It's unbelievable to me that they can get away with this, and I'm sure 99% of Canadians at first sight would think the same -- that you Just. Cannot. sell "200g" and have only 100g or 150g in there, it's the type of unarguably criminal behavior that would get Loblaws nationalized and immediately land Galen in jail for a decade or two for fraud.

Mindblowing.

General "properly functioning society" principle: the fine for bad behavior has to be set high enough that very smart, very calculating people who compute actuarial data NEVER reach the rational conclusion that the bad behavior including frequency and amount of penalties and fines is totally worth it and is the still best course of action overall.

(I can name several spheres where we're stupid enough that the penalties aren't enough to not make the "crimes" sensible. Weight fraud in groceries is just one example among many.)

White collar crime is legion.

And that's because the penalties are so feeble, that anyone rational and smart (who's not going to be stopped by "honor" and "sense of duty towards society") will conclude that white collar crime is advantageous on average. That's nonsense.

Wisecrack a YouTube philosophy channel most recent video is about normalization of Corporate crime.

https://youtu.be/jiDVyyHV-Xc?si=8XbE0uTudE4ke1oq

We could use a Canadian Ralph Nader.

Need more executives in jail.

Imagine Weston doing even 2 years hard time for the bread fixing bullshit.

This Dudley Do-Right image of Canada needs to die.

I would be overjoyed to see white-collar crime treated much more harshly in Canada, including with the imposition of prison sentences for top-level executives.

Unlike American white collar criminals, ours like Roblaws/Weston family just have to say "Sorrey" to Canadians, offer a $25 gift card to their stores and all possible legal action disappears :haha: :facepalm:

Molson, I highly recommend buying meat from a local butcher if possible. You notice the difference in quality over our 3 Big grocery conglomerates. At this point I'd trust Costco beef over Roblaws or the other two.

People can complain about corporate greed all they want, yet it’s our own governments who allow it. Companies like Loblaws are operating within the legal guidelines of what the country allows. We allow part time workers to be exploited by allowing companies to exploit them and the government does nothing to protect the people they are elected to serve. Remember when grocery store workers were heroes? lol. Yet they can’t afford to shop in the stores they work at. The corporate greed crap is all smoke and mirrors. The government holds all the blame.

The best is you people advocate for benefiting the corporations. Remember when grocery bags were free? And now they’re selling them for anywhere from 30 cents to three bucks a pop! But we’re saving the environment! lol

You could also look at your parking free housing developments the same way. People are championing profits for corporations and developers under the guise of environmentalism. The only people who win in a parking less condo building are the developers.

Is it the grocery cartel that's the problem, or is the food supplier cartel that's the problem? We live in a country of cartels, so its hard to figure out which one we should be mad at.

That doesn't make any sense. We're blaming "environmentalism" for corporations choosing to not pass on reduced costs to the consumer? So we're supposed to encourage wasteful behaviour just to prevent the corporations from making extra money even though damage to the environment does a lot more to harm lower income people than to the wealthy? So then if you can't improve the environment by being more efficient since efficiency means lower costs for companies, then how do you do it? Be as inefficient as possible to stick it to both corporations and the environment?

Reusable bags can be used so many times that each use equates to a couple cents or less. I have reusable bags that I've used for YEARS and not only do they still work fine, they also don't cut into my hands as much when carrying heavy loads and it basically eliminates the risk of them breaking. So the tiny cost is irrelevant. But now that the corporations aren't spending money to provide thousands of free plastic bags per day, they should be passing on that savings to consumers. If they aren't that isn't consumer's fault. Same as not including parking with condos. Each parking space costs thousands or even tens of thousands in land, construction costs, or both. You can't simultaneously defend corporations while claiming that they're refusing to pass on any of those cost savings. If the current system is working well and doing what it's supposed to, then if it costs corporations less to produce a product or service then they will charge less to provide it to consumers. If the system isn't working well and that isn't happening, then we're right to complain.

But I agree that it's up to the government (or more precisely for us to elect a government) to make the changes to ensure a better system. And that's the whole point of complaining. If anyone views the solution as just "If we get mad then corporations will just give up billions in profits to make us happy" then they're crazy.

^good post

The plastic bag ban in California backfired. It actually increased plastic waste and it also conveniently increased profits for major retailers. And that’s exactly what’s happening here because, well lemmings off a cliff.

Here you can read about how plastic bag waste has dramatically increased in California since the ban came into effect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/15/c...c-bag-ban.html

And here’s an article about the profiting off of reusable bags, these companies are making tens of millions “caring” about the environment.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/busi...60c0efac68?amp

At Loblaws MLG today, I was thinking it may be time to open Galen's Got Lotsa Dough/nuts as an independent franchise
https://imgur.com/a/Sa743N3

The first article is behind a paywall, but if the California legislation has a flaw in it's implementation that has little relevance to the concept writ-large. Sometimes initial policies don't foresee all variables or potential loopholes and the policy needs to be amended.

And again, no one suggested the companies are obliging with the single use plastic ban because they care about the environment. We know they're doing it because it's mandated. Your earlier post correctly pointed out that under the current system it was ultimately the government who is responsible for implementing policies to regulate companies. You therefore argued that we shouldn't direct our ire at the private sector. But now you're undermining your own argument. This was an example of a government policy implemented to prevent companies from doing something harmful, so if the corporations found some way to subvert it to their advantage then perhaps you were wrong and government regulation isn't actually effective?

Well actually, both arguments are correct. Under the current system a huge portion of society is controlled by amoral entities whose only goal is profit. So the government must act as the regulatory body to address externalities and market failures or impose values, and consumers also need to impose their values in making purchasing decisions. If a company is more profitable because of a policy then that's ok if the policy works since it's a win-win and an incentive toward compliance. But the private companies are always looking for ways to make subvert anything that hinders profit so that is a weakness in the system that we have to contend with until the system changes.

But through all of this you have yet to present your alternative solution to plastic waste. Well, other than your original solution of the governments legislating corporate behaviour which you now seem to oppose.

The only solution, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. DEPOSITS. If we can do it for beer cans we can do it for plastic grocery bags. Get your money back when you take it back to the retailer.

You won’t have any in the landfill.

But this was never about reducing plastic, it was about selling more plastic, for more money.

20 years ago The average plastic grocery bag cost less than 1/2 a cent to produce and stores had no problem providing the service of a bag with a purchase because it’s a minuscule amount added towards the operating cost. now, people are still paying that cost plus the added cost of buying a reusable bag. A bag that is produced using even more plastic. Do you think any retailers reduced their costs by 0.002% to cover the cost of the bags they were once providing?

If retailers cared about reducing plastics, they’d demand their suppliers change their packaging or remove their products.

We already acknowledged that the retailer don't care. Nobody is arguing that they do. The fact that uncaring entities have so much control is what most of our complaints come down to. But I actually think the idea of deposits is a decent one. If people choose to use disposable plastics then that would give an incentive to either return it or for other people to collect and return them. But that would also incentivize many people to buy reusable bags so that two aren't mutually exclusive. I and many other people already used them before the plastic ban, both for the environment and because they're better so any additional cost or hassle would motivate even more people. And the motto of "reduce, reuse, recycle" is in that order for a reason. They're in the order from best to worst because recycling is not nearly as good for the environment as reusing things. It requires a lot of energy and creates extra waste bi-products and emissions.

But I don't agree that the ban is intended to sell plastics. The fact that reusable bags use more plastic than a single disposable bag (when they're made of plastic which not all of them are) is irrelevant since they use much less plastic per use. Which is the whole point of switching to reusable things. Assuming sinister ulterior motives is getting into the realm of conspiracy theories.