And the final answer is probably a combination of these two things. I don't understand the 18.2-ounce (or whatever it was) soup can when 16 would equal two "servings," either -- except that for some reason it must be convenient for the manufacturer to produce an 18.2-ounce can.
Campbell Soup used to produce Chunky in handy 10-ounce (or so) cans which was great for single-serving use. But at some point within the last five years or so, they replaced the single-serving cans with microwaveable bowls and started selling only the bigger cans. The microwaveable bowls, of course, cost more than the smaller cans did, and when I'm eating at home I prefer to cook soup on the stovetop because the microwaveable bowls tend to pop and jump and sometimes overturn in the microwave. So I'm stuck with buying the more expensive micro-bowl or a can that's bigger than I want. Yes, sometimes I'll cook just half the can, but that means keeping leftovers. --- In [email protected], "Daria Akers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another side to this is the ability to say 100 (or whatever) calories per > serving. People just assume that 1 bag/box/bottle is a serving so they think > they are only having 100 calories. The truth is more like 250 and they need > to eat less than 1/2 the package. Very few people read the package. > > On Jan 21, 2008 9:27 AM, Amy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Part of the odd sizing is a pricing ploy. My guess is that the > > product actually was 16 ounces when it was released, but, in an > > effort to save money, they've adjusted packaging so the package is > > now 15.2 oz., but the price is the same as it was at 16 oz. Happens > > all the time.
