Traditional, modern or mixed? Perspectives on social, economic, and health impacts of evolving food retail in Thailand

Abstract

Transnational food retailers expanded to middle-income countries over recent decades responding to supply (liberalized foreign investment) and demand (rising incomes, urbanization, female workforce participation, and time poverty). Control in new markets diffuses along three axes: socio-economic (rich to poor), geographic (urban to rural), and product category (processed foods to fresh foods). We used a mixed method approach to study the progression of modern retail in Thailand on these three axes and consumer preferences for food retailing. In Thailand modern retail controls half the food sales but traditional fresh markets remain important. Quantitative questionnaires administered to members of a large national cohort study revealed around half of respondents were primarily traditional shoppers and half either utilized modern and traditional formats equally or primarily shopped at supermarkets. Fresh foods were mainly purchased at traditional retail formats and dry packaged foods at supermarkets. Qualitative interviews found price and quality of produce and availability of culturally important products to be significant reasons for continued support of fresh markets. Our results show socio-economic and geographic diffusion is already advanced with most respondents having access to and utilizing modern retail. Control of the fresh food sector by transnationals faces barriers in Thailand and may remain elusive. The short to mid-term outcome may be a bifurcated food system with modern and traditional retail each retaining market share, but fresh markets longer term survival may require government assistance as supermarkets become more established. Fresh markets supply affordable, healthy foods, and livelihoods for poorer Thais and are repositories of Thai food culture and social networks. If they survive they will confer cultural, social, economic, and health benefits.

Revisiting the ‘Urban Bias’ and its Relationship to Food Security

“…However, the end result could well prove Lipton correct: without greater government attention to rural development as central to national development, the food and nutrition security prospects for poor rural and urban Thais alike look elusive. In Thailand, as elsewhere (Mei and Shao, 2011), the emphasis on cheap food appears not to be the answer to sustainable national development, given that it is both a recipe for rural producer poverty and for diet-related diseases with the cheapest food generally being processed food made available by modern retailers, including supermarkets (Banwell et al, 2013;Kelly et al, 2015). It is the supermarkets and hypermarkets that so appeal to a Thai urban middle-class notion of modernity (Isaacs, 2009).…”

Developing Local Sustainable Seafood Markets: A Thai Example

“…This is in contrast to aquaculture sustainability, which has been in place for export markets since 2000 (Vandergeest 2007). Within the Thai context, this shift in focus toward sustainability is captured in part by a “quality turn,” whereby domestic consumer interest in health and safety of food is growing (Srithamma, Vithayarungruangsri, and Posayanonda 2005; Sangkumchaliang and Huang 2012b; Kelly et al 2015). The interest tends to be embedded in practices of quality assurance, traceability, geographic origin, sustainable agro‐ecological practices, and direct marketing schemes (Ponte 2016).…”

Health of People, Places and Planet. Reflections based on Tony McMichael’s four decades of contribution to epidemiological understanding

“…Too often, the public health literature in recent decades has been biased towards social causal factors Friel, 2006, McMichael et al, 2015). Even more deficient, however, is the failure of academics and politicians (though not the military) to sufficiently consider the interaction of social with physical (including environmental) determinants, such as has very plausibly contributed to the current Syrian conflict (Kelly et al, 2015). This leads to oversimplification and to inadequate remedies.…”

“…However, the end result could well prove Lipton correct: without greater government attention to rural development as central to national development, the food and nutrition security prospects for poor rural and urban Thais alike look elusive. In Thailand, as elsewhere (Mei and Shao, 2011), the emphasis on cheap food appears not to be the answer to sustainable national development, given that it is both a recipe for rural producer poverty and for diet-related diseases with the cheapest food generally being processed food made available by modern retailers, including supermarkets (Banwell et al, 2013;Kelly et al, 2015). It is the supermarkets and hypermarkets that so appeal to a Thai urban middle-class notion of modernity (Isaacs, 2009).…”