Small Snacks, Thinner Waistlines, Better Margins, More Waste

The New York Times has an article on the rise of the 100 Calorie snack - smaller servings of common snack food that come in their own packs. The advantage for the manufacturer is that these packs sell for a higher price than the existing larger packs when you compare price per volume. The Times reports:

As a business concept, the idea is simple. Take an existing product, portion smaller amounts of it into single-serving bags, and sell several of the bags for about the same or more as a regular-size package. Consumers do not seem to mind paying more even though they are getting fewer Goldfish… A report last month from the Hartman Group found that 29 percent of Americans believed that 100-calorie packages were worth the extra cost.

Meanwhile, the paper reports that nutritionists aren’t that happy with the trend:

“People like to think, ‘Oh, this is healthy, it’s only 100 calories,’” said Lisa Young, author of “The Portion Teller Plan,” a book on portion control. “A single portion of junk food is better than a large portion of junk food, but it’s not better than an apple, a peach or a vegetable.”

In reaction though, TriplePundit points out an important fact that the article’s author Jeremy W. Peters ignores:

While the packages are small, the aggregate ecological downside of this trend is large. Multiple small packages, plus a larger box or bag to contain them all creates more waste, and is a step backwards in materials efficiency. Consumers are essentially paying more for less product (which they want) and more waste (which has no value). As the article points out, the irony is that buying one large bag and measuring out single servings would provide more product for the dollar - and it would also reduce packaging waste.