Skip to main content

The monster and the chicken

UK TV's most unlikely hero, the shambling Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall has just televised his head-to-head with retail monster Tesco (for US readers, roughly our equivalent of WAL*MART, though it's Tesco's rival ASDA that actually belongs to the big W). (See Channel 4 website.)

Last year Mr F-W made an impressive series of programmes that persuaded quite a few people to move from buying 'standard' (i.e. lowest welfare legally possible) chickens to those with improved living conditions. Since then, some UK supermarkets have ousted standard chickens entirely from their shelves, or at least have the aim of moving to a minimum standard of 'Freedom Food' chickens, which are still indoor reared, but have much better living conditions.

However, Tesco, Britain's largest, most powerful and most aggressive supermarket, has refused to countenance moving away from standard chickens. In the show, F-W goes up against the might of Tesco by trying to raise the issue of chicken welfare at their AGM. Despite some dirty tricks from Tesco (suddenly slapping a £86,000 bill on him for postage), he gets his motion on the agenda. It fails - but he gets around 20% support, unusual for corporate investors on an issue like this.

What's Tesco's response? An appalling interview where they claim high standards of welfare and squarely put the blame on... the customer. Yes, it seems Tesco only sells these poor creatures because customers demand cheap meat. These are weasel words. Of course customers want cheap food. Ideally they would like it if Tesco gave all their food away free. But are Tesco rushing to give everything away because their customers would like it? Erm, no.

The conditions in which these chickens are raised is entirely down to Tesco, NOT the customer. If Tesco decided tomorrow to move to a minimum standard of Freedom Food, many of their customers would cheer. And so big is Tesco's buying power that they could probably do so with only a small increase on the price of a chicken.

The fact is, Tesco has got used to using chicken as a loss leader to compete with other supermarkets. This has nothing to do with customer demand, and everything to do with Tesco's power games.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope