an excuse for the downsizing straight out of Never Never Land: It's good for the environment.
Take it away, Pedro:
ConAgra Foods, maker of Peter Pan Peanut Butter products has come up with an ingenious way to use the Grocery Shrink Ray Gun to pad their bottom line and at the same time save the Earth (or at least fool those pesky tree huggars!).
I normally eat PBnJ sandwiches at least 3 times a week. For myself, its been a staple for lunch that provides me a filling and delicious meal at a reasonable cost. However, the jar I normally purchase has been reduced in size to something slimmer, yet slightly taller. At first glance, it seems as if you're getting a larger jar. The bold sticker claiming "New Earth Friendly Jar - Now 9% less plastic per oz." even made me feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing that another corporate giant was taking a step to being a more responsible corporate citizen. Well on my way home, I got to thinking how strange it was for a claim to say 9% less per oz. The 'per oz.' just sounded fishy and based on what I read about the Grocery Shrink Ray Gun, I had my suspicions. When I arrived home, I pulled out my trusty calculator and went with my hunch. I wondered to myself if the difference in package sizes amounted to the very same 9% that ConAgra was claiming to save the Earth by. Well I divided the 462 grams of their Earth friendly jar with the 510 grams from their non-Earth friendly jar which gave me a figure of 91% rounded up. My suspicions were correct. ConAgra was saving the earth by selling us the same product in a smaller package at the same price. Grocery Shrink Ray guns strikes again!
For ConAgra to dupe their customers under the guise of an environmental goodwill gesture is downright sleazy. That's like GM selling an Eco Friendly Hummer because they created a model that had a 10 gallon fuel tank as opposed to a 20 gallon fuel tank (notwithstanding that they would also be ripping their customers by skimping on their product and selling less then what is expected).
How is this Earth friendly?
We suspect Captain Hook or his shifty-eyed first mate Smee have made off with the extra PB and this is all just a cover-up.
(Photos: Pedro)
Post a comment
Comments:
This reminds me of something similar, Frito-Lay commericals I have been hearing on the news. "we are helping you out in these hard times by giving you 20% more". The only different spin is "Earth Day" vs "Economic hardship".
Frito-Lay need to put about 60% more chips in their bag if they really want to help us out. We have been paying for 1/4 of a bag now for about 15 years.
Why even bother doing any calculations? The package should tell you how much product is inside.
Vote for Pedro!
Thinking about it more, the conclusion in the OP is wrong. While the amount of product may have shrunk by 9%, that doesn't tell us if the plastic usage ratio shrunk as well. It's x amount of plastic PER ounce. So you'd have to divide the amount of plastic in the each jar by the amount of peanut butter each jar respectively. Then taking THAT number, you should see a difference in the ratio.
The difference in the amount of product in the jars alone has absolutely no bearing on the claim that there's 9% less plastic per ounce.
It's been a while since I took math, but this doesn't seem to work out.
Let's say for argument's sake you have a 10z jar of peanut butter that uses 1oz of plastic. To use 9% less plastic per oz, you would have 0.91oz of plastic. Right?
Okay, now if you take the grocery shrink ray to it, say you now have an 8oz jar of peanut butter, which, by the old formula, would use 0.8oz of plastic. But since it's 9% less plastic, it would be 0.728oz of plastic.
Am I right?
I don't understand how the OP proved anything. The claim on the jar was 9% less plastic *per ounce*. He proved there was 9% less peanut butter per jar, but proved nothing about how much plastic is used in the making of the jar, neither in absolute nor "per ounce" terms.
Now you'll have to make more trips to the grocery store, burning more fossil fuels.
Or you could buy those giant tubs at Costco/Sams.
The lord giveth and the lord taketh away....
I prefer my peanut butter without hydrogenated oils anyways.
Seems to me the math problem isn't new jar compared to old jar, but new ratio of peanut butter to plastic compared to old ratio of peanut butter to plastic.
The answer is simple. By removing the salmonella from their peanut butter, they reduced the total amount.
I think someone needs a tin foil hat. Yes the amount in the jar decreased but they also use 9% less plastic PER OZ of product. Meaning they put the PER OZ on the sticker so a fair comparison was made. Now if they put 'Now 9% less plastic' the OPs hunch would be correct that they shrunk the amount and the package equally.
