on 18-02-2015 01:36 PM
We have already been told many times over the years that for example coles and woollies do carry out tests
I think that has failed us
The current problem with the berries is known to have been a problem around the world for a few years yet it is still happening?
on 19-02-2015 11:56 PM
on 20-02-2015 12:17 AM
Point is, Australian food exports are subject to intense hygiene during processing scrutiny, for export.
Food imports on the other hand are barely inspected, and even then not inspected for bacteria but for lead and cadmium content.
So we're in a ludicrous situation where Aus food exporters are subject to 100% inspection while imported food are subject to about 1% of food inspection/regulation?
No wonder the Aus producer can't compete with world markets
on 20-02-2015 12:19 AM
A bit of background info about the Tesco factor.
The story of Coles as a rundown chain that once lagged behind Woolworths is now part of the Wesfarmers narrative. But Durkan’s next words were more telling:
We also needed to get back to being customer facing; the company had drifted away from the core retailing principle of making sure the items customers wanted were there for them to buy, rather than just offering them what suppliers had available. In the first few weeks we held hundreds of meetings with suppliers to get feedback, and whilst they clearly wanted a resurgent, successful Coles, they had to also accept that they would have to supply what the customers wanted rather than what suited them to supply.
This was a turning point in Australian retail history. What is known as the “Tesco playbook” (it might as aptly be called the Asda playbook) had arrived. McLeod and his team had a genius for increasing sales and profitability at a time prices were falling – “Down, Down”. In 2011, they lowered prices by an average of 10%, and Coles’s sales took off.
If global food price deflation was good luck, the strategy was calculated, if not entirely new. Back in 1999, a House of Representatives inquiry into the retail trading sector, chaired by the Liberal MP Bruce Baird, described the market as “heavily concentrated and oligopolistic in nature” and expressed concern about predatory pricing and unconscionable market conduct. Of the 332 submissions to that inquiry, 285 were opposed to the increasing power of the two supermarkets. One area of creeping concern was supplier rebates, where the chains would charge their suppliers for shelf space and other advantages.
Rebates had been pioneered in the US, refined in the UK and imported into Australia. David Jones and Myer had been criticised for sending suppliers to the wall by ramping up rebates in the 1990s. Coles and Woolworths were to take the practice, as ever, to an industrial scale.
Consumer psychologists had found that most shoppers circled supermarkets, ducking into aisles while passing by. Therefore, the ends of aisles were a prized position. Likewise, shoppers had been found to spend more time looking at items on certain shelves. Retailers would then charge suppliers extra for these spaces, or make them bid against one another for shelf real estate; the loser was pushed out, or over the “cliff”, in a practice known as “cliffing”.
Suppliers were also asked to pay “voluntary” marketing kick-ins. If they did not comply, they were faced with periodic “range reviews” in which the retailers would establish if suppliers met “hurdle rates” of sales. If they didn’t, they were often displaced by the supermarkets’ private labels (also known as “home brands” or “own brands”), of which McLeod was a champion. In his time, private-label sales grew rapidly. Coles vertically integrated retail with production, and the packaging of private-label goods increasingly resembled that of independent brands.
Woolworths was on the same trail with its “Woolworths Select” brands. In 2011, its board appointed a new CEO, Grant O’Brien, with a specific brief to counter Coles’s revival. To carve out customer loyalty and defeat the “Colesworths” impression – a weakness of the copycat history was that 84% of customers weren’t exclusively loyal to either Coles or Woolies – O’Brien directed a strategy to mine customer data and strengthen a loyalty program with Qantas. It was touted as a rare breakaway from Coles, even if it too was following what Tesco had done in the UK.
on 20-02-2015 12:33 AM
Good story. C & P'd from somewhere without the credit though.
End stock specials have been around WAY before 1999. So has the knowledge that it's the outer of the store that has the "need" foods, the aisles (inner) are the wants.
Still not sure why TESCO is relevant in an Australian supermarket thread.
on 20-02-2015 12:40 AM
@icyfroth wrote:Point is, Australian food exports are subject to intense hygiene during processing scrutiny, for export.
Food imports on the other hand are barely inspected, and even then not inspected for bacteria but for lead and cadmium content.
So we're in a ludicrous situation where Aus food exporters are subject to 100% inspection while imported food are subject to about 1% of food inspection/regulation?
No wonder the Aus producer can't compete with world markets
That's the travesty. For the global export market our producers mostly have to meet the AIB (american) standard as do most other export countries. It just seems that Australia doesn't have adequate laws to ensure that imported product meets either the Aus/NZ standard or the AIB standard.
It's not exactly 100% of product that's tested but every single crop before processing is, samples are tested from every bulk lot or processed food and samples are taken multiple times a day of every product during the packaging stage. No testing regime is infallible but the most common microbials. metals, and temperature control are heavily monitored.
