Forget for a second that you don't like how the information was provided and simply look at the information.
What are your opinions about it? Do you think it's good that a really small amount of companies control such a large amount of food? Do you think that makes it harder or easier for there to be competition for consumers to seek out? Do you think anyone should try to do anything about the lack of competition?
But here, I will provide a link and Even copy and paste from the link for ya.
Consumer choice is largely an illusion – despite supermarket shelves and fridges brimming with different brands.
Revealed: the true extent of America’s food monopolies, and who pays the price
Investigation shows scale of big food corporations’ market dominance and political powerwww.theguardian.com
In fact, a few powerful transnational companies dominate every link of the food supply chain: from seeds and fertilizers to slaughterhouses and supermarkets to cereals and beers.
The size, power and profits of these mega companies have expanded thanks to political lobbying and weak regulation which enabled a wave of unchecked mergers and acquisitions. This matters because the size and influence of these mega-companies enables them to largely dictate what America’s 2 million farmers grow and how much they are paid, as well as what consumers eat and how much our groceries cost.
“It’s a system designed to funnel money into the hands of corporate shareholders and executives while exploiting farmers and workers and deceiving consumers about choice, abundance and efficiency,” said Amanda Starbuck, policy analyst at Food & Water Watch.
For instance, PepsiCo controls 88% of the dip market, as it owns five of the most popular brands including Tostitos, Lay’s and Fritos. Ninety-three per cent of the sodas we drink are owned by just three companies. The same goes for 73% of the breakfast cereals we eat – despite the shelves stacked with different boxes.
So now that you have been provided the information in a different way is ok for you to post your thoughts?
Tons of great information in article.
I know trump wants to get rid of regulation. Getting rid of regulations is what enabled a wave of unchecked mergers and acquisitions and helped create these monopolies.
I wish someone was trying to do something about this issue.
Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Ok, I read the article, and now I'm more confused why you would have shared it. The premise seems to be that we should support smaller food producers, but wouldn't that just increase how much you pay for food? It doesn't really say why large food companies are bad and small ones are good for consumers except that big must equal bad and small must equal good. Having worked for both small and large food companies I can tell you there are advantages and disadvantages to both.
I didn't see any proof of price gouging in that article, in fact that wasn't really the focus. The main point was that we should have more choices, which is fine. The article didn't really get in to the reasons why large companies acquire small ones, or how that can sometimes be beneficial. It didn't talk about how companies create competitive advantages to become large in the first place. There is almost an inference that being big means you made a deal with the devil.
The one relevant section was on commodity price stickiness. I guess that is a way that we end up paying more than we should, but it's only temporary.
The other part I agree with is the low wages, for workers in the food industry being a problem. I'm not sure the best way to address that, but know it will definitely increase the cost of food.
I do think a lot of the stats in the article seemed credible, but just the conclusion that the stats led them to were suspect, at least for me.
Last edited:
NO PRICE GOUGING AT TARGET 
