Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Big supermarkets, big on junk food: how to make healthier food environments

Supermarkets are an essential part of modern living – open almost all the time, selling almost everything, and selling it cheap. Nowhere is this more true than in Australia. Coles and Woolworths, our two…

Almost half of Melbourne supermarkets' end-of-aisle displays promote junk food. Flickr/Vox Efx

Supermarkets are an essential part of modern living – open almost all the time, selling almost everything, and selling it cheap.

Nowhere is this more true than in Australia. Coles and Woolworths, our two most dominant supermarket chains, are now ranked among the top 20 biggest retailers in the world.

Almost two-thirds of the groceries purchased in Australia are bought from these two stores. The supermarket environment is now a key influence on Australian diets. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests Big Supermarket has an unhealthy habit of promoting Big Junk – soft drinks, chocolate, confectionery and chips.

In a recent Melbourne study, four out of every 10 end-of-aisle displays and every single checkout measured were found to promote these products.

Other research has shown that the promotion of junk food in Australian supermarkets is greatest in disadvantaged suburbs – precisely the areas where obesity is more common.

And compared with supermarkets from seven other countries – the US, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, UK and New Zealand – Australian supermarkets have been shown to be world leaders in the promotion of junk food at checkouts and end-of-aisle displays.

Consumer choice? Or super profits?

While the supermarkets will defend these statistics by telling us that their customers demand and deserve choice, the wholesale promotion of products that we should be eating “sometimes and in small amounts” has nothing to do with choice.

The motive driving supermarkets' promotion of Big Junk? Big profits.

Sales figures guide most decisions in retail. The bottom line of a supermarket chain benefits from the promotion of junk food through both increased sales, and from the fees paid by manufacturers in exchange for a prime positioning on shelves.

But in this case, what is good for the supermarket is bad for the consumer.

Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organization, highlighted the impact of junk food profiteering in a recent speech:

Efforts to prevent non-communicable [lifestyle] diseases go against the business interests of powerful economic operators … In my view, this is one of the biggest challenges facing health promotion … It is not just Big Tobacco anymore. Public health must also contend with Big Food, Big Soda, and Big Alcohol.

Would the threat of regulation make supermarkets think twice about their promotion of junk food? Flickr/macattck

With 63% of Australians now overweight or obese, and diabetes rates rising as a consequence, the question then becomes: how do public health interests compete with those of such powerful businesses?

There are two major levers that large corporations seem to respond to: the threat of regulation, and negative public perception that may impact sales. Both are potential targets that could be used to “nudge” Big Supermarket toward healthier environments.

The threat of regulation has only recently seen Coles and Woolworths act to protect suppliers. It isn’t a stretch to imagine they might act similarly in response to the prospect of regulation aimed at reducing Australia’s rate of obesity.

And in the Australian context of a highly competitive duopoly, public perception is particularly important to both Coles and Woolworths. Public perception can be influenced by effective advocates – individuals, the media or organisations such as the Parent’s Jury, the Obesity Policy Coalition and Sustain, in the UK.

The supermarkets also attempt to drive public perception themselves, with Woolworths launching its excellent healthy lunchbox range in recognition of the consumer demand for healthier options and in an attempt to position themselves as “the supermarket that inspires a healthier Australia”.

The fact that supermarkets are now using their health credentials as a marketing tool is surely a sign of change in the right direction.

As consumers become more aware of the importance of a healthy diet, will supermarkets realise restricting the promotion of Big Junk may even be good for business?

By concentrating on what motivates Big Supermarket, we may help nudge them into action – and begin to reverse our seemingly intractable obesity epidemic.

Join the conversation

49 Comments sorted by

  1. Stephen Ralph

    carer at n/a

    We can't go on blaming the supermarkets forever.........at some stage consumers must take responsibility for their own choices.

    Adults are not children in a lolly shop.

    I am still of the belief that the more obese parents do not want to have thin children...it makes THEM look bad. I'm serious - why else would parents have such a blatant disregard for their children's health.

    I've been to a supermarket often enough to see "fat" adults with trolleys loaded with unhealthy foods and lots of cola type drinks.

