‘I’m sorry that food costs money’
INSIDE THE IMAGINED THOUGHTS OF LOBLAW
Loblaw Companies Ltd. — the parent company of grocery retailers such as Loblaws, Superstore, Provigo and T&T — has long been a singular target for criticism by the federal NDP, whose leader Jagmeet Singh has often blamed the food giant for elevated rates of grocery inflation.
And this week, Loblaw’s various subsidiaries became the target of a co-ordinated online boycott, which prompted chairman Galen Weston to call their complaints “misguided.”
In Dear Diary, National Post satirically re-imagines a week in the life of a newsmaker. This week, Tristin Hopper takes a journey inside the thoughts of Loblaws.
MONDAY
Loblaw Companies Ltd. is proud to be Canada’s leading grocery supplier, and we understand that as the public face of retail food, it is natural that we should face occasional public ire when that food does not meet expectations. However, I feel it necessary to clear up two common myths.
Myth One: Loblaws makes the food. Contrary to popular opinion, a large, climate-controlled building filled with perishable items for sale is not a natural phenomenon. What you’re seeing is the end point of a rather large and complex system of food production and distribution, most of which is not owned or controlled by us. Take chicken, for example. This food is derived from an animal that is also called a chicken, and Loblaws plays no role in the process by which that animal becomes food. We merely obtain the animal in its food form and offer it for sale.
Myth Two: Loblaws gets the food for free. For someone who has ever plucked a ripe blackberry from a public park at zero cost, it can be difficult to grasp that this economic calculus actually applies to very few food items. We are not given the food by the government, and our suppliers — without exception — require monetary compensation.
TUESDAY
There is another important point I would like to emphasize to Canadians: You are not under any legal obligation to purchase the food at a Loblaw affiliate. There is no legislation or contract compelling a relationship between yourself and Loblaw Companies Ltd. We are a private organization that exists to offer products for sale on a voluntary basis: If you do not consent to any of the circumstances surrounding that exchange, you can refuse to participate.
However, a corollary to this is that the inverse is also true. Even though we offer many items that are highly desirable and even necessitous for life, that imparts no obligation upon us to ensure that the items are made available to Canadians under circumstances that we would not find fiscally sustainable. People need food — this is correct — but this fact unfortunately has limited bearing on our aforementioned obligation to compensate the suppliers of this food.
WEDNESDAY
When you enter a grocery store operated by a Loblaw affiliate (which, again, is voluntary) it is entirely your choice what items you choose to purchase (or not purchase). If the price of beef does not accord with your budget, we are proud to offer the option of not purchasing that beef.
It is true that we offer a number of items for sale that are expensive, some of which have become much more expensive in recent months. But I would note that we also have a wide selection of items whose prices have remained comparatively static, such as potatoes, bananas and flour. However, I must warn that many of these items will require rudimentary preparation before consumption. While a bag of flour has experienced a comparatively diminished rate of price inflation as compared to Doritos, the downside is that you will generally not be able to consume flour directly from the bag. At the very least, it must be mixed with water and exposed to heat, both of which may impose additional costs.
THURSDAY
If Loblaw Companies Ltd. was the sole provider of Canadian food, I can understand that this would reasonably open us up to a heightened level of responsibility as regards the population of Canadians. But we are happy to report that this is not the case. There exist literally thousands of stores, restaurants and other businesses offering food for sale. We have no control over these other entities, and they are free to operate under conditions that the consumer may find more attractive. And as we mentioned before, the consumer has no legal obligation to continue shopping at our stores; they can obtain their food from one of these other entities.
In fact, our control over food is so minimal that it is possible for Canadians to obtain nourishment without ever involving either us or one of the other entities I mentioned. Agriculture — the human cultivation of domesticated plants — can be performed at a scale small enough for an individual.
Canada is also home to many examples of large fauna that — with appropriate licensing — can be legally killed and consumed.
FRIDAY
Now, with all we’ve learned about the complex and exciting business of grocery retail, I would end by saying that if Canadians are unhappy with the way Loblaws is conducting itself, they are welcome to put the NDP in charge of Canadian food distribution.
While I would never claim any expertise in politics, I can say that the food business offers distinct differences from the business of running a federal political party.
For one, when a grocery store enters into contracts with other organizations, there are generally mutual and enforceable expectations upon both parties. What would not be advisable would be to enter into a contract in which we surrender large amounts of resources for no discernible gain, and then spend all our time publicly defaming the contracting party.
Second — and most importantly — to run a co-ordinated system of food distribution across five time zones, you actually need to do things and understand stuff. You can’t just yell and expect things to happen.