"I think it's important to note that none of theses foods are really health foods, we're talking cookies and crackers, foods that we really shouldn't be eating much of anyhow."

Exactly. That's why they are packaged in 100 calorie packages.

Geez!

The bottom line is that smaller portions require more manufacturing and more packaging. More packaging and manufacturing makes things more expensive.

 Not necessarily.  An alternative explanation here is that this is a classic case of what economists call "price discrimination."  (Now, nobody get their undies in a bundle here, because I'm not implicating anybody in violating affirmative action laws.)

Basically the concept of price discrimination says that you charge different sets of people different prices based upon their different values for a particular good or service.  A historical example was the sale of indulgences in medieval time, when the Catholic Church used secrecy to set prices high for people who were scared of time in purgatory while setting them lower for people who didn't care.

Laundry detergent is another example.  Small bottles or boxes of laundry soap don't really cost any more to manufacture than the "tub o' soap."  The price difference represents the fact that the small soap containers are more convenient -- i.e., certain consumers value the soap plus the convenience and are willing to added pay the price for the added convenience. 

As for the snack foods, people who buy those 100 calorie packs are likely more discriminating about nutrition (or counting calories) and are willing to pay more for the convenience of a simple way to count calories.  Put another way, in the tradeoff between quality and price, purchasers of 100 calorie packs are less price sensitive and more quality sensitive.  (Quality here being the added feature of having an easy way to count calories -- an added feature of the product so to speak.)

Finally, food companies charge more for those 100 cal packs because in a free market they can charge whatever price they want; it is not the government's darn business to tell them what to charge. If the price of those packs were "too high" nobody would buy them.  Duh.

<insert witty signature here>

Those of us who actually read the unit pricing of items in the grocers know that bigger is nearly always cheaper per unit. Just think about how much (per ounce) a 5 gallon jar of Mayo costs at Costco and compare that to a 6 oz jar at your local market.  Same story.

The point is that they are using a simple, normal, and accepted process to move product. What the PC police are doing is assuming people are ignorant so that they can use this as a tool to prove that food corporations are evil. As someone else said, if you don't want to pay for it, don't buy it... 

So now these "scientists" are trying to take on the role of an economist?

This is just too ridiculous. I don't buy these types of treats because I think they are too expensive. I make my own snacks for much less. I bought two bags of marshmallows, a box of generic rice crispies, and some butter all for about $7. I spent 15 minutes in the kitchen to make rice crispy treats to last over a week. They're more fresh, they taste better, they are dirt cheap, and I have at least 10 times the amount of treats than if I had bought the pre-made, pre-packaged ones!

Convenience costs money! The people that do buy these snacks obviously think it is worth the price--otherwise they wouldn't buy them! Why can't people on the left understand the most simple and fundamental principles of economics?

Personal accountability anyone?

"Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! There's still plenty of meat on that bone. Now you take this home, throw it in a pot, add some broth, a potato, baby you've got a stew goin'!" -- Carl Weathers