Comments on: From Supersized to Downsized?

By: Danno

Danno — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:07:10 +0000

Excellent point, Neil. I’ve read and heard on the news that food purchases are down. Consumers are sticking to buying the basics and not necessarily purchasing “extras” right now. I’ll bet that includes forgoing a few snack items, maybe some more gourmet type items, and convenience foods. People are also eating in a lot more and being quite selective about when/where they’re going out to dine. Money is tight and to a certain extent, some food products are expendable. Great comments, Neil. Right on the money.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:10:09 +0000

Great observation, Norma. Many categories of consumer products, besides food and beverage, are seeing the same phenomenon of smaller pack sizes and therefore, higher pricing.
Neil makes a good point in that you can choose to protest this by taking your dollars elsewhere, to another brand. However, when one notable brand implements this change, many times, their competitors do as well. . .so that isn’t always the answer. It’s a good idea to write a letter expressing your concerns to the company in question–or to message them on their web site. See if you get a response. . .that’s very telling. Companies, as well as consumers, are caught with price hikes across the board. Still, they need to be honest with their customers about it.
Thanks for weighing in, Norma. I appreciate it.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 05:28:51 +0000

Norma, wow, you are a smart shopper!
You (and others here) have discovered a more insidious form of inflation (or deflation) that might not even have a name yet. Product deflation? It flies under the radar of any sort of index.
Perhaps you could vote with your dollars for another brand?
I wonder if stealth product deflation will actually end up hurting the brands that do it?

By: Norma

Norma — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:55:25 +0000

It isn’t just food getting downsized. I noticed my double rolls of Northern Tissue looked smaller. I weighed one May of 07 4 5/8 oz. Jan 08 4 1/4 oz. Since I’m on a fixed income, I wonder if this will be calculated into the inflation index.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:48:35 +0000

Lisa,
Let me say this: one “benefit” of a tight economy is that companies will be looking for ways to improve efficiencies. It’s critical to turning any kind of profit with the high costs of doing business. On the bright side: that means transportation costs will be scrutinized incessantly and truckloads or trainloads will be maxed out properly. That might cut down on waste and help control soaring pricing on consumer goods to some extent.
This current economic down cycle also presents an opportunity for companies to do a great deal of good. You said it best: “With responsible production and marketing, companies could certainly make untold impact on a healthier consumer, cleaner environment, brand loyalty, costs, and profit.”
If food manufacturers market in the manner you’ve described, their bottom lines might be healthier, as well as their customers.
Thanks for adding substantively to the conversation, Lisa. Glad you participated and enjoyed the thread of this. That’s the whole reason behind blogging.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:59:51 +0000

Thanks, Ted.
I have particularly enjoyed this topic and the way the comments have grown past your original questions to take in the bigger pictures.
From noticing reduced package sizing, its environmental value, and mfr/reseller presentation to the customer to consumer habits, nutritional benefit, bulk purchasing, transportation & manufacturing costs, product labeling, and additives.
First, you are absolutely right that transportation is complicated. Multiple trailers can greatly help neutralize the costs – especially on lighter items and/or multiple delivery drops. So can bulk container shipment over rail or ship. When I married into this family I was stunned at the transportation cycles of products and the many inherent inefficiencies in taking the product from origin to processing to packaging to warehouse, and finally to market.
Second, I did not want to leave the impression that I am embittered by the smaller packaging. I understand the economy and I see the environmental value add. What irritates me beyond belief is reduced product concealed in the same sized packaging – I am not stupid, and do not appreciate the appearance that I am being deceived in the name of maintaining or increasing corporate profit.
Like many of your readers, I also believe that there may be a hidden health benefit. If I am going to compulsively eat a whole bag of chips or a whole carton of ice cream – is it ultimately “healthier” that that intake is reduced? Sure. At the other end of the spectrum, smaller packaging sizes could, conceivably, reverse the supersized portions we’ve gradually come to believe normal.
I am health-conscious, and becoming more so as I approach my “golden years” and begin to look at my family medical history. I have reduced our family’s fat intake and increased our fiber intake over the last few years. Why? Greater availability of information – some of that as a result of consumer education efforts by manufacturers. When I began that effort, product labeling was not as it is today – and it took alot more effort to make healthy choices. So, yes, labeling certainly makes the effort easier.
Taken to the next logical level, labeling of fast and convenience foods could net the same results. What we think we know is not always the case. Take a look at McD’s …
http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/bagamcmeal/nutrition_facts.html
A Double Cheeseburger, Grilled Chicken Classic, and Southwest Salad with Grilled Chicken and the matching dressing are similar in calories and protein. The sandwich & salad are lowest in fat calories but the sandwich is highest in carbs, and the salad is highest in sodium content at a whopping Mc-1300 mg, as well as sugars. Lowest in carbs and sodium? The burger! (If you can trade-off the nearly 50% of total calories in fat.) Without alittle vigilance, you might not know you’d be better off with one of the Grilled “Snack” Wraps and a bottle of water. Order a side salad, dump the contents of the wrap on top, and feed the tortilla to the birds. Heck! Add a Low Fat Vanilla Cone or Fruit’n Yogurt Parfait (sans granola) and you’re about as Mc-healthy as it gets.
Most of these fast food places seem to be trying to accommodate consumer demand for healthier choices. The choices may not be optimal, but they are there. The nutritional information is there as well, but you need to care enough to look for it.
Make it easier, and no doubt more consumers will follow. The less thinking and planning we have to do, the better. Right?
Subway is a good example. They’ve annotated the healthier choices on their menu, and the nutritional content of those items are posted.
Finally, you bring up a good point in your reply. Additives. Oh! You do not want to get me started! lol
Get rid of the additives added purely for bulk. Please! I think we are shifting away from the bigger is always better mindset.
Next, I wholeheartedly agree – get rid of the additives that provide no nutritional or food-safety benefit. I am currently making the effort to cut out added salt, and am appalled at the sodium contents in things you least expect it in.
With responsible production and marketing, companies could certainly make untold impact on a healthier consumer, cleaner environment, brand loyalty, costs, and profit.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:47:45 +0000

Lisa,
You’ve made many cogent points and I thank you. First, you’re right. We all bear responsibility for our own decisions. When it comes to food, we ought to become informed so we can make sound choices. However, food and beverage companies also have a responsibility knowing that consumers are opting for more convenience. They, too, can make sound choices. They can cut fats, sugar and salt, for one thing. They can also choose not to use high fructose corn syrup and other additives that offer zero nutritional value, but pack on the pounds.
Second, the freight issues are sometimes complicated ones. So what if a full shipment doesn’t fit weight wise or cube size in one carload? Many manufacturers can add another trailer. Smart manufacturers are working together to max out the cube and weight on that second trailer. That saves on costs.
By concentrating products like cleaners to make smaller amounts more efficacious, manufacturers are saving money and giving consumers a good deal. What are they really cutting back on? Water. As far as food products go, the higher cost of ingredients and fuel to ship products to market, are having a major impact on smaller pack size decisions. Vendors need to be honest about this with consumers, as you point out.
Consumer loyalty is at stake for manufacturers here. The more they can do to level with their customers, the better their customer retention should be. Perception is very important as we know. Customers will draw their own conclusions unless manufacturers take pains to consistently be on the level–in a very public way.
Thanks for adding a great deal to this conversation, Lisa. You’re never too late to weigh in.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 03:49:36 +0000