    There has been enough education and information about food & nutrition available to everyone in Australia so that those who continue to eat unhealthy food must be held accountable and treated as unaware and uninformed.

    report
    1. Stephen Ralph

      carer at n/a

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      sorry >>>>>must be held accountable and treated as unaware and uninformed because of either their stupidity or neglect.

      report
    2. Megan Jackson

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      Stephen - compulsory education about food and nutrition in our high schools happens for 10 weeks in Year 7 and 10 weeks in Year 8 and then becomes an elective. I don't know about you, but I don't have brilliant recollections of what I was taught in Year 7 & 8, except in those subjects that I took as electives through to Year 12 and thus more permanently embedded the learning.

      So I would suggest that there actually isn't enough education about food and nutrition in Australia. While there is information available, I am not confident that it is reaching the people it needs to get to - how many of the poor/poorly educated are picking up the brochures about nutrition? Do any of our reality TV shows like Masterchef or Biggest Loser actually focus on preparing cheap and nutritious and easy to prepare meals? Are we really best off focusing our nutrition education campaigns at primary school/Year 7 & 8 students, or should we be using better tools to reach adults?

      report
    3. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      Obesity is complicated Stephen. People are not rational operatives. We can think logically but we need to be trained in childhood to do so and so very few of us do get this training.

      Like you, I see the people in the supermarkets poisoning themselves and their children but I see that they really do not choose to do this. They choose this diet for so many other 'reasons' that are not to do with making a rational choice.

      It can be something to do with their 'personality' or 'psychology' - whatever…

      Read more
    4. Geoffrey Leigh`

      Clinical Director at Australian Institute for Functional Medicine (non-profit)

      In reply to Megan Jackson

      Megan-It is well documented that doctors of medicine are the leading cause of death in our society, it is my belief that dietitians if followed may also be a major contributor. It may very well be that the schools are teaching the same misinformation that has been promulgated by Dietitians since 1957 as promulgated by the U.S. Dept of Agriculture
      The balanced diet is graphically illustrated as a pyramid from the top listing:
      Dairy & eggs
      Protein
      Vegetables & Fruit
      Cereal, grains, bread, pasta…

      Read more
    5. Christopher Seymour

      Business owner at Location

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      I agree - people should be held personally responsible for the cost of their obesity.
      Airline tickets should be based on weight.
      Health insurance rates should be based on BME.
      The lesson from car seat belts in the seventies should be heeded. Education and the threat of death or hideous injuries from not wearing belts were not sufficient to persuade Australians to wear belts. But the prospect of a $20 fine brought almost complete compliance. There should be a fine for having a BMI above 25.

      report
    6. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Christopher Seymour

      And perhaps a fine for people who comment while having NFI of the difference between obesity and not wearing a seat belt.

      report
    7. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Christopher Seymour

      And what about cancer Chris? Should we fine people who get cancer? I am sure there is some 'choice' that these people could have made to avoid this disease. After all I've never had cancer so it must be due to a choice that those other people made. That was sarcasm in case anyone didn't pick it up.

      report
    8. Stephen Ralph

      carer at n/a

      In reply to Megan Jackson

      If education wants to be revolutionary, why not bring in parents with their kids on lessons in nutrition.

      As I said no point in being "smart" if you have type 1 or 2 diabetes, morbid obesity or heart problems.

      Education needs to think better and be more accountable to a community - not just a school - if we are to get anywhere.

      If parents are a problem, get them back to school as well - otherwise we continue on the same old path decade after decade.

      report
    9. Stephen Ralph

      carer at n/a

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      I accept that it's not a simple issue, but I do believe there has been plenty of advice and information available to the community.

      Sure I get that advertising is a real threat to nutrition and health, and we are bombarded with inducements for all the wrong sort of food.

      But otoh there are ample programs across the TV spectrum that highlight the obesity problem in Australia. Perhaps people just mentally tune out when they come on b/c they have no personal fortitude or solutions.

      But there are plenty of ads for weight watchers, light & easy, jenny craig etc to counter the negative ads.

      report
    10. John Doyle

      architect

      In reply to Geoffrey Leigh`

      The USDA is an organization suited to promote agriculture, not much to do with health - aside from the financial health of the sector.
      The various Hearth Institutes are just Quacks. Maybe not all but those Dietitians who spout the industry line are also quacks.

