FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

In article >,
(Alex Rast) wrote:

> Interestingly, as a whole, given that the U.S. population is near 0%
> population growth, and it can be assumed that the amount of food required
> by the average person similarly stays static over time, this implies that
> the food business as a whole should approach zero growth in the long run.
> Otherwise it indicates that people are eating more, indeed, at some point
> it becomes to excess, or that food is going to waste. Neither is an
> efficient use of resources. In fact, I'd argue that much of this is going
> on right now, hence the U.S. obesity problem. If the economic system such
> as it prevails in this country requires growth every year, then the food
> industry would at some point have to find ways of getting consumers to
> consume (eat, in other words) more than they need, and beyond that, more
> than they would want. The nationwide problem with obesity could in the
> largest sense be the result of that - if people must be forced or enticed
> or misled into eating more year after year, then at some point they're
> going to start gaining weight. If this is the case, then the current
> economic model in the food industry has outlived its useful lifespan and
> must be replaced with a new model that is efficient in a zero-growth state.

One possibility you don't mention is new markets. U.S. population
growth may be at or approaching zero, but that is not true for the
rest of the world. American supermarkets are expanding abroad, either
with their own stores or by purchasing chains based outside the U.S.
They're prime customers for American producers. And there certainly
are enough producers (Nestle, Cargill, Unilever) who already have
extensive non-U.S. operations who make natural suppliers to grocers
outside the U.S. Many of these companies also are diversifying into
non-food products -- another way of increasing sales.

sd