Ok. So I’m coming in a month late. We’ll just say it’s been crazy and leave it at that. I am glad I left the note to read this article in my InBox – good stuff and lots to think about.
I have noticed higher prices or smaller packaging on almost everything – and some things (like cereal) going less for more. I have also noticed a reduced savings in both manufacturer and store coupons – mostly on items where the price is going up. For example, cereal coupons were typically Save $1 on 2, and are now either $.50 on 2 or $1 on 3.
Irritated? You bet. But, I also understand that it’s all trickle down in a poor economy.
I have also noticed more concentrated cleaning products – and applaud the effort – whatever the reason.
I won’t venture too far off topic, but I will share my observation that you can’t legislate common sense. Our lack of healthy habits have led us down a slippery slope – and it takes a concerted effort to make lifestyle changes. The first step in doing so is accepting personal responsibility for our choices. Would labeling help? It would certainly help those actively making the effort, but I doubt that labeling alone would actually stimulate change.
What I really wanted to do is share a different perspective on shipping cost. There are (long distance, semi) truck drivers in our family, so I have some knowledge.
There is a line between volume and weight. Consider this – in the US there is an 80,000 gross weight limit for interstate vehicles. (There are overweight permits, but these are not cost effective for consumer goods.) Taking the vehicle & fuel weight from the gross means one truck can legally haul 42,000 – 45,000 pounds.
Economy comes from being able to balance the weight and cargo space – the closer you can fill the truck and stay below that 40,000 pound mark, the better the shipping cost per unit.
Take Carol’s ice cream. I forget the equation (yes, there is one). But the bottom line is that you cannot fill an 45-foot trailer to the brim without exceeding the weight limit. Downsize the packaging, you are still hauling the same weight, but more cartons. So you are lowering the shipping cost per unit. That should equal a higher profit margin.
Take my cereal. Please. Relatively light. The smaller the package size, the more volume that can be hauled. Shipping cost for a full load should be the same. Again, that should net more profit.
However, lower shipping cost per unit only applies if “they” reduce the size of the box and not just the amount of cereal in the box.
And this brings me to my point. Thank you for bearing with me.
I have noticed that some manufacturers are reducing the packaging size. But others are not – General Mills are you listening? My confidence as a consumer and my brand loyalty is based on my perception of being treated with respect. I do not appreciate claims of reducing cost to market or “going green” when there is no logical evidence to support it. If the package takes up the same space and has less in it, it is not saving space, reducing freight costs, using less energy, or reducing landfill volume. That leaves me with the perception that someone is trying to fool me. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck …
Now. If the manufacturer goes the full mile, presents the new sizes honestly, they can sell me on the value added. Yes, in my heart I will know that it is driven by the bottom line, but I will be pacified by the sense of greater good – and I won’t be left with such a bitter taste in my mouth.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:30:26 +0000

Thanks for the kind words, Neil. Actually, in the almost 20 years I’ve owned my own consultancy, I’ve worked with some pretty large food companies. . .something has to rub off, huh:)? Seriously, it’s important to learn all we can as we work to gain expertise in the industries we service as consultants. In doing that, we are better able to gain valuable insights and those assets mean a great deal to our clients. That goes directly to delivering value for our customers.
Thanks again, Neil.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:11:25 +0000

Yes, in a land of plenty food is actually somewhat elastic. That is, it does respond to supply and demand. I do not have the wisdom to know what form these responses will take.
Ted, you have provided some great insight in your posts. You seem to know a great deal about the food industry, which is an industry that interests me a great deal but about which I know very little.
Thanks for another outstanding post. Another great reason to visit My Daily Fix.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:52:12 +0000

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:45:18 +0000

Ted, I was also suggesting that economics will (if it has not yet) have an influence on all that.
As demand for food of food elastic (responds to supply and demand) or inelastic (does not respond).
Frankly, I think food is elastic to a point. We as Americans are probably eating more food than we need to partially because of incentives created by cheap food prices for portions to be very large.
The question I have is this: Is the food market elastic enough to change this dynamic?