      Vested interests don't have to behave morally and since it's not illegal to add sugar then if it helps sales that's all to their good.
      Vested interests in health and food are given a big leg up by governments, who have vacated their duties to our well being via misplaced ideology for "small" government. Outsourcing health advice to industry is a "fox in charge of the hen house" scenario.

      The only way this will alter is if we as individuals make different choices and buy in a better way. However it requires us to resist the blandishments of industry, the addictive nature of sugar, and the ads directed at children. That is a hard one.

      report
    11. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      Sure we vary in our ability to resist temptation - genes and environment combine to produce a range of individual abilities. But what is missing then in people who apparently deliberately choose to ignore all the evidence and get fat?

      I can't think of anything rational that explains why people choose to kill themselves by choosing unhealthy food so clearly they are irrational and what are we to do with irrational people? Keep telling them to pull their socks up?

      It hasn't been working that…

      Read more
    12. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      But yes Stephen I'd agree with you that some of us have "no personal fortitude" but that comes with anxiety and depression. But I'd say that mostly the obese are the people who don't have solutions.

      The Jenny Craig things are money making schemes and they may work for some people but the problem is that these people need more life skills to negotiate this world in which the enemy comes offering attractive, easy and cheap things.

      report
    13. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      Hi Stephen,

      Whilst I may have the occasional chocolate bar, I have no problems in going straight past the aisles of confectionary, soft drinks and chips etc. Maybe I am lucky in that I naturally tends to eat healthy food that is mostly home cooked.

      Unfortunately some other people are easily lured by the junk and much thought and effort goes into the marketing and shelf/store location of this stuff.

      Ideally I would like to see junk food made less accessible, and perhaps more highly taxed under a modified GST.

      report
    14. Brandon Young

      Retired

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      "I can't think of anything rational that explains why people choose to kill themselves by choosing unhealthy food"

      Advertising is a rational campaign to condition people to act irrationally. The more exposure, the less power to resist the imposed desires, even if one is consciously trying to live a healthy lifestyle.

      As the article states: "Other research has shown that the promotion of junk food in Australian supermarkets is greatest in disadvantaged suburbs." These are probably the people with the greatest exposure to advertising.

      The simple answer is to let people know they will be happier and more in control of their own choices if they avoid advertising altogether. It is not so hard to just mute the ads if watching commercial television, to use an ad blocker online and to avoid commercial radio.

      I think the shelf placement techniques would be far less effective without the pre-conditioning.

      report
    15. Stephen Ralph

      carer at n/a

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      Perhaps education for "some" needs to be about navigating life and it's perils. I keep saying it, but if schools aren't providing life skills (and parents obviously aren't in many situations), then schools aren't doing their job properly in this modern world.

      Perhaps Pyne & co should really look at what needs to be taught in schools above and beyond the usual maths, english, etc.

      If half the stuff taught in schools is not going to be useful to a large % of people, why teach it - let kds and parents learn something very practical. Instead of religious instruction or geography or social studies (or whatever) - teach life skills which might include nutrition, drugs & alcohol, sex, and so on.

      report
    16. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      I totally agree Stephen and someone else asked in this thread, what skills do we want all of our children to have to ensure they grow up to make a better world?

      Do they still teach cooking and sewing and those domestic arts in high school? My oldest son did these things back in the 80's and even enjoyed them but my youngest son says he did not have to do anything like that - he is 12 years younger.

      report
    17. Stephen Ralph

      carer at n/a

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Hi Henry

      Julie was making that point also. And I can imagine many parents just want to shut kids up, and relenting by giving them junk food items they see on TV, on supermarket shelves and now in school canteens for goodness sakes.

