Page describes how small numbers of companies dominate the markets for many type of food items.
1 Like
Deleted
I thought it said “oligopolies”?
deleted
It actually could be: oligopolies refer to the situation where a small number of competitors dominate a market.
Anyways, I’m being picky…I will rest this point.
But, “food deserts” are a real problem these days. And that’s the main point, whether it’s oligopolistic or monopolistic.
“Oligopoly” is a more correct term to describe a market dominated by a few large sellers, versus a “monopoly” which means a market dominated by one seller. But it appears that the general public is more familiar with the term “monopoly” and tends to associate it with any limited-competition situation, not just a one-seller dominance. Probably that is why The Guardian’s headline writer used “monopolies” instead of “oligopolies” in the headline, even though the article itself says that “Markets where the top four companies account for more than 40% of sales are generally considered to be consolidated; those exceeding 60% are tight oligopolies or monopolies.”
The article does not use the terms “oligopsony” or “monopsony”, which are probably even less well known to the general public (defined as market dominance by a few large buyers or one buyer). Such a situation could apply to the same large firms described in the article, when looked at from the point of view of farmers and other suppliers.
It is shocking how few supermarket holding companies there really are. For example, while there appear to be many different grocery brands (e.g, Safeway, Vons, Lucky, Jewel-Osco), they are all owned by Albertsons.
I’ve also read about what many of the grocery conglomerates do when they shut down a grocery store: they insert a restrictive covenant to keep any future purchaser from allowing a grocery store to operate out of that location. That’s just one example contributing to the food deserts all over the US.
1 Like