I am familiar with the concept of food deserts but I do not recall reading anything about their emergence over time. Could they be the result of not enforcing existing federal regulations regarding suppliers?

Food deserts are not an inevitable consequence of poverty or low population density, and they didn’t materialize around the country for no reason. Something happened. That something was a specific federal policy change in the 1980s. It was supposed to reward the biggest retail chains for their efficiency. Instead, it devastated poor and rural communities by pushing out grocery stores and inflating the cost of food. Food deserts will not go away until that mistake is reversed…

Congress responded in 1936 by passing the Robinson-Patman Act. The law essentially bans price discrimination, making it illegal for suppliers to offer preferential deals and for retailers to demand them. It does, however, allow businesses to pass along legitimate savings. If it truly costs less to sell a product by the truckload rather than by the case, for example, then suppliers can adjust their prices accordingly—just so long as every retailer who buys by the truckload gets the same discount…

Then it was abandoned. In the 1980s, convinced that tough antitrust enforcement was holding back American business, the Reagan administration set about dismantling it. The Robinson-Patman Act remained on the books, but the new regime saw it as an economically illiterate handout to inefficient small businesses. And so the government simply stopped enforcing it.

That move tipped the retail market in favor of the largest chains, who could once again wield their leverage over suppliers, just as A&P had done in the 1930s. Walmart was the first to fully grasp the implications of the new legal terrain. It soon became notorious for aggressively strong-arming suppliers, a strategy that fueled its rapid expansion. By 2001, it had become the nation’s largest grocery retailer. Kroger, Safeway, and other supermarket chains followed suit. They began with a program of “self-consolidation”—centralizing their purchasing, which had previously been handled by regional divisions, to fully exploit their power as major national buyers. Then, in the 1990s, they embarked on a merger spree. In just two years, Safeway acquired Vons and Dominick’s, while Fred Meyer absorbed Ralphs, Smith’s, and Quality Food Centers, before being swallowed by Kroger. The suspension of the Robinson-Patman Act had created an imperative to scale up.

In this explanation, Walmart came to be such a big player in groceries because their size meant they could get better prices from suppliers. Smaller grocery stores could not keep up. The big chains set up locations in certain places offered lower prices.

If the Act was enforced again, would grocery stores quickly emerge in food deserts and other areas? Would consumers get more options soon or would it take some time to rebalance the grocery landscape? How would the big players – Walmart, Albertsons, Safeway, etc. – adjust? Would food options change in wealthier communities as well?

The article also cites a statistic that suggests independent stores had prices only 1% higher in 1965. Would that be a big enough difference in groceries today for shoppers to stay with places that offer low prices all the time (particularly considering recent concerns about inflation in food prices)?