Archive for October, 2024
Microwave popcorn still expanding nicely but in shrinking amounts
When I first ran a multifactor design of experiment (DOE) on microwave popcorn in 1993,* the bags contained 3.5 ounces of product. Since then, this product and many other foodstuffs suffered from shrinkflation—a way for their manufactures to fool us into paying the same for less. For example, Pop Secret—one of the snacks tested in my 1993 DOE, now comes in 3.2-ounce bags—a shrinkage of 8.6 percent over the years. Tricky!
I asked Google’s experimental Generative AI for stats on shrinkflation. GAI (my new go-to guy!) tells me that:
- The most common products to experience shrinkflation are savory snacks, chocolate, and sweets. (Popcorn fits the bill.)
- In the US, 71% of people have noticed shrinkflation, with 57% reporting multiple incidents in the past year. Baby boomers are more likely to notice shrinkflation than millennials and Gen Zers. (I am a baby boomer and I am well aware of this trend.)
- Shrinkflation can be harder to notice than price increases because the price of the item stays the same, making it harder to budget. (That’s the idea!)
- According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), shrinkflation has little impact on overall inflation rates. A BLS report from March said that the price of snacks inflated by 26% from January 2019 to October 2023. However, shrinkflation accounted for only 2.5 percentage points of the increase. (OK, so maybe we are making too big of a deal about this, but nobody likes to be tricked.)
The increasing cost of food products is currently creating a great deal of consternation, despite it seemingly abating. But so long as there’s plenty of delicious popcorn to share, even at a higher price for less of it, I don’t mind much.
However, when it comes to the recent trend for popcorn manufacturers selling “mini bags” with 1.5 ounces of product, I draw the line!
Hoping to cell-abrate meat substitutes before I die
Posted by mark in food science, Uncategorized on October 14, 2024
As a consultant on statistical design and analysis of experiments, I’ve been working with many leading-edge developers of cell-based meats (and fish). I am a carnivore—me loving a juicy burger, tender pulled pork, medium-rare steak or barbecued chicken. However, I’d happily switch to lab-grown protein once it passes a properly designed double-blind taste test. This will be a huge breakthrough by not killing animals and greatly reducing greenhouse gases—including “enteric fermentation” (nice way of referring to cow farts, ha ha).
Some experts do not foresee this happening in our lifetime according to this report last February by CBC. But after reading this cover story posted yesterday by Chemical & Engineering News on recent developments on lab-grown meats, I am more optimistic.
There is a fly in the food, so to speak, though: I cannot eat lab-grown meat while wintering in my Florida home—it’s been banned per this May 1 press release from Governor DeSantis. No fair!
“Today, Florida is fighting back against the global elite’s plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals.”
– Governor Ron DeSantis
By the way, I do agree with the Governor on one thing by not being a big fan of eating bugs. On the other hand, I applaud a Stat-Ease client from Bulgaria—Nasekomo (meaning ‘‘insect’’)—for developing a high-protein chicken feed made from soldier flies. I helped one of their researchers on her experimentation after first being assured that the EU approves the use of their product only for animals, not humans. She told me that chickens who eat the fly-based food tend to be less aggressive and healthier. Sounds good to me: Cock-a-doodle-do!
Analytics explain why the NFL stiffs running backs
My Minnesota Vikings are on a roll this year due to unexpectedly stellar play from their quarterback Sam Darnold. After being drafted very highly, Darnold turned out to be a dud. But suddenly he blossomed—no doubt helped greatly by our superstar wide receiver Justin Jefferson. This Sunday the Vikings play in London against the New York Jets and their future hall-of-fame QB Aaron Rodgers.
There’s no doubt that quarterbacks are the most important factors for success in the NFL, so it’s no surprise that there’s a positive correlation of 0.7 between annual passing yards and annual revenue according to Harvard economist Roland Fryer.* But it’s quite shocking that he finds a negative correlation of 0.01 for the value of running backs. I agree with Fryer that its delightful to “see analytics put to good use but sad to see football’s best position taking a back seat.”
Go Darnold, go Vikes!
P.S. As reported earlier this year by SI, The NFL Treats Elite Wide Receivers Very Differently From Top Running Backs. As a case in point, they highlight the huge contract just signed by Jefferson. “Show me the money”—the demand given by the wide receiver to his agent Jerry McGuire played by Tom Cruise—isn’t working for running backs, though they do make a lot more money than kickers or punters as seen in this ESPN ranking of pay by position.
*Comments on “The Economics of Running Backs,” Wall Street Journal, September 4.