Where Are My Thin Mints?!? JT January 27, 2009 Desserts, News 17 Comments As I have previously reported, the consumer seems to be getting less product for the same price â€“ especially in this economy.Â As I recently read on The Comsumerist, I am sorry to say that this truth can now be applied to the sacred institution of Girl Scout cookies.Â Due to the rising costs of ingredients, you might notice a few changes when you order your cookies this year.Â According to CBS11: â€œBut this year, Girl Scout leaders admit something is different about their cookies. The cookie boxes have shrunk and so have the number of cookies in the boxes â€¦ But the prices have not changed.â€ Now, I am the last one to give the Girl Scouts a hard time, but seriously, whatâ€™s next??Â First of all, how much did it cost to completely change the packaging of the cookies – smaller box, smaller trays?Â That has to account for at least one half Thin Mint right there! And frankly, I would rather pay a little more for the regular amount of cookies. The standard is the standard, and I will never understand why a company would rather shrink the product than increase the price (but when they do both â€“ ERRRR!). Am I way off? What was the best thing for the Girl Scouts to do here?Â To the comments section, Batman!! The following two tabs change content below.BioLatest Posts JT Latest posts by JT (see all) Starbucks Enters New Beverage Territory - August 1, 2013 Dole’s Banana Dippers Look Promising - July 7, 2013 Time For Summer Food - June 20, 2013 17 Responses Hilary January 27th, 2009 It must be a tough year for Girl Scout Cookie HQ. I also read that the Kosher symbol was accidentally omitted from many of their boxes which caused its own uproar. Reply Nate January 27th, 2009 I bet even the size of the cookie has shrunk. Reply Sassy January 27th, 2009 Now I’ll feel even less guilty when I polish off a whole box. Maybe I’ll make it two boxes. Reply lacochran January 28th, 2009 Those boxes were pretty dang small to begin with. Save the Samoas! Reply Alex January 28th, 2009 And the latest cookie (the Dulce de Leche, I believe) isn’t all that good either. Much like a corrugated piece of cardboard with some caramel drizzle on top. Reply Joanne January 28th, 2009 Guess the GS are just following suit with other companies – eg. Peanut butter. It appears the same, but the put a little “dent” in the bottom of the jar which reduces the amount of PB per jar. Trickery! Sheer trickery! I’m with lacochran – SAVE THE SAMOAS! Reply Amy January 28th, 2009 Or you could make your own! http://bakingbites.com/2005/10/thin-minties/ When I have hours to spare I’ll certainly try. bakingandmistaking.blogspot.com Reply Denise Smith January 28th, 2009 I just found you from dcBlogs, and I am cracking up. I LOVE food and I LOVE to talk about it, bitch about it, savor it, dream about it…well you get the picture. GS cookies pissed me off long ago. The Samoas are ridiculous. Every year there is one less in the box. This year, if they are actually releasing the fact that they are reducing the contents means what? I get two-one per side? No way. Reply Cary January 28th, 2009 sad. what’s great is that this gives me the reason i needed NOT to purchase girl scout cookies. those peanut butter cookies are delicious (mouth waters, falls off desk lost in cookie dream world…) Reply JT January 28th, 2009 Looks like we beat CNN to the punch again! http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/28/girl.scout.cookies/index.html Reply Attiya January 28th, 2009 Thin Mints >> Dulce de Leche Reply jackie March 10th, 2009 this makes me so angry!! seriously — way to look stupid. just raise the damn price. i’m boycotting girl scout cookies. Reply cb October 15th, 2012 sounds like a first world problem Reply Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Your email address will not be published. Name* Email* Website Comment Current day month ye@r * Leave this field empty * Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.