Marmite shortage: Why Brexit just got real for Britons

The grocery chain Tesco is at odds with Unilever over price hikes in consumer goods, leading Tesco to stop stocking some items. The drop in the pound means imported goods are nearly a fifth more expensive.

Alastair Grant/AP
Jars of savory spread Marmite, a brand owned by Unilever, on sale in a branch of Tesco in central London. Britain's biggest supermarket chain, Tesco, has pulled favorite products from its website amid a dispute with consumer goods giant Unilever.

Britons’ love of Marmite is legendary. But Brexit means their access to the thick concentrated yeast extract spread just became uncertain.

The grocery chain Tesco is no longer stocking Unilever products – including everything from Ben and Jerry’s ice cream and Hellmann’s mayonnaise to Persil washing powder and Dove shampoo. The move, which has seen the goods removed from Tesco’s online site and supplies dwindling in-store, is part of a standoff between the grocery chain and its biggest supplier. Unilever proposed price raises averaging 10 percent across their product range.

For Unilever, the decision to raise prices was driven by falling profit margins. The pound has dropped by almost a fifth against the dollar and the euro since the Brexit vote in June, meaning that products imported from elsewhere now cost more. But Tesco, which is engaged in an ongoing price war in the intensely competitive British grocery market, would prefer not to raise prices on its shoppers.

It’s a debate that affects all British retailers and suppliers, according to Bernstein analyst Bruno Monteyne. “While politicians can deny reality, a shampoo produced on the continent is now 17 percent more expensive,” he said to The Wall Street Journal.

Are there alternatives to the price hike? Over the past two years, food prices in Britain have dropped steadily, as the four main grocery chains compete for customers in a landscape that also includes popular discount supermarkets like Aldi and an emerging online grocery market. As a result, retailers’ profit margins are already thin, making it hard for them to protect consumers against price hikes.

With that in mind, the price rises Unilever has instituted “are substantially less than we would need to cover the impact on our own profitability,” Graeme Pitkethly, Unilever chief financial officer, told The Wall Street Journal. He explained that the company aims to balance profit with affordability for customers. Keeping goods affordable makes it less likely that customers will trade down to cheaper brands, he said.

Unilever has said it expects the disagreement to be resolved soon, a position supported by analysts. But it may be a taste of what is to come. The British Retail Consortium (BRC), a trade association for British retailers, emphasized Monday that any potential Brexit deal must focus on getting a good deal for consumers.

If Britain fails to strike a deal with the European Union and reverts to WTO trading rules instead, prices would increase across the board, the BRC told Trade Secretary Liam Fox in a letter. Meat tariffs could be as high as 27 percent, and tariffs on clothes 16 percent. Retailers cannot absorb the price increases, the retail governing body warned. That means any additional costs would have to be passed on to consumers.

Since the Brexit vote, ingredient prices have increased for three-quarters of British food and drink manufacturers, according to a Food and Drink Federation poll, which will likely be seen in higher consumer prices next year.

Chris Haskins, former chair of consumer goods firm Northern Foods, implied that the disagreement over consumer goods could affect government actions going forward.

“The moment the [British] public realizes that there’s a real cost to pay for Brexit, then the government will have to take account of that,” he told the BBC.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.