      If supermarkets wanted to do the right thing the bigger ones would have a creche out front to look after kids when mum or dad went in to do the shopping. Don't know how many times I've seen kids come up to parents trolley and just put items in, or hound mum or dad around the aisles to buy this or that.

      report
    18. Christopher Seymour

      Business owner at Location

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      Excellent point!!! According to the National Cancer Institute "Obesity is associated with increased risks of cancers of the esophagus, breast (postmenopausal), endometrium (the lining of the uterus), colon and rectum, kidney, pancreas, thyroid, gallbladder, and possibly other cancer types.
      Obese people are also at higher risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, diabetes, and a number of other chronic diseases."
      Obesity should be seen as just as socially unnacceptable as smoking, cycle riding (with or without an motor) without a helmet, running red lights, speeding, or excessive alcohol. It actually carries higher risks and causes more cost to society than any of those activities, which all carry signiificant penalties.

      report
    19. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Christopher Seymour

      But Christopher it just does nobody any good to keep telling these unfortunate people that they don't measure up and we are going to punish you for not measuring up. That just doesn't work no matter how rational it might seem.

      report
    20. Regan

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Christopher Seymour

      If there is a fine for having a BMI above 25, then your typical rugby team is going to be faced with a hefty bill. . . .

      BMI is a population-based approximation that translates poorly to individuals. Many professional athletes have BMIs in the "obese" category because of their muscular physiques. At the other end of the spectrum are the "skinny-fat" - people who may be in the "healthy" BMI range but do little or no exercise and carry excess visceral fat (the main risk factor for heart disease).

      report
    21. Jenna Cowie

      Dietitian

      In reply to Geoffrey Leigh`

      Big stereotype. It's a versatile profession and we don't all regurgitate the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating. Views on diet as you are obviously aware are extremely varied and I dare say most of the collective profession's time is spent discouraging soft drink and takeaway rather than enforcing what is only meant as a guideline. A good logicist (like me of course) never states that bread is an essential part of the diet, nor pasta nor most single items in reality. There are 'issues' with all professions including mine, but we all have different philosophies on the most ethcial ways to work... indeed that requires a brain and good reasoning - not rote learning and lecturing.

      report
    22. Christopher Seymour

      Business owner at Location

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      Its a basic issue of fairness. Why should I have to pay a fine for the pleasure of feeling the wind through my hair when I ride my bike while these people create a far bigger risk stuffing their faces with junk food? It's me that is the unfortunate victim and would appreciate your concern.

      report
    23. Christopher Seymour

      Business owner at Location

      In reply to Regan

      Penalties often are unfair.
      I ride my bike on quiet roads and bike paths and am at less risk of head injury than the helmeted cyclist who travels on highways.
      There were many people who never used a seat belt and never were involved in a crash.
      Penalties can be unfair but the greater good would be served by requiring everyone to have a BMI of 25.

      report
    24. Regan

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Christopher Seymour

      Let's explore your proposal then. Say a law is passed "requiring" everyone to have a BMI of 25 and failure to comply would result in a fine. Enforcing this law would require some sort of "compliance officer" to have the power to stop people on the street and weigh / measure them, as unlike wearing a seatbelt or helmet, BMI cannot be determined at a glance. [And to preempt any comparison to drink-driving, people over the 0.05 limit are only a risk (a) while they are behind the wheel and (b) during…

      Read more
    25. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Christopher Seymour

      Ok I am concerned for you. I am concerned for one of my sons who walks rather than wear a helmet. Fine by me. He is clearly able to make a choice, not rational in my view but there you go.

      But the argument is that it costs us all if we had to pay for hospitalisation for head injuries, the incapacitation and the other social problems that wearing helmets could ameliorate.

      The same argument applies here, it is in everyone's best interest to prevent costly health problems rather than to fine obese people and/or to leave them in distress which would lead to a US type society.

      Unless for some ideological reason you think that we do make a better society when everyone is selfish and greedy?

      report
    26. R. Ambrose Raven

      none

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      Just as well you mentioned it, Julie.

      Just as Big Obesity is now an evil industry, so there are plenty of people - not only industry trolls - anxious to divert attention away from the promoters of unhealthy anmd addictive food to the consumers of it. By transferring the blame, they protect the evil-doer.