To expand on my earlier point - lets say there's a nine percent difference in the amount of peanut butter in the jars. Let's say in the larger (510g) jar, it takes 5 grams of plastic to make the jar. That's a ratio of .0098. Now lets say that the 462g jar takes 4.52 grams of platic, that's a ratio of .0098. So each take the same amount of plastic PER gram.
Now instead let's say that the smaller jar uses 3.78g of plastic. That's about a ratio of .0082. Which is about a 9% difference. So the amount of peanut butter decreased by 9%, as did the amount of plastic PER gram.
Hopefully I did my math right :p
@TCama: The math appears correct. I am curious why the marketing spin then - 9% less PER OUNCE becomes 37.3% less plastic overall... which number sells better?
After reading all these theories, my head hurts. Why aren't we comparing the number of ounces of peanut butter in the original jar compared to the new jar? Redesigning a jar's dimensions can keep the same volume but use less plastic. Or it could be thinner plastic, etc. Or maybe I'm missing the point on everything being said here...
Another amazing and frustratingly simple error by the Consumerist. This happens all too often.
For a company that makes its living picking on the errors of other companies they'd better step up their game at what they call "journalism". You could pretty easily put together a sensational Consumerist-style hit-piece against the Consumerist itself for its frequent, careless, and surely damaging attacks on other companies.
I'm sure we won't see a retraction or apology on this story...they'll just move on to the next sensational headline.
@fantomesq: I think if they just went for the overall number, it would have suggested simply that the jar was smaller, not that the jar was proportionately smaller.
Though I wonder if this isn't just a geometric artifact--that since dimensions don't reduce at the same rate, is this just what happens when you make the jar skinnier?
Oh my I'm confused, isn't this about them selling less product at the same price and marketing it as being good for the environment? I thought that was the issue here...
@downwithmonstercable: Don't fight the geekout. We're beyond recall now.
We need four numbers: weight of each jar empty, and weight of each jar full. So if the OP would just get eatin' and then weigh the empty jars, we'll get to work.
@downwithmonstercable: The point is that they were charging the same for:
"462 grams of their Earth friendly jar with the 510 grams from their non-Earth friendly jar"
Anyone remember the "low flow" dish wash detergent bottle nozzles that the detergent makers put on when "Ultra" concentrated detergents were rolled out? And no those nozzles are not the ones on the bottles today...
@Jake712:
No the issue is that the OP was drawing a false correlation between the lower amount of product and the lower amount of plastic used in the packaging. If we want to make it about shrinking the amount of a product by 9% so be it but half of this article needs to be thrown out the window and consumerist needs to learn to do math.
@FDCPAGuy: Still doesn't address the issue that you'll have to buy MORE jars to maintain your usage pattern, increasing waste.
Unless you don't use it all and end up throwing away some because it goes bad, but then you need to be buying a smaller package anyways.
Peanut butter takes a long time to actually go bad IIRC. Kind of like honey which will last a heck of a long time once opened.
I get the issue of them shrinking the amount of product. But this article needs to be trimmed to denote that they've shrunken the amount of product by 9% and not all this 'LIES' tag crap.
@bonzombiekitty: I see what you mean. The GSR works on food per volume, if both jars cost $2.00, then obviously there is a price increase.
It would be interesting to weigh the new vs old jars and then see if in fact there is a difference, then figure out if the 9% per oz is legit.
My feeling is that there is both LESS PB and LESS plastic per oz but probably at the same amount of money.
@FDCPAGuy: I thought it was scientifically proven that honey *never* goes bad.. If it crystalizes you just heat it up and it turns back into regular honey.
@HRHKingFridayXX: And do you know what's better than store-bought peanut butter?
Peanut (or cashew!) butter made at home. Easy, delicious, and full of awesome.
SMEE! GET BACK HERE WITH THAT!
@floraposte: Or he could weigh the entire full jar (unopened) and subtract the weight of the peanutbutter from the total weight.. thus the weight of the jar.
But that also relies on the lable being exactly correct in the peanutbutter weight.. which.. who knows.
@LegoMan322: If you want the best deals on Frito Lay, try buying at the beginning of the month. Larger package sizes are usually a better value. Frito Lays has specials on larger size packs at the beginning of the month, then shifts their promotions to smaller packages towards the end of the month when people are running lower on money.