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:25:03 +0000

Neil,
As Elaine said, most insightfully, the food companies want to sell more products and it isn’t necessarily in their best interests to “downsize” their products in many cases. It would be nice to think that they do so not only for practical purposes, due to increased costs, but for altruistic ones. However, there is another component to this discussion which we’ve brought out in past posts, as well. Public pressure. Consumer interest groups are having an effect on the food industry. Less harmful fats, for example, are replacing highly saturated ones in snack foods. Is this still ideal? No. But it does make snacks somewhat less harmful. Does that mean we as consumers can eat more snack foods? No. We have the responsibility to watch our intake of any and every food and beverage. If the food companies help the cause by responding to a number of marketplace factors by downsizing, fine. For some commodity items like paper goods or detergent, rising costs hurt consumers. In the case of foods and beverages, increased costs and/or smaller pack sizes, aren’t necessarily a bad thing in all cases.
As you point out, Neil, we all have to become educated consumers to make optimal choices for ourselves and our families. Thanks for adding your insights. I appreciate it.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:16:37 +0000

Andrew,
When transportation costs are assessed to consumer products, it directly correlates to their weights. The weight of each item on a pallet within a case, can be determined directly based on that.
Having said this, large chains have such efficient warehouse and distribution systems, that their freight costs might be assessed at a lower rate. Even for economy or family-sized packaged goods. So, the freight costs passed on to consumers can vary widely. For the most part, I do not think grocery or other retail chains are trying to deceive consumers. At a time with such wild fluctuations in the cost of some raw materials and ingredients and the instability of fuel prices, consumers are seeing weekly increases on many of the commodities they buy. This is a natural progression in the marketplace.
I hope this helps to clarify, Andrew. Thanks for weighing in from Down Under. My best to you and your terrific countrymen in Australia.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:47:30 +0000

I think it is important to distinguish between buying and bulk and serving size. Buying in bulk is buying a large quantity of something to use over time. You usually get a better price per unit for bulk foods and other items.
This should be sharply distinguished from your cousin’s practice of buying a massive bag of chips and hammering them all down in one sitting. That is not buying in bulk but just buying a massive serving.
The presumption here is that there will be economic incentives for the chip maker to provide a smaller bag of chips and for the chip eater to show some restraint.
It could be that public concern about health, the environment, combined with a dollop of economic incentives, may spur the food companies to consider serving size more carefully in their packaging and for the consumer to respond well to this change.
I do not think, as Andrew suggests, any sort of deception needs to be part of this process. In fact, I think it is manifestly true that clear labeling can help us make more informed decisions.
Enlightened self-interest is the way forward…

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:52:53 +0000

Your logic is somewhat out of wack from my view from downunder … “Think of it: fewer raw materials are used, less energy is required to manufacture fewer materials, the cost to ship product is less due to lower weights, and at the end of its life cycle: there’s less waste. All good incentives for smaller packaging.”
If there are say now 3 smaller packages to deliver what was previously 2 (larger) packages how does that equate to lower weight and less packaging? A kilogram is a kilogram whether it is in one or 2 packages. And if it’s in two packages then there must be more packaging not less per volumetric weight.
I’m not against smaller packages it’s the marketing con that goes with it in the supermarkets that makes it difficult to ascertain what is really going on.
Honesty is not the best policy when you can getaway with not telling the truth.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:55:23 +0000

Interesting story, Marlena. I wonder why someone in Germany wouldn’t purchase an entire cake. Surely, there are cost savings when buying the whole cake vs individual pieces. . .
We also forget, as Americans, that European countries also have a high cost of goods, don’t we? Ditto in Canada. . .
Thanks for enlightening us, Marlena. Most appreciated.

