CBC Radio48%

Here's why milk comes in bags in parts of Canada 20%

By CBC Radio0%

1/2/2020, 7:07:12 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Hasty Generalization, and Availability Heuristic, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 19% saturation with 160 hits. Analysis detected 1,284 faulty-reasoning hits from 844 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.4% and a BS Rank of 20% (17,063 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 80.50% of the article peer group.

Milk in bags  it's a kitchen staple in some parts of Canada. 
Yet there are areas of the country where the concept of four litres of moo juice coming in transparent, jiggly bags is the most inexplicable thing about life in Eastern Canada. 
But what's to blame for the proliferation of bagged milk in Ontario, Quebec, and Maritime provinces but not others? 
It's a question The Cost of Living heard from listeners who were confused when they had difficulty finding the same milk jugs in Ontario that are easily sourced at any grocery store from British Columbia to Manitoba, or in the United States. 
“This doesn't make any sense. 
Why would they do it like this?” - Shemma Yamach, puzzled by milk bags after moving to Toronto from Edmonton 
"Whenever I have American friends visiting, they think the milk in my fridge is totally ridiculous," said CBC reporter Jonathan Pinto. 
"In Detroit, milk comes in jugs." 
Even chocolate milk comes in bags in parts of Canada. 
The reaction is similar for people who come eastward from western provinces. 
"Coming from Alberta, I'm used to seeing milk jugs. 
I went through the store repeatedly and couldn't find them," said Shemma Yamach, who moved to Toronto after growing up in Edmonton. 
She quickly realized the issue wasn't that every grocery store she visited was just out of what she thought was universal  the four-litre hard plastic milk jug. 
Those who use milk bags also know to have a reusable plastic holster for said bags. 
"After going to people's homes and seeing that everyone had these bags of milk, and they cut them open on the corner and drink milk out of this pitcher… well, I just thought this doesn't make any sense. 
Why would they do it like this?" 
asked Yamach. 
The question was echoed by Pinto, who works for CBC Radio's Afternoon Drive in southwestern Ontario. 
"How come some places have milk in bags, and others don't?" 
Enter the metric system 
Milk bags first entered the Canadian market in the late 1960s. 
However, Canada's conversion to the metric system in the 1970s meant dairy producers needed to replace and resize existing milk containers, which were measured in imperial quarts. 
When buying milk in plastic bags, consumers have to buy a jug to hold it too. 
The practice goes as far back as 1969. 
Retrofitting assembly lines or replacing heavy glass bottles was an expensive prospect for the milk industry, and milk bags  which they were already experimenting with  could be easily and cheaply adjusted. 
Changing a one-quart bag to a 1.3-litre bag was relatively painless, so three-quart bags of milk quickly became four-litre bags across parts of Canada. 
Where my bags at? 
Milk bags started to fall out of popularity in many parts of the country as the hard plastic used for things like large jugs became cheaper. 
Plus, in the 1980s, Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government relaxed rules on metric measurements. 
A compromise between metric and imperial 
This combination helped market forces take hold, and milk jugs slowly became more popular in areas of the country. 
Milk, without bags, is pictured at a B.C. grocery store in Sept. 
2018. 
"I think the shift took place less as a result of a movement away from plastic bags, and more the attraction of rigid milk jugs," said Dan Wong, president of the Western Dairy Council. 
Eventually milk bags became unheard of in provinces like Alberta or British Columbia. 
Why the bag for Ontario? 
Ontario has remained an exception. 
For decades, regulations in Ontario restricted the sale of more than one pint or about 473 millilitres of milk in containers other than plastic film pouches (aka bags), laminated containers or coated paper containers (such as Tetra Paks). 
"I think it was a historical regulation that stemmed back to the days when plastic jugs were very rare in the marketplace," said Dan Wong. 
To sell milk in four-litre hard plastic jugs, a retailer or producer had to implement a deposit or recycling system for those products and some stores, such as the Becker Milk Company, did so. 
Consumers could buy milk jugs at those retailers if they paid a deposit for the jug at the store. 
Stunned by the size of these giant milk bags sold in supermarkets in #Canada! 
#milk #travel pic.twitter.com/HDVKVDicqo 
Bags did not have this restriction, so mainstream grocery stores and milk producers stuck to the bags for the most part. 
This explains why Ontario grocers almost exclusively provided large quantities of milk in bags. 
In other markets such as Quebec or Nova Scotia, bags and jugs have co-existed for years based on demand. 
The Ontario regulation was amended in mid-2018, but consumer habits can take decades to break, so expect to keep seeing white, jiggly milk bags at your local grocery store for years to come. 
At least in Ontario. 
Written and produced by Anis Heydari. 
Click "listen" above to hear the segment, or download the Cost of Living podcast. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.3%CBC Radio: 4.0%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.3%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%CBC Radio: 2.0%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic11.0%This article: 3.7%CBC Radio: 0.7%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.7%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 1.2%CBC: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%CBC Radio: 3.0%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias3.1%This article: 7.7%CBC Radio: 3.2%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect7.7%This article: 3.9%CBC Radio: 0.1%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.9%This article: 2.5%CBC Radio: 0.4%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.1%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 1.8%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%CBC Radio: 0.7%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias3.9%This article: 4.9%CBC Radio: 2.9%CBC: 5.6%Negativity Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 1.6%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.6%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%CBC Radio: 0.3%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias2.5%This article: 5.2%CBC Radio: 0.5%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 1.7%CBC: 3.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.3%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.3%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.2%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.1%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.7%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.9%CBC Radio: 2.9%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority6.9%This article: 1.3%CBC Radio: 1.3%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma1.3%This article: 3.9%CBC Radio: 0.2%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope3.9%This article: 1.7%CBC Radio: 1.0%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning1.7%This article: 11.1%CBC Radio: 5.0%CBC: 4.9%Hasty Generalization11.1%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.4%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 2.6%CBC: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.9%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.4%CBC Radio: 1.8%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.4%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.2%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 1.0%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.5%CBC Radio: 0.4%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division4.5%This article: 19.0%CBC Radio: 3.1%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal19.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.3%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.8%CBC Radio: 1.6%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.8%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.1%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 4.0%CBC Radio: 0.6%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity4.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.3%CBC Radio: 1.3%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote2.3%This article: 3.8%CBC Radio: 1.0%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection3.8%This article: 8.3%CBC Radio: 2.5%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice8.3%This article: 3.9%CBC Radio: 1.0%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination3.9%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Radio: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%CBC Radio: 1.3%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.7%

844 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers31%attributed speech582writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageThe Cost of Living • 42 words • 0.0% coverageShemma Yamach • 5 words • 100.0% coverageShemma Yamach • 20 words • 100.0% coverageJonathan Pinto • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Pinto • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageShemma Yamach • 9 words • 0.0% coverageShemma Yamach • 22 words • 0.0% coverageShemma Yamach • 28 words • 0.0% coverageShemma Yamach • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageShemma Yamach • 7 words • 100.0% coverageShemma Yamach • 2 words • 0.0% coverageShemma Yamach • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Pinto • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Pinto • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Mulroney • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageDan Wong • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageDan Wong • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Cost of Living

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words16% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.0 ptsWriter: 12.0%The Cost of Living: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.7 ptsWriter: 5.7%The Cost of Living: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%The Cost of Living: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%The Cost of Living: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.