      Once it was smoking. It took fifty years to force Big Tobacco to own up to its evil and its lies. Even now, not one tobacco executive has ever been put on trial for manslaughter.

      report
  2. Talitha Barrett

    General Practitioner

    petrol stations are the same - remember when you used to go into a petrol station and there were a few lollies / chocolates if any now it is mass of junk food up the front in your face when you go in and in mega quantities - clearly a marketing strategy. high sugar/salt/fat food is habit forming without a doubt - as well as it normalising a poor diet/junk food -
    make no mistake this ' in your face and ubiquitous junk food is contributing significantly to obesity.
    May be there should be a junk food tax to pay for the obesity ill health.
    Mexico now has a sugary drink tax - one peso per litre.
    People might be able to make better choices if they weren't brainwashed via advertising to eat and drink this stuff.

    report
  3. Trevor Kerr

    ISTP

    For another (brilliant) angle on 'junk food', Alain de Botton's chapter "Biscuit Manufacture" in The Pleasures And Sorrows Of Work.

    report
  4. Andrew Winter

    -

    Seems like a tax on junk food would still give people the freedom to choose to kill themselves eating crap, but contribute towards their future government-funded health costs.

    report
  5. Rod Govers

    Retired IT administrator

    Re the pic at the top of the article: I don't think Lay's chips are sold in Australia. Lazy use of pic bureaux?

    report
    1. Cory Zanoni

      Community Manager at The Conversation

      In reply to Rod Govers

      Lay's were sold here until 2004. Then they were rebranded by Smiths.

      report
  6. James Jenkin

    EFL Teacher Trainer

    When the State steps in to influence our most mundane desisions - like what snacks to buy - it turns us into children.

    We're actively encouraged not to think about consequences, because the government has done that thinking for us.

    Which might be fine in the new junk-food-free supermarket, but when we're faced with new situations, we have no idea what to choose.

    I guess the solution could be not to stop at supermarkets, but instead to regulate every single situation where we might come across food.

    report
    1. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to James Jenkin

      So James where is the evidence that the "state steps in to influence our most mundane decisions about what snacks to buy?

      There is a lot of evidence to show that the multi-nationals who sell these nutritionally empty food that make such huge profits do 'step in to influence our most mundane decisions" and our really important decisions also. They use psychology research and all the information about how people are basically 'irrational' to persuade us to consume what makes them very wealthy and the gullible and trusting, very poor.

      Where does this idea that there is an evil state out there that wants to make us do things we shouldn't do? You have been manipulated to believe that 'the state' is the source of all that is bad with our society.

      Can we get over the old Communist idea of the state and reds under the beds? There is a whole range of things that states need to do for the community this century.

      report
  7. Jenna Cowie

    Dietitian

    Thanks for giving some attention to this. Thinking that the 'healthy lunchbox range' will do anything about national rates of chronic disease is akin to thinking that the McDonalds healthy choice menu was going to stop people eating burgers. It's marketing pure and simple. I believe all the items in the range are single serve which while convenient is supremely wasteful in terms of packaging and I suspect quite a high cost per serve, although I can't confirm this as we don't have it at our supermarket…

    Read more
    1. John Doyle

      architect

      In reply to Jenna Cowie

      I pretty much covered this in my piece above. Governments have vacated looking after our health, no doubt largely due to a "small government" mindset. Let the food and pharmaceutical industry look after our health. What seems to be a government body, like the Heart Institutes, are just quacks, promoting items that bring them revenues.
      Nobody is looking after our health. Everybody is interfering with our health however.

      report
  8. Ben Marshall
    Ben Marshall is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Writer

    All I can say is that since my wife and I went on a no-sugar, low-carb diet (for tedious medical reasons) about seven weeks ago (seven of the longest weeks of my life, btw), we've learned a number of things about our general health that we'll carry on with.

    One is how much sugar I ate, and how frequently, to get through my working day (eight to ten hours a day, seven days a week). Also that, after a week of hell, I can now achieve the same workload on healthy stuff without suffering.

    Another…

    Read more
  9. R. Ambrose Raven

    none

    FYI many lower-income households can’t afford to buy enough for a balanced diet! They buy cheap food because that is all they can afford! Possibly the brighter denialists will secretly recognise that that is why fast food outlets tend to be in poorer suburbs.

