Instead, the largest of corporations have the power to dictate what goes on the shelves at a store as well as what is going to be best for their company, and not necessarily for the consumer or even those who are actually producing their product (and by that I mean the employees of a corporation in production as well as selling). Corporations decide what is in demand because of the supply that they decide they will have.
For example when it comes to food production, corn is being farmed more than ever because it's a cheap commodity and modified to fit the product they would like to sell. In this way, the contemporary industrial food economy is keynesian. Certain demands are high because the corporations have manipulated it to be the demand. There is never a reason for high fructose corn syrup to be used in real food (which excludes chips, ice cream, soda, crackers, candy, chocolate, other junk food) but it is in order for products to be made cheaply and sold 'cheaply' with a large profit in the end. Therefore the demand for food with HFCS has been created for the sake of the corporation, individuals have not created this demand. There is also no way for a small business to ever be able to compete with a corporation unless their products are similar, and that is if they can make it to the point of competition without being bought out first.
There is a reason why grocery stores like Cub, Rainbow and Target sell mostly food that is produced by major corporations and a very small quantity of smaller and perhaps organic brands. Affordability for the customer perhaps, but more so, like I said before, the corporations have the power to put as much of their product on the shelf and the area of the shelf that it's on (top, middle/eye level, or bottom). As far as supply goes, plenty of smaller natural/co-op grocery stores are able to supply their customers with other products that are not filled with artificial sweetners and chemicals, but the demand that Cub or Target has is not there because the other corporations have already made it impossible for more small farms to develop in order to make a larger supply and to be as affordable.
>"It would be nice to think that one, as an individual, always decides what one consumes from a certain company."
ReplyDeleteWhile 'in reality' (i.e. in terms of quantifiable measures and figures) this may be true, I think it's a poisonous attitude for consumers, and people in general, to adopt. Not because it isn't true in isolation—it most certainly is—but because an idea like that expressed as a collective becomes false. Does a single bacterium of E. coli 0157:H7 pose a threat to the human body? No. How about a million of ‘em? Answer me with your head hanging out of that toilet bowl.
…It’s not that I’m saying one person single-handedly can change the world (or, even more daunting, the course of an economic system), but I do think we should keep in mind that even the world’s largest corporations are made of people.
Jacob, I do not follow your thought here. Would you be able to expand?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAmy, I really enjoyed reading your blog post, I believe Jacob is saying that although it is not one person who is deciding what one consumes the corporation as a whole is made up of many people who are in fact as scary as it is, doing the deciding. One person cannot do this "harm" using Jacobs example a single bacterium of E. Coli to the body cannot do much harm on its own however, put a million of them together and you have something completely different (a corporation) Correct me if I am wrong!
ReplyDelete