More reasons not to
shop
Joanna
Blythman: Shopped: The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets.
Harper Perennial £7.99.
Supermarkets:
places to buy food at low prices, selling a wide range of produce in
bright well-lit shops situated in convenient locations, with
everything designed to make life easier for customers. If that’s
your view of what supermarkets are, then Shopped is likely to
change your mind.
For
one thing the illusion of choice is just that – an illusion. Many
companies make ready meals for a variety of supermarket chains, for
instance. More generally, the supermarkets sell what suits them, not
what the customer might want. Fruit and veg in particular have to fit
a standard model in terms of size, colour and shape, just because
that makes them easier (= cheaper) to transport and display. Any
offerings that don’t come up to standard (e.g. because of minor
blemishes) will be rejected, at the supplier’s expense. This might
include, for instance, cauliflowers that are ‘not white enough’.
One consequence of this emphasis on uniformity is a drastic reduction
in the number of varieties grown, which puts in danger the genetic
spread that can help to reduce the impact of disease.
The
suppliers (from largish companies to small farmers) are often at the
supermarkets’ mercy in other ways too. They may be encouraged to
sell their produce to one chain exclusively, invest in new equipment,
and then be dropped from the approved list for no apparent reason. If
they complain about the supermarket’s stranglehold on their sales,
they will be threatened with delisting. Customer complaints are
passed on by the supermarkets to the suppliers. Low prices at the
counter are enabled by ever-lower prices to the supplier: cereal
farmers, for instance, get just 8 percent of the price of a loaf of
bread.
Supermarket
profits of course come not just from the way they exercise their
power over the suppliers, but from the way they exploit their own
staff. With pay rates at levels like £4.94 an hour, compared to
the £4million that the boss of Tesco’s was paid in 2003, it’s
easy to see why some of the bigger chains have an annual staff
turnover exceeding 20 percent.
And
the ‘fresh’ food they sell is often not fresh at all. It is quite
likely picked prematurely, before developing its full flavour, so it
can withstand a few days’ shelf life and then a few more in the
customer’s home. Taste and nutrition come a long way second to
appearance and how long the food will keep. Wholesale markets like
Covent Garden now supply greengrocers and restaurants with decent
fruit and veg, while supermarket shelves are weighed down with
tasteless, unripe pap, much of it grown on vast plantations in places
such as Lincolnshire.
Nor
is food-selling the be-all-and-end-all. Supermarkets have for some
time been expanding into areas like insurance, wills, credit cards,
books, CDs, key-cutting, and so on. If they could get away with it,
they’d probably stop selling unprocessed food (processed food is
far more profitable), but they know that ‘fresh’ meat and veg
does get customers into the stores. Tesco is approaching a 30 percent
share in UK consumer spending (that’s total spending, not just on
food).
One
of the blurbs the cover of Shopped says it “should be
required reading in every household”. Well, the Socialist
Standard would be a better choice for this, but Shopped
does give a pretty good idea of the power of big companies under
capitalism and the reasons why the customer is certainly not in
charge.
PB
This page 16 and 17 images
The
Windmills of Change
In
Search of Sustainability. Edited by J. Goldie, B. Douglas, and B.
Furnass.
CSIRO Publishing, Australia 2005.
Sustainability
can be an unquestionably good thing or not –
it depends on what you want to sustain. In this collection of twelve
essays by academics in different fields of environmental research the
editors define sustainability as “the
capacity of human systems to provide for the full range of human
concerns in the long term. Sustainability, when applied to humans,
refers both to long-term survival of our species and the quality of
our lives.”
There
are chapters on ten areas of concern: health, inequality, limited
growth, land use, water, climate change, energy, transport, work and
population. A final chapter is about achieving a sustainable future.
The recommendations are all of a “motherhood”
nature and well known to those in the environmental trade. For
example, “children must better understand
the ecological framework within which the human species lives”,
we must “shift away from the pursuit of
economic growth as an end in itself” and
promote “affordable renewable
technologies.”
Plenty
of talk about key issues we must address, challenges we must face,
changes in our current approaches we must make. But not a solid word
about the need to fundamentally change the system from capitalism to
something else. Capitalism does get a mention in the article on
limiting growth, but the worry there is that capitalism will collapse
and throw everything into chaos.
The
editors believe that sustainability “can
provide the vision we need to draw together the government, the
private sector community and academics to help solve our many
deep-seated problems.” So no real
revolution there, then. Indeed, one of the contributors trots out
what amounts to the “human nature”
objection to socialism. Comparing modern nation-states to ancestral
warring tribes, he suggests that “this
competitiveness, selfishness and ‘short
termism’ is deeply programmed into the
human species.” It may suit defenders of
capitalism to draw attention to such alleged deep programming, but
socialists rely on other demonstrable characteristics of the human
species: mutual aid, co-operation and (despite the dominant ideology
of capitalism) the capacity to think and plan for the long term.
SRP