"micky" wrote in message

OT

Trying to confirm my recollection, that it used to be
that one could get any cut of beef he wanted at the
supermarket meat department.

Now it seems that some cuts are available some weeks, and
others not. Some are only sold for a few days a month.
But whatever day it is, not all are for sale, like they
used to be.

Is that correct?

Pretty much.

Used to be that butchers got whole sides of beef and cut them. Now they get
"cryopaks" - large packages of various cuts - which they then slice up and
package (crummy side down). That's a big advantage to them because they can
buy just what is locally popular and avoid the necessity of selling the
rest.

In reality, supermarkets no longer have butchers. A while back I was in a
Publix market (Florida) looking at the meat selection. It was sparse and
poor. I was particularly interested in flat bone sirloin and asked the meat
guy if he could cut one for me. He said they no longer got bone-in meat and
if they did there was no one who would know how to cut it.

Along the same vein, how long has it been since you saw a USDA grade stamp
on a piece of beef? Sure, they *say* it is US Choice but is it? And did
you know that there are different levels of Choice (in all grades, not just
Choice)? There is choice, choice+ and choice-; gee, I wonder which the
markets are selling as "choice"? smirk.

Even the quality within a grade is different. I have no idea whether regs
have changed but I am dead certain that today's "choice" is very different -
for the worse - from the choice of years ago.

The same goes for pork. Hogs are slaughtered very young now because
agribusiness determined that was the most profitable way. Good for them,
bad for us because the animals don't have time to develop some fat and the
fat - especially with pork - is where the taste is. Our Xmas ham had
virtually zero fat and a rind that was as thin as the skin on my arm; it was
edible but was a far cry from the wonderful hams of my youth.

Of course, the producers say the reduced fat is in response to consumer
demand. Strange, I don't recall the anti-fat riots; perhaps I was living
abroad then.

Chicken? Forget it, The normal chickens available at supermarkets aren't
even close in taste to what a chicken should be. They are even the wrong
color. And you used to be able to go to a market and get broilers, fryers,
roasters, even stewing chickens. Capons too (fresh, not frozen).

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On 01/28/2014 08:39 AM, dadiOH wrote:
"X
The same goes for pork. Hogs are slaughtered very young now because
agribusiness determined that was the most profitable way. Good for them,
bad for us because the animals don't have time to develop some fat and the
fat - especially with pork - is where the taste is. Our Xmas ham had
virtually zero fat and a rind that was as thin as the skin on my arm; it was
edible but was a far cry from the wonderful hams of my youth.

Of course, the producers say the reduced fat is in response to consumer
demand. Strange, I don't recall the anti-fat riots; perhaps I was living
abroad then.

Chicken? Forget it, The normal chickens available at supermarkets aren't
even close in taste to what a chicken should be. They are even the wrong
color. And you used to be able to go to a market and get broilers, fryers,
roasters, even stewing chickens. Capons too (fresh, not frozen).



Of course you still can get the good stuff,
but just not at a regular grocery store...
and of course it costs more...but is worth it.

On 1/28/2014 8:39 AM, dadiOH wrote:
wrote in message

OT

Trying to confirm my recollection, that it used to be
that one could get any cut of beef he wanted at the
supermarket meat department.

Now it seems that some cuts are available some weeks, and
others not. Some are only sold for a few days a month.
But whatever day it is, not all are for sale, like they
used to be.

Is that correct?

Pretty much.

Used to be that butchers got whole sides of beef and cut them. Now they get
"cryopaks" - large packages of various cuts - which they then slice up and
package (crummy side down). That's a big advantage to them because they can
buy just what is locally popular and avoid the necessity of selling the
rest.

In reality, supermarkets no longer have butchers. A while back I was in a
Publix market (Florida) looking at the meat selection. It was sparse and
poor. I was particularly interested in flat bone sirloin and asked the meat
guy if he could cut one for me. He said they no longer got bone-in meat and
if they did there was no one who would know how to cut it.

That is fairly common in the large chains and particularly the
lower-margin ones; not necessarily so in all. The Dillons (now a Kroger
subsidiary) still have full butcher shop...of course it helps a little
that the major packing houses have moved from Chicago to IA, NE and
especially KS. There's slaughter capacity for almost 50000 head a day
within 80 miles of where I presently sit, 5,000 of that only about 5 mi
away and 2 from the local Dillons.

There are two major reasons for the change, the first being that there
really are very few relatively any more that know the difference to
begin with and even fewer that actually cook anything at home that they
can't just do it w/ as little preparation as possible. Consequently,
even if there were a butcher behind the counter, he'd basically be
unoccupied 90% of the time. The second is simply cost but that's
related to the first...it's not feasible to support the overhead for the
lesser demand.

