Navigating The Inflationary Tide: How Connecticut Food Retailers Adapt in Political Headwinds

Amid an unrivaled inflationary environment that has sparked debate at both federal and state levels, Connecticut grocers have come under unwarranted scrutiny from the state’s Senate Democratic leadership and attorney general following a relatively uneventful 2024 legislative session. With pressure mounting from national polls, some elected officials are scrambling to address the root causes of inflation, aiming to alleviate consumer angst over higher food costs attributed to government policies. However, their investigation is focused solely on the state’s food retailers and has warranted industry indignation regarding the broader context of inflation and the efficacy of government intervention to mitigate rising food prices.

During the pandemic, surge buying, labor shortages, production facility closures, and supply chain disruptions collectively contributed to increased costs across multiple economic sectors. In response, the federal government implemented substantial stimulus measures aimed at bolstering the economy by injecting almost six trillion dollars into the U.S. market. From my perspective, although not that of an economist, paying people to stay home and artificially inflating incomes invariably leads to inflation. Despite these factors, some political leaders seem inclined to scapegoat food retailers rather than address the underlying causes of runaway inflation.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong’s current investigation into “potential” grocery store price gouging exemplifies this misguided government focus. Following an April Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report that found grocery store prices remained elevated even as the pandemic ended and inflation cooled, Tong announced his office would investigate whether grocery stores in Connecticut have been engaging in price gouging. The FTC’s report examined national grocery chains like Walmart, Kroger, and Amazon and found that revenues and profits continued to rise after the pandemic disruptions, casting doubt on assertions that rising grocery store prices merely reflect retailers’ rising costs.

Seizing on the FTC report and White House talking points, Senate Majority Leaders Martin Looney and Bob Duff, along with several Senate Democrats, supported the Connecticut AG’s inquiry, citing the FTC’s findings that grocery prices “might be” artificially high due to corporate opportunism. Many local observers quickly pointed out that this approach is fundamentally flawed in its belief that food prices begin and end at the checkout register. The Connecticut Food Association along with multiple news editorials around the state pushed back, emphasizing that inflation is a multifaceted problem influenced by global supply chains, energy costs, and international economic policies and that the rise in food prices is no higher than increases in the restaurant, entertainment, healthcare, automotive, home improvement, insurance, and banking sectors. Bottom line: inflation has affected the cost of everything consumers purchase.

Elected officials are ignoring broader economic factors by focusing narrowly on local retailers while unfairly blaming local and regional businesses. This not only fails to address the root causes of inflation but also risks damaging the reputation of food retailers who are themselves struggling with increased costs. Yet some political leaders in D.C. and Connecticut are fixated on grocery stores, using them as convenient targets for political gain rather than addressing the macroeconomic issues that drive food prices. Ultimately, the current scrutiny of Connecticut’s grocers appears to be more of a political maneuver than a genuine effort to tackle inflation. I’m curious to see how interested these same political opportunists are after state and national elections in November.

Original article found at Food Trade News.

Study: If You Let People Buy Beer at Grocery Stores, the Liquor Stores Still Survive

Repealing “blue laws” and allowing Sunday alcohol sales has much less of a negative effect than doomsayers predicted.

That’s according to a new research paper by Cristina Connolly and Alyssa McDonnell of the University of Connecticut, Marcello Graziano of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and Sandro Steinbach of North Dakota State University. The study, published in the Journal of Wine Economics by Cambridge University Press, “examine[d] the impact of repealing Sunday blue laws on alcohol sales and retail competition, focusing on Connecticut’s 2012 policy change allowing Sunday beer sales in grocery stores.”

Connecticut repealed its long-standing prohibition on Sunday alcohol sales in 2012—more than a century after the law was introduced and three decades after the Connecticut Supreme Court deemed most of the state’s other Sunday sales prohibitions unconstitutional. Liquor stores would also be allowed to open on Sundays, in addition to letting grocery stores sell beer on that day.

The repeal of blue laws is not without its critics. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s MIT Tech Talk newspaper, a 2008 study found that “repealing America’s blue laws not only decreased church attendance, donations and spending, but it also led to a rise in alcohol and drug use among people who had been religious.”

Connecticut’s repeal was opposed at the time by liquor store owners themselves, who expressed concern about everything from the “social costs” of more alcohol sales to the extra expense incurred from being open an extra day.

“Proprietors of liquor stores in Connecticut and store association lobbyists claimed that allowing Sunday sales would negatively impact their livelihoods,” write the authors of the new study. “Not only would they need to pay operating costs for an extra day of the week, but there was also a concern that consumers would shift to purchasing beer at grocery stores as Sunday is one of the most popular grocery shopping days. Specifically, Connecticut’s liquor store association claimed that, as a direct result of this policy, liquor stores would lose sales and reduce employment, or close.”

The authors examined Connecticut’s sales figures for grocery and liquor stores both before and after the repeal, using other states without Sunday alcohol laws as a control group. They found “no evidence of negative impacts on beer sales in liquor stores.”

“Despite repeated claims by liquor store associations,” the report concludes, “repealing these laws did not harm liquor stores, suggesting that it is possible to repeal Sunday blue laws without negatively impacting smaller businesses.” Incidentally, the study also contradicted claims by grocery store lobbyists, who said Sunday alcohol sales would “have large, positive economic impacts.”

The same data also provides comfort for those who worry that being able to buy alcohol one additional day per week would lead to an explosion in alcoholism and addiction. “Our estimates indicate that repealing these laws significantly increased beer sales at grocery and liquor stores directly after the policy shift, but these effects disappeared afterward.”

“There is an initial bump in sales, possibly due to the novelty of the policy,” they found. “This impact levels off after the initial month, with no discernible effect on sales after the seventh week.”

As it turns out, the repeal benefited both consumers and vendors while proving the doomsayers wrong. But it was also a net positive for economic liberty as another piece of Prohibition falls by the wayside.

Original article found at Reason.

Food Inflation Finally Easing

That said, the CPI for other food products remained elevated. Cereals and bakery rose 0.6% in the same time frame, while the nonalcoholic beverage category ticked up 0.2%. The index for the “other food at home” category edged 0.4% higher.

(more…)