From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Possible Advertisement[edit]

I removed a link to Easyfoodstore, since this appears to provide nothing but publicity for a new venture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Notification obligation for near-expired foodstuffs[edit]

In 2015 in Belgium, the minister for poverty reduction Liesbeth Homans proposed a notification obligation for near-expired foodstuffs for supermarkets. 2 supermarkets (Carrefour and Delhaize) have welcomed the minister's appeal to redistribute near-expired foods to the poor, and proposed to then also integrate a digital register/inventory to further increase efficiency, and the use of cool trucks to transport the near-expired foods from the supermarkets to other distribution centers (of for example volunteer organisations). [1][2]The minister was enthusiastic about this, and mentioned that 1 cool truck per region could be sponsored/payed for by the state.

The minister also proposed to offer 1-euro meals in all Flemish cities.[3]

KVDP (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Het Nieuwsblad, 9 may 2015; Warenhuizen melden hun voedseloverschot
  2. ^ Roel Dekelver of Delhaize and Baptiste van Outryve of Carrefour welcoming proposal by Liesbeth Homans
  3. ^ Het Nieuwsblad, 9 may 2015; CD&V verwacht méér Homans
As this appears to be just a proposal rather than an implemented policy, it would fit better on the Liesbeth Homans article than here. Even if it became a national obligation, I wonder if the Food bank article might be a better place for a mention of it.Dialectric (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

removing Gastronomy related article from this article[edit]


Poll: Can we include this navbox in the article (KEEP/REMOVE)?

KEEP There are no other specific NAVBOXES covering Supermarket and Singapore better. So a valuable information for a person who wants to see details about

Supermarket's in Singapore. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

REMOVE -> Not in an overview article. - Takeaway (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
REMOVE; Too specific for such a general article (imagine if it were cluttered with a template for every region of the world intersected with every food-related topic). --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


Someone that has a basic understand of economics and how the world works needs to edit or remove this section. Selling products at lower prices means consumers have to spend less to get the same or more, and also may spend their resources on alternative desires. Smaller is not inherently better, and certainly not when it involves beggaring consumers. Note the cited study dates from 1967, which is not entirely optimal here. Slotting fees are not inherently "reflected in the cost in the cost of the products offered, at least not negatively. If slotting did not increase the volume of products sold, it would not occur, as such this gives the manufacturer greater ability to lower per-unit costs, and pass the savings onto the consumer, thereby increasing market share, and profits. "Squeezing prices" is portrayed negatively. These are weasel words, appealing to emotion, not reason. "Squeezing prices," to the layman, sounds bad. But more efficient modes of production, increased productivity, create wealth. One who opposes "squeezing prices," despite their intentions, are supporting waste, and giving privileges to a minority while hurting a majority, the latter who have much less incentive to oppose rent-seeking than the rent-seekers. Forcing small shops out of business, see above. Favouring imports over British goods is utterly value-neutral in and of itself. Division of labour is widely understood; if not, read Adam Smith, because the relations and nature between domestic and international production was known before 1776. Mark-ups, unless due to a government-granted monopoly, are irrelevant in and of themselves. A mark-up may or may not include the costs of production and acquisition, payroll, fixed overhead, or a "small" or "large" profit. If economic profit can exist (and it always does, perfect competition can't exist), then any mark-up that creates a return on investment greater than other opportunities will signal to investors that they too should fund the construction and operation of a supermarket. This, of course, is competition. And competition, of course, lowers prices. If one wishes to allow for competition, the closest approximation to a condition allowing for the full operation for the Coase Theorem must be created, which means regulations, tax policy, etc. must be repealed, reformed to eliminate or minimize market distortions, etc. Arbitrarily capping a mark-up will only cause existing supermarkets to stagnate, as more appealing investment opportunities will be readily available, and will also tend to prevent new market entrants from coming into being, and therefore tend to increase prices to consumers. Capping mark-ups will only create artificial monopolies and by doing so extract monopoly rents from consumers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I trimmed back the section, keeping the useful references but deleting the unencyclopedic anecdotes. Hope this helps. —Patrug (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)