The answer is, of course, to find the local meat shop that does what you
want if it is important to you. We, being rural, have the luxury of
having neighbors who feed so we can stayed retired from the cattle
business but still fill the freezer with a half when need be--best of
both worlds.

....[most diatribe elided for brevity]...

Of course, the producers say the reduced fat is in response to consumer
demand. Strange, I don't recall the anti-fat riots; perhaps I was living
abroad then.
....

Must have had head in sand for last 40 yrs on the campaigns waged by
Surgeon General and CDC, Am Heart Assoc, etc., etc., etc., on the
"dangers" of red meat and high cholesterol and on and on and on, then...

It most definitely is consumer demand driven by mostly imo,
fearmongering. It doesn't help that there's a sizable contingent with a
lot of money whose end (unstated) objective is to end animal agriculture
entirely.

You can be sure that if there were market share of any size for older
feed patterns, there would be somebody filling it--that's the way
markets work. That there's not is the chief indication that the demand
isn't there.

--

On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:39:39 -0500, "dadiOH"
wrote:

"micky" wrote in message

OT

Trying to confirm my recollection, that it used to be
that one could get any cut of beef he wanted at the
supermarket meat department.

Now it seems that some cuts are available some weeks, and
others not. Some are only sold for a few days a month.
But whatever day it is, not all are for sale, like they
used to be.

Is that correct?

Pretty much.

Used to be that butchers got whole sides of beef and cut them. Now they get
"cryopaks" - large packages of various cuts - which they then slice up and
package (crummy side down). That's a big advantage to them because they can
buy just what is locally popular and avoid the necessity of selling the
rest.

In reality, supermarkets no longer have butchers. A while back I was in a
Publix market (Florida) looking at the meat selection. It was sparse and
poor. I was particularly interested in flat bone sirloin and asked the meat
guy if he could cut one for me. He said they no longer got bone-in meat and
if they did there was no one who would know how to cut it.

Along the same vein, how long has it been since you saw a USDA grade stamp
on a piece of beef? Sure, they *say* it is US Choice but is it? And did
you know that there are different levels of Choice (in all grades, not just
Choice)? There is choice, choice+ and choice-; gee, I wonder which the
markets are selling as "choice"? smirk.

Even the quality within a grade is different. I have no idea whether regs
have changed but I am dead certain that today's "choice" is very different -
for the worse - from the choice of years ago.

The same goes for pork. Hogs are slaughtered very young now because
agribusiness determined that was the most profitable way. Good for them,
bad for us because the animals don't have time to develop some fat and the
fat - especially with pork - is where the taste is. Our Xmas ham had
virtually zero fat and a rind that was as thin as the skin on my arm; it was
edible but was a far cry from the wonderful hams of my youth.

Of course, the producers say the reduced fat is in response to consumer
demand. Strange, I don't recall the anti-fat riots; perhaps I was living
abroad then.

Chicken? Forget it, The normal chickens available at supermarkets aren't
even close in taste to what a chicken should be. They are even the wrong
color. And you used to be able to go to a market and get broilers, fryers,
roasters, even stewing chickens. Capons too (fresh, not frozen).

Bakery goods and fruits and vegetables have likewise suffered.
Can't remember when I had a good peach or plum.
In the 90's when I was traveling in Georgia during peach season.

On 01/28/2014 10:12 AM, dpb wrote:


Must have had head in sand for last 40 yrs on the campaigns waged by Surgeon General and CDC, Am Heart Assoc, etc., etc., etc., on the "dangers" of red meat and high cholesterol and on and on and on, then...

It most definitely is consumer demand driven by mostly imo, fearmongering. It doesn't help that there's a sizable contingent with a lot of money whose end (unstated) objective is to end animal agriculture entirely.

You can be sure that if there were market share of any size for older feed patterns, there would be somebody filling it--that's the way markets work. That there's not is the chief indication that the demand isn't there.


Our local supermarket stocks both. Both are profitable.

For folks that care about their health and want great tasting food that is nutritious, there is GMO-free organic.

For people that don't care and want to save money, there is the pesticide/herbicide soaked GMO mass market stuff.

philo wrote:
On 01/28/2014 08:39 AM, dadiOH wrote:
"X
The same goes for pork. Hogs are slaughtered very young now because
agribusiness determined that was the most profitable way. Good for
them, bad for us because the animals don't have time to develop some
fat and the fat - especially with pork - is where the taste is. Our
Xmas ham had virtually zero fat and a rind that was as thin as the
skin on my arm; it was edible but was a far cry from the wonderful
hams of my youth. Of course, the producers say the reduced fat is in
response to
consumer demand. Strange, I don't recall the anti-fat riots;
perhaps I was living abroad then.