By: Marlena Corcoran

Marlena Corcoran — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:32:13 +0000

The packaging story that might surprise this community most is the German practice of selling cake by the piece. Not in the cafes, mind you–at the bakery. The person behind the counter will reach for a cellophane square, wrap it up both sides of your piece of cake, ask if you would like anything else, and wrap it up for you on a cardboard plate and bakery paper. You’re not tempted to eat several of these, as they cost about four US dollars and fifty cents a piece.
My most memorable moment with this system was the day I stood in line behind a woman who announced she was hosting a dinner for twenty people that evening. Wow, I thought. Finally, I will see someone buy an entire cake!
No. She ordered twenty separate pieces of individual cakes.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:12:38 +0000

Marlena,
Larger, “economy-sized” packaged commodity products are a better deal for consumers. That’s why the Costcos are experiencing strong sales in a slowing economy. Laundry detergent and the like, represent commodity items that many consumers see the wisdom of buying in larger pack sizes. However, increased fuel costs do impact the pricing of these larger, heavier packages. The only reason consumers don’t see higher increases in costs is that the Costco and Wal-Mart operations of the world have sophisticated, highly efficient distribution and warehouse systems.
When it comes to the regular kinds of consumer products being shipped into the average supermarket, the larger chains also have better distribution systems. Yet with all of that, larger pack sizes cost the consumer more since increased ingredient and fuel costs get passed down the line from farm to fork, as it were. Sometimes these increases might amount to only a couple of cents on an item, but when consumers look at their entire weekly layout for food, they’re seeing a huge difference. A couple of cents per item really add up.
Thanks for your observations and questions, Marlena. I appreciate it.

By: Marlena Corcoran

Marlena Corcoran — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:43:48 +0000

I’m puzzled by the assumption here that reduced package sizes will help consumers deal with inflation and increased fuel costs. Bigger packages are still a better deal, don’t you think? It’s cheaper to truck one ten-pound package of X than four 2.5 packages of X. So to save money, Mr. Consumer should still buy the ten-pound package. I mean, if it’s laundry detergent, or something else you’re not going to pig out on OR let rot just because you’ve got a big bag of it. For the case of potato chips, see my post above . . .

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:42:00 +0000

Marlena,
You’ve made some very sobering observations. Americans are becoming obese in record numbers and the combination of unhealthy snacking, nutrition poor fast foods and the lack of exercise are wreaking havoc with our health. Having said that, I’ve also read recently that Europeans are also starting to experience the same problems. I’m not sure where you’re living at present, and whether you’re in Europe, but maybe you can shed some light on how thing are going where you live. Unfortunately, sound nutrition seems to be a victim of our fast, 21st century lifestyles. . .
Thanks for adding some valuable perspective, Marlena. I appreciate it.

By: Marlena Corcoran

Marlena Corcoran — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:29:44 +0000

“Supersize Your Butt” seems to be the motto in America today. As an American living abroad, I am amazed every time I land in New York and my much-loved, very hospitable, ever larger cousins break open a shopping-bag size “serving” of potato chips. “My secret is S’s,” confides my cousin. (Fill in your favorite discount mart.) “The giant size costs only ___.” (Fill in a ridiculously low amount of dollars and cents, equal to about .7 euros these days) Now, I love potato chips, and jet-lag ruins your sense of reality, so I find myself happily eating a death-defying pile of potato chips. The next morning I remember all the magazine articles lately about how no one has any idea–really, none at all!–why America is obese. Perhaps we should stop stapling people’s stomachs and start stapling their brains. Because a previous post is right: you can’t expect food merchants to forego profits. If it takes an economic incentive to cut package sizes–great, because it will probably also cut the obesity-related death rate. And I love my cousins even more than I love potato chips.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:09:07 +0000

Thanks for the outstanding post, Ted.
As with many bad things (e.g., inflation) there are good things that come out of them.
If one of the good things that comes from the current period of inflation in food and fuel prices is smaller portions, then that is a good thing.
Fuel prices hurt food prices and availability so I hope we can get this all sorted out, though.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:23:53 +0000

It sounds as though you have plenty of good ideas for a book, Neil. And lots of common sense and a balanced view in regard to this issue.
In the meantime, getting back to the gist of this post, let’s hope that consumers learn all they can about what constitutes a true single portion of foods and beverages. Let’s also hope that downsized packaging with the clearest, best labeling practices ensure that consumers will understand what they’re buying.
Every bit helps, doesn’t it?
Thanks, Neil.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:01:57 +0000