Food that is imported in bulk and packed here goes through the same protocols while it's packed here so contaminants should get picked up before it's sold.
The problem arises with imported packed foods that are not subject to the same screening. Only the first couple of packs are tested, which, imo, is not good enough.
on 20-02-2015 12:45 AM
@gleee58 wrote:
@icyfroth wrote:Point is, Australian food exports are subject to intense hygiene during processing scrutiny, for export.
Food imports on the other hand are barely inspected, and even then not inspected for bacteria but for lead and cadmium content.
So we're in a ludicrous situation where Aus food exporters are subject to 100% inspection while imported food are subject to about 1% of food inspection/regulation?
No wonder the Aus producer can't compete with world markets
That's the travesty. For the global export market our producers mostly have to meet the AIB (american) standard as do most other export countries. It just seems that Australia doesn't have adequate laws to ensure that imported product meets either the Aus/NZ standard or the AIB standard.
It's not exactly 100% of product that's tested but every single crop before processing is, samples are tested from every bulk lot or processed food and samples are taken multiple times a day of every product during the packaging stage. No testing regime is infallible but the most common microbials. metals, and temperature control are heavily monitored.
Food that is imported in bulk and packed here goes through the same protocols while it's packed here so contaminants should get picked up before it's sold.
The problem arises with imported packed foods that are not subject to the same screening. Only the first couple of packs are tested, which, imo, is not good enough.
Which brings us back to NOT being the problem of the supermarkets, but the the companies who "manufacture" the products they then sell to the supermarkets.
on 20-02-2015 12:45 AM
@nevynreally wrote:Good story. C & P'd from somewhere without the credit though.
End stock specials have been around WAY before 1999. So has the knowledge that it's the outer of the store that has the "need" foods, the aisles (inner) are the wants.
Still not sure why TESCO is relevant in an Australian supermarket thread.
Sorry, I forgot the link.
http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/august/1406815200/malcolm-knox/supermarket-monsters
He wasn't making the point about the placement but the charges to the producers for the placements. If you can't work out the relevence why continue arguing about it?
on 20-02-2015 12:52 AM
@nevynreally wrote:
@gleee58 wrote:
@icyfroth wrote:Point is, Australian food exports are subject to intense hygiene during processing scrutiny, for export.
Food imports on the other hand are barely inspected, and even then not inspected for bacteria but for lead and cadmium content.
So we're in a ludicrous situation where Aus food exporters are subject to 100% inspection while imported food are subject to about 1% of food inspection/regulation?
No wonder the Aus producer can't compete with world markets
That's the travesty. For the global export market our producers mostly have to meet the AIB (american) standard as do most other export countries. It just seems that Australia doesn't have adequate laws to ensure that imported product meets either the Aus/NZ standard or the AIB standard.
It's not exactly 100% of product that's tested but every single crop before processing is, samples are tested from every bulk lot or processed food and samples are taken multiple times a day of every product during the packaging stage. No testing regime is infallible but the most common microbials. metals, and temperature control are heavily monitored.
Food that is imported in bulk and packed here goes through the same protocols while it's packed here so contaminants should get picked up before it's sold.
The problem arises with imported packed foods that are not subject to the same screening. Only the first couple of packs are tested, which, imo, is not good enough.
Which brings us back to NOT being the problem of the supermarkets, but the the companies who "manufacture" the products they then sell to the supermarkets.
When the product wears the supermarket name and not the name of the producer it is the supermarket's responsibility.
They set the specs, they set the quality control protocols, they control the packaging, down to the quanities in cartons and the way they fit the pallets. They visit and audit the producers premises as they see fit. They change the specs as they see fit and they change the packaging as they see fit.
on 20-02-2015 12:54 AM
@gleee58 wrote:
@nevynreally wrote:Good story. C & P'd from somewhere without the credit though.
End stock specials have been around WAY before 1999. So has the knowledge that it's the outer of the store that has the "need" foods, the aisles (inner) are the wants.
Still not sure why TESCO is relevant in an Australian supermarket thread.
Sorry, I forgot the link.
http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/august/1406815200/malcolm-knox/supermarket-monsters
He wasn't making the point about the placement but the charges to the producers for the placements. If you can't work out the relevence why continue arguing about it?
Really not getting it. Placement has been going on for years. Never heard of Tesco before, never been to England though. Both supermarkets own brands are seconds, the lower maybe thirds now. What are you not getting? None of this is new. None of this should be surprising to consumers, so what's your point? They don't dictate where the product comes from, the producers do.
on 20-02-2015 12:59 AM
I think I should decide the guidelines on Food Labels. 🙂