[lotsofpulp]

Might as well outlaw marketing then. Generally, business don’t advertise negative changes.

In this case, the relevant information for a buyer is clearly stated, and accurate, and no false information has been conveyed. The buyer simply has to check the unit price and ignore the other words.

[headbansown]

> Might as well outlaw marketing then.

Yes, because reasonable regulation requiring clear communication to consumers about product changes == outlawing marketing.

[lotsofpulp]

How would one propose that legislation with clear instructions that doesn’t get caught up in courts? And now the taxpayers have to spend money enforcing that legislation?

We already have a system. Show the amount of product being sold. Show the price. Require showing unit price, if anything. Any more is unnecessary.

[headbansown]

First, it's pretty simple. Require that if net weight changes that either the size of the container decreases proportionately or that a standardized label (a la "Nutrition Facts") on the front of the container contains the old size and new size prominently.

And oh, the horror that taxpayer money might be spent protecting the public. I'm down for that.

[lotsofpulp]

I’m not opposed to protecting the public. I’m opposed to unnecessary spending of money. It’s far cheaper to educate people to pay attention to unit prices in 3rd grade than it is to enforce legislation about communicating changes in product sizes or packaging types, as loopholes will be found around the legislation, and then we stamp out loopholes, and spend more and more on lawyers.

[tudorw]

We can do both, though if we did just one, I'd be with you, domestic economics should be taught from the earliest age.