I would like to say that this simple plan, maybe I should write a book, can make eating and drinking a great pleasure but not gain weight. Second, if one wants, the plan can be altered a bit to run a calorie deficit to lose weight. That’s all there is to it.
It would take a period of paying attention to approximately how many calories each thing has until it becomes sort of second nature.
The key thing is that it is not so much *what* you eat but the total calories in a day. So go ahead, drink that red wine. Go ahead, have that dish of ice cream. Go ahead, enjoy life.
Just try to follow Aristotle’s maxim about the golden mean…

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:14:49 +0000

Ted, I do not think it has to be an exact science.
If people got into the practice of having an idea of how many calories they were eating/drinking, it would help health a lot. I know more labeling would help me and I am sure others, too.
For example, you go to a restaurant and you realize if you skip the appetizer and the butter soaked bread and go for just an entree, you have cut your calories hugely. That sort of thing.
Now, you then realize, well a couple pieces of bread dipped in olive oil ahead of the meal. Great. Good fat. Not too much.
Go ahead and order that wine because you are eating a fairly lean entree and skipping the appetizer.
Eating reasonably healthy and running a bit of a calorie deficit does not have to be miserable…

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:24:34 +0000

Neil,
Many of us don’t have a rough idea about calorie intake unless we track it somehow. For those who can, more power to them; I think it’s great. No matter what, common sense says that if we live on junk food and do not have a balanced diet, we won’t be healthy, even if we don’t have a weight problem at present.
Your points about adding exercise to any dieting program is a very sensible one. So is the idea of losing weight in a steady, gradual manner–if that is a person’s goal. Taking a balanced approach is always best, isn’t it?
Thanks for posting additional thoughtful comments to this post, Neil. It’s always appreciated.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:59:11 +0000

Dawn,
I think that labeling *will* help. People can still make their own choices but not without the correct information.
What made you give up your Frappucino? What makes people switch from one thing to another? I have heard more than one person say, “I was shocked by how many calories were in X so I switched to Y, which has less.”
Of course, labeling will not help everyone but it will help those who want the help.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:54:52 +0000

Ted, I do not think it is necessary to calorie count religiously. However, if you know you have eaten a fair amount in a day there can be massive differences in how many calories you can have at the same restaurant by your choices. Not all are obvious.
Not that I am expert but I personally subscribe to the idea that you should shoot for an approximate total number of calories.
Basic knowledge of calories in various things, can help you make informed choices. No food company is making the choice for you, you are making the decision. I like the idea of the information being there and choosing to use it or not.
The formula for losing weight is very simple: run a calorie deficit nearly every day. For example, I believe I need about 3,500 calories to maintain. So if I wanted to lose a sensible amount of weight I would go for about 2,500 calories. It does not have to be science but I can fairly easily hit 2,500, if I want.
Of course, exercise helps a great deal as well.
I do not think any great diet fad or whatever is needed. Just shoot for running a deficit, and lose weight over a reasonable time: maybe about 2 pounds per week.
That does not mean getting out a calculator but simply being aware of what you are eating and about how many calories it has and approximately how it relates to the rest of your day.

By: Dawn

Dawn — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:35:32 +0000

Yes Neil, I totally agree with you on that as well. It is nice to know how many calories are in a given product. As a matter of fact, that’s how I gave up my Starbucks Frappacino habit. The difference is that I care about what I eat and how many calories I eat in a given day.
The problem here is that there is so much apathy when it comes to food. It tastes good, it’s quick, it’s cheap: those are the criteria for making eating choices in America.
I’m not saying labeling on food products is a bad thing. I just don’t know what it will accomplish. The few of us who are really dilligent about watching our weight and managing our health don’t eat in McD’s or BK or Wendy’s in the first place. Those who are going to eat those products will eat them regardless…