Chicken? Forget it, The normal chickens available at supermarkets
aren't even close in taste to what a chicken should be. They are
even the wrong color. And you used to be able to go to a market and
get broilers, fryers, roasters, even stewing chickens. Capons too
(fresh, not frozen).


Of course you still can get the good stuff,
but just not at a regular grocery store...
and of course it costs more...but is worth it.

We buy 90% of our meat from a local market that does have a butcher on
duty at all times . They also sell meat that isn't injected with "solution"
.. Yes , it costs a little more maybe 5-6% but is worth it to us - mainly
because their meat is also grown without chemical additives in the feed .
Have you noticed the last few years that children are reaching puberty
younger ? We believe that to be due to the hormones fed to the anumals ,
which is also one of the reasons we'll be raising chickens ourselves next
summer .
--
Snag

On 1/28/2014 10:30 AM, Tom Fields wrote:
On 01/28/2014 10:12 AM, dpb wrote:


Must have had head in sand for last 40 yrs on the campaigns waged by
Surgeon General and CDC, Am Heart Assoc, etc., etc., etc., on the
"dangers" of red meat and high cholesterol and on and on and on, then...

It most definitely is consumer demand driven by mostly imo,
fearmongering. It doesn't help that there's a sizable contingent with
a lot of money whose end (unstated) objective is to end animal
agriculture entirely.

You can be sure that if there were market share of any size for older
feed patterns, there would be somebody filling it--that's the way
markets work. That there's not is the chief indication that the demand
isn't there.


Our local supermarket stocks both. Both are profitable.
....

Which would that be? And where located?

Mass markets are what they are; specialty or smaller chains or areas of
large and/or (especially) prosperous populations of course have much
higher selections than does Wally_world and the like.

--

"dpb" wrote in message

On 1/28/2014 8:39 AM, dadiOH wrote:
wrote in message

OT

Trying to confirm my recollection, that it used to be
that one could get any cut of beef he wanted at the
supermarket meat department.

Now it seems that some cuts are available some weeks,
and others not. Some are only sold for a few days a
month. But whatever day it is, not all are for sale,
like they used to be.

Is that correct?

Pretty much.

Used to be that butchers got whole sides of beef and
cut them. Now they get "cryopaks" - large packages of
various cuts - which they then slice up and package
(crummy side down). That's a big advantage to them
because they can buy just what is locally popular and
avoid the necessity of selling the rest. In reality, supermarkets no
longer have butchers. A
while back I was in a Publix market (Florida) looking
at the meat selection. It was sparse and poor. I was
particularly interested in flat bone sirloin and asked
the meat guy if he could cut one for me. He said they
no longer got bone-in meat and if they did there was no
one who would know how to cut it.

There are two major reasons for the change, the first
being that there really are very few relatively any more
that know the difference to begin with

Bingo. The same is true about many other things.
________________

The answer is, of course, to find the local meat shop
that does what you want if it is important to you.

Unfortunately, there is none. Not within reasonable distance at least. We
have supermarkets and independents who sell "Heavy Western Beef", whatever
that may be.
_________________

Of course, the producers say the reduced fat is in
response to consumer demand. Strange, I don't recall
the anti-fat riots; perhaps I was living abroad then.
...

Must have had head in sand for last 40 yrs on the
campaigns waged by Surgeon General and CDC, Am Heart
Assoc, etc., etc., etc., on the "dangers" of red meat and
high cholesterol and on and on and on, then...

I quit paying attention to them when someone decided that Scotch whisky
contrubuted to cancer

And I don't doubt that too much fat/red meat isn't good for you. A serving
need not be 16 oz.
_______________________

It most definitely is consumer demand driven by mostly
imo, fearmongering.

As you said...
There are two major reasons for the change, the first
being that there really are very few relatively any more
that know the difference to begin with

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On 1/28/2014 10:59 AM, dadiOH wrote:
....

The answer is, of course, to find the local meat shop
that does what you want if it is important to you.

Unfortunately, there is none. Not within reasonable distance at least. We
have supermarkets and independents who sell "Heavy Western Beef", whatever
that may be.

Have you ever asked "what ever may _that_ be???" I'm guess it's
probably a politically correct version of a longer and perhaps higher
quantity as well grainfed ration and therefore a higher slaughter weight
than the packer targets. That would translate to higher fat content and
assuming quality animals to start with, more marbling which is what has
been reduced drastically by the stress on "lean cuisine".