    Observe how carefully most contributors avoid acknowledging that Big Obesity and the supermarkets put enormous planning into careful psychological manipulation. They probably outdo Gosplan. Thus we demonstrate John Pilger’s "manufacturing…

    Read more
    1. Stephen Ralph

      carer at n/a

      In reply to R. Ambrose Raven

      The cost of food furphy comes up again and again.

      It costs more to buy junk and processed food than fruit and vegetables and low cost meat for protein,

      There are chain butchers (Mega Meats in Victoria) that sell meat at reasonable prices. Meat doesn't have to be eaten EVERY day, probably better to vary meat intake anyway.

      And if people are so concerned about cost, consumers in a street or group of streets could organise to buy in bulk. Might actually help people in a community to get to know one another.

      report
    2. John Doyle

      architect

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      I recently saw such a cost comparison [can't recall the source right now]. Fresh food did cost more than junk food, but it was only about a dollar a day.
      Not sure you are right about cheap meat. Grain finished meat is low on many nutritional components like omega 3 and high in omega 6 fats. Also since grain is an unnatural diet for cattle the animals are actually unwell at time of slaughter. Toxins in meat, metabolic endotoxinemia, is now thought to be the factor which has been behind heart problems unfairly associated with saturated fat.
      [Dr Michael Gregor uses this info to tout a plant based diet]
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bcdCPOXm8o

      So stick with 100% grass fed beef. It is dearer, but you just buy smaller portions, like <100 grams at a time and not every day. Etc.

      report
    3. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      " consumers in a street or group of streets could organise to buy in bulk. Might actually help people in a community to get to know one another."

      The hippies used to do these things back in the '60's and '70's but the subsequent rise of the neo-liberal ideology meant that groupishness was frowned upon by government and there is very little 'help' or guidance available for people wanting to do this sort of thing today.

      Out here in a little town where I live and in other small towns on the Darling…

      Read more
    4. Stephen Ralph

      carer at n/a

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      Hi Julie

      I hear what you say, but can I throw 2 maxims at you that are not meant to be facile >>>

      "necessity is the mother of invention"
      "when the going gets tough the tough get going".

      Through forums such as this there might be some help or advice to act as a catalyst. The proliferation of the internet means that there are many avenues to explore.

      At ground level there will never be too much support from government, at whatever level, Big business won't help either, so it's down to citizens to pool ideas and resources and make a difference to their lives.

      Why shop in better neighborhoods, make every neighborhood better.

      report
    5. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      We are in furious agreement Stephen!

      The problem is where has our toughness gone? Where has our resourcefulness gone?

      But I'm not going to give up on the business people in our area, or the farmers, although I am finding it more productive to talk to farmer's wives than the men. These people are part of the community and need to take some responsibility for the results of their actions on the rest of us.

      I think we can do this. :)

      report
    6. Stephen Ralph

      carer at n/a

      In reply to Julie Thomas

      Go get 'em.

      I think people are just so used to lying down and letting the "big" guys win every time.

      report
    7. Stephen Ralph

      carer at n/a

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      Also , my advice would be to start relatively small and get a few small gains rather than go in too big at the start.

      Give people the chance to see further gains can be made incrementally.

      Another maxim ......"the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step."

      report
    8. Julie Thomas

      craftworker

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      True, and being mostly self-funded early retirees, we do have that choice, to go at a slow pace and encourage and persuade people that this way can work, without creating any more ideological division.

      One example is the small craft shop that some of us think we are 'organising' with the idea that it could be 'self-organising' when everyone understands the benefits of being co-operative and working toward a group solution rather than being competitive and working for individual profit. For example…

      Read more
    9. R. Ambrose Raven

      none

      In reply to Stephen Ralph

      Denialists deny the cost of food as an issue, just as they deny climate change.

      Obviously you live in a city. Fresh fruit and vegetables are less available, more expensive and of poorer quality in rural and remote Australia. Distance means fresh fruit and vegetables spend much time in transit, with deterioration arising from both time and vinbration, yet obviously the buyers pay for all those costs.

      Despite Australia exporting three-fifths of production, "we” don't currently produce sufficient fruit and vegetables to allow all Australians a healthy diet.

      Neat throwaway line about how all these people who are supposedly too selfish and lazy to do anything for themselves should create an active group in which of necessity they'll all work together.

      report