> For instance, a big red flag on the bacon that went from 90% pork to 89% pork. That sounds like a rounding error to me. Certainly not worthy of calling out.
The reason you can say that there is no consequential difference being illustrated here is precisely because he recorded that difference. It's just data collection, it's not shady unless they hide the numbers and still draw the conclusions for you.
That would be fine if it were consistent, but in the tomato sauce only "tomato" is highlighted despite the tomato in both coming from tomato and puree. What happened for the most part wasn't a net decrease in tomato but a shift in the relative proportions of the kinds used. Why not highlight the shift in proportion instead of just the drop in one component?
What happened wasn't a drop from 73% tomato to 46% tomato as the highlighting would have you believe. Instead it's a change from 73% tomato/14% puree (total 87% tomato) to 46% tomato/43% partially reconstituted puree (total 89% tomato). It's actually more tomato than ever - while costing 20% less.
Calling this "shitflation" seems like quite an arbitrary judgement from someone who hasn't tried it? Especially when it's 1/5 less expensive. What if it tastes better? What if it takes less than 20% worse?
The reason you can say that there is no consequential difference being illustrated here is precisely because he recorded that difference. It's just data collection, it's not shady unless they hide the numbers and still draw the conclusions for you.