@bonzombiekitty: Yeah, I came to the same conclusion - just because the jar contains 9% less product doesn't mean that the amount of plastic per ounce of peanut butter is still the same. People need some math skills...
@floraposte: True. I'll stand down. Still, if it says 16 oz on the original and 16 on the new one, one might think they they are the same? Or are we in some sort of alternate dimension where some ounces weigh more than other ounces....
@bonzombiekitty: Yes, I thought the same thing. REDUCING the peanut butter would INCREASE your plastic/oz, unless your plastic container was MUCH less plastic than before.
Current Peanut butter volume and previous peanut butter volume can have no bearing on plastic use, and it is in fact harder to reduce plastic/oz while reducing peanut butter volume.
The fact that the plastic used reduced by 9%, and the peanut butter volume also reduced by 9% is coincidental and not meaningful. All it means is that the current container is 9.81% less plastic than the original container.
@downwithmonstercable: It's not 16 oz. on the original, though, is it? I can read the label on the left jar, which is 16.3 oz. and 429 g.; the one on the right is therefore presumably the 510 grams mentioned in the article. So there's less peanut butter as well as less plastic.
@Firethorn:
The volume of the waste is greater, but wouldn't the amount of plastic still be less? Regardless of how many jars you buy, you still use less per ounce of peanut butter. (And is it just me, or does it look like it will be easier to get that last bit of peanut butter out of the jar with the new design?)
You might waste more if you have to make a special trip to the store because your consumption habits have been thrown off (thus using more gasoline), but you could just do without peanut butter 9% longer than you normally do between shopping trips, or use 9% less per sandwich, or maybe just buy more than one jar at a time.
(Yes, I know that the grocery shrink ray does still apply, but at least they are doing some good at the same time!)
@ludwigk:
You're on the right track, but I think it'd actually be ~17% less plastic than the original packaging.
First you reduce the amount of plastic by 9% because of the decreased product, then reduce the remaining packaging (91% of the original) by 9%. .91 * .91 = .8281
The OP was wrong, but the point remains that they reduced the amount of product and tried to disguise it by boldly proclaiming that they reduced the amount of packaging.
Not that the "grocery shrink ray" is anything out of the ordinary. Companies have been doing the same thing for decades.
Not 37% less... 17%. The reason they said 9% per ounce is because anything else would be misleading. If they said 17% less, then you'd have to ask less than what, since they didn't sell the same size product before. Instead of accusing them of hiding a price increase behind a packaging reduction, we'd be accusing them of outright lying.
No, I believe a shorter, wider jar would actually be a more efficient container - though you also have to consider the strength of the container. The new Poland Spring bottles look like they'd use more plastic, but because the shape is stronger they were able to make the walls thinner.
I think a good portion of their reduction here is in the cap, and the rest is probably slightly thinner walls.
As long as you eat all of the peanut butter in each jar, this will reduce waste. They are using less plastic PER OUNCE. It doesn't matter if you use 10x 9oz jars or 9 x 10oz jars, you've got 90 oz of peanut butter and some amount of plastic that is less than you had before because they use less per ounce
@NerdBurger_GitEmSteveDave: Didn't get sick huh? Glad you made it through the Peanutbutter Crisis (the first installment.)
I'm having my first recall experience myself.. I have one of those Starbucks Finger Grinders... I haven't called them about it yet.. might do it tonight.. maybe.
I think I'm just going to get a pizza.
Bird crap runoff dripping into your peanut butter, infecting you with salmonella. So now you're paying more per ounce of peanut butter, plastic, and crap. When will you stop buying?
Peter Pan printed confusing information about the amount of plastic in its jars. It makes them look environmentally friendlier and distracts from the change in the amount of peanut butter in its jars.
If everyone decides to eat less Peter Pan then we will have completed the environmentally friendly circle by reducing both the amount of their plastic we buy and the amount they buy. This should make them happy, right?
@azinck: You must be new here. Nobody is saying that the "less plastic per ounce" claim is false, and that includes the OP.
What's dirty is that the sticker is a misdirection. They modified the jar to hold less product, made it thinner at the same time, and tried to pass the new jar off as a "green" improvement. Reducing the amount of product sold by 9% while charging the same price was almost certainly the primary motive, and the sticker is just kind of insulting.
You know what is more earth friendly? Sustainably and naturally grown peanuts.