• Fisk400
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

    Make it expensive to change the weight of a product. Standardize the size and weight of a given type of product. Require the packaging to alert consumers that the weight have changed in the last year and how much it has changed. Tie the trademark of a given product to a certain weight.

    Are these good ideas? I don’t know, I literally made them up just now while shitting. I am sure the president of the United States could hire at least one dude to come up with better ones.

    • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Make it expensive to change the weight of a product.

      The President literally can’t do that.

      Standardize the size and weight of a given type of product.

      The President can’t do that. Not sure the FDA can even do that, as just about all they can weigh in on is product safety (i.e. “does not contain more than X of any harmful substance”) and categorical definitions (i.e. “ice cream must meet this definition”). They can’t say, “all M&Ms must be this big and weigh this much”.

      Require the packaging to alert consumers that the weight have changed in the last year and how much it has changed.

      Neither the President nor the FDA can do that. The FDA doesn’t have the regulatory power to do anything even close to that.

      Tie the trademark of a given product to a certain weight.

      That’s…not how trademarks work, at all.

      Look man, it’s as frustrating to me as it is to anyone, but y’all can’t just make up a bunch of fanciful, largely illegal remedies to the problem and then lay the blame for their impossibility on the President’s desk. That’s just ridiculous.

      • Fisk400
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        5 months ago

        I understand that you are very into the position of going face down ass up for corporations but can I interest you in the idea that politicians are allowed to express things they would like to work towards even if they are personally not able to make it happen the second they say it.

        Biden is a very powerful man that employs a large number of very smart people. If he wants to he can put together an action plan on how to make things happen.

        • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          5 months ago

          I understand that you are very into the position of going face down ass up for corporations

          You know that point when people stop taking you seriously? That’s right here.

          can I interest you in the idea that politicians are allowed to express things they would like to work towards even if they are personally not able to make it happen the second they say it.

          So this is just a circle jerk about imaginary fantasy lands? Good to know we’re just aimlessly flailing now.

          Biden is a very powerful man that employs a large number of very smart people. If he wants to he can put together an action plan on how to make things happen.

          He is not a dictator, nor a god. We have a system of very rigorous checks and balances, and it’s abundantly clear that you have no earthly idea how our government actually functions. Just because you can put together an action plan, doesn’t mean what the plan calls for is actually legal or achievable.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      All great ideas if it weren’t for the fact that we have a court system heavily weighted towards pro-corporate conservatism, so none of that would survive legal challenges and there would be a shit ton of corporate challenges.

      • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Food in general doesn’t even go through the FDA, does it? They only get involved if there’s a problem. If it was pre approval, it would be a super slow process likely.

        Edit: my train of thought was if it needed approval, any size changes would go to a slow line, but in reality, any small company would go to slow lines also, which would truly suck.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      All of these things would have to be done by Congress. The President is really not the dictator that the internet thinks he is (outside of some particular domains). But just to go through those:

      Make it expensive to change the weight of a product.

      How? Make the government track the size of ever possible consumable product and mandate a fee when changed? Beyond the enormous logistical effort for no obvious purpose, this would also make it costly for a company to add more product. Perhaps you only apply the fee when a size decreases, but then, how do you handle the case where a company intentionally launches a smaller sized version for a different market, eg individual or snack sized portions? What if they launch a new size and then discontinue the older, larger one, so it technically didn’t change? Does that have a fine? Sure, you can try to track all of this stuff carefully and determine what the net effect is, but that costs time and money all for no significant benefit.

      Standardize the size and weight of a given type of product

      Who determines the standard, and why? Why should it be illegal to sell a smaller or larger bag of chips or soda?

      Require the packaging to alert consumers that the weight have changed in the last year and how much it has changed

      This would just be one more tiny disclaimer line on the back that nobody would read. Not to mention, the size and weight is already on the package. Consumers are already perfectly capable of seeing the weight and deciding if the value for that price is good. I somewhat doubt most people would actually change their behavior by learning that there were ten more chips in the bag a year ago, and at any rate, companies know that consumers would rather pay the same price for less than pay a higher price for the same amount.

      Tie the trademark of a given product to a certain weight.

      That is categorically not how trademarks work.