Of course, the producers say the reduced fat is in
response to consumer demand. Strange, I don't recall
the anti-fat riots; perhaps I was living abroad then.
...

Must have had head in sand for last 40 yrs on the
campaigns waged by Surgeon General and CDC, Am Heart
Assoc, etc., etc., etc., on the "dangers" of red meat and
high cholesterol and on and on and on, then...

I quit paying attention to them when someone decided that Scotch whisky
contrubuted to cancer

Ayup and a glass of the Glenlivet to ye...

And I don't doubt that too much fat/red meat isn't good for you. A serving
need not be 16 oz.
....

Moderation is one of the few things that cannot be overdone...

Much also has to do with the number of calories one is burning in
physical exertion and all as well-an NFL lineman during training camp is
a little different than an old retired computer jock, say...

--

In article ,
Tom Fields wrote:
On 01/28/2014 10:12 AM, dpb wrote:


Must have had head in sand for last 40 yrs on the campaigns waged by Surgeon General and CDC, Am Heart Assoc, etc., etc., etc., on the "dangers" of red meat and high cholesterol and on and on and on, then...

It most definitely is consumer demand driven by mostly imo, fearmongering. It doesn't help that there's a sizable contingent with a lot of money whose end (unstated) objective is to end animal agriculture entirely.

You can be sure that if there were market share of any size for older feed patterns, there would be somebody filling it--that's the way markets work. That there's not is the chief indication that the demand isn't there.


Our local supermarket stocks both. Both are profitable.

For folks that care about their health and want great tasting food that is nutritious, there is GMO-free organic.

What's your evidence that GMO-free organic tastes better? Don't forget,
it doesn't matter if it tastes better to you. If you want to sell someone
else on the taste, it has to taste better to them.

Cindy Hamilton

For people that don't care and want to save money, there is the pesticide/herbicide soaked GMO mass market stuff.


--

On 01/28/2014 11:51 AM, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 10:30 AM, Tom Fields wrote:



Our local supermarket stocks both. Both are profitable.
...

Which would that be? And where located?


Actually, several area supermarkets have both.

I'd estimate that 20% of the produce section at each store is non-GMO organics.

And of course there's http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com if you're lucky enough to have one nearby.

On 1/28/2014 12:51 PM, Tom Fields wrote:
On 01/28/2014 11:51 AM, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 10:30 AM, Tom Fields wrote:



Our local supermarket stocks both. Both are profitable.
...

Which would that be? And where located?


Actually, several area supermarkets have both.

I'd estimate that 20% of the produce section at each store is non-GMO
organics.

And of course there's http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com if you're lucky
enough to have one nearby.

That's got to be a sizable (and reasonably affluent) market then for
folks to have the wherewithal and time to worry over nothing...

--

On 1/28/2014 12:12 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
....

What's your evidence that GMO-free organic tastes better? Don't forget,
it doesn't matter if it tastes better to you. If you want to sell someone
else on the taste, it has to taste better to them.
....

There isn't any that proves that particular point. The difference is
that much organic is grown in small plots more local and is therefore
not picked green (or a least not nearly _as_ green) and so therefore has
more natural sugars and flavors for simply that reason.

It's a conundrum -- there's no way to produce food for 300 million all
in their own backyards for anything approaching affordable cost for most
-- just can't happen. Except in greenhouse, you're not growing a tomato
in Minnesota just now. Not everybody has a greenhouse. Hence, CA and
FL and AZ and all have to grow enough for almost all and that takes
varieties that can handle transport and shipping delay and all and still
at least be round and red when arrive. Sure you could grow 'em in
granny's garden and air express each one overnight but that's a little
pricey for most.

--

On 01/28/2014 03:27 PM, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:51 PM, Tom Fields wrote:
On 01/28/2014 11:51 AM, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 10:30 AM, Tom Fields wrote:



Our local supermarket stocks both. Both are profitable.
...

Which would that be? And where located?


Actually, several area supermarkets have both.

I'd estimate that 20% of the produce section at each store is non-GMO
organics.

And of course there's http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com if you're lucky
enough to have one nearby.

That's got to be a sizable (and reasonably affluent) market then for folks to have the wherewithal and time to worry over nothing...


Right! So you should have a nice big glass of glyphosate with your dinner this evening. Bottoms up!

On 01/28/2014 02:27 PM, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:51 PM, Tom Fields wrote:
On 01/28/2014 11:51 AM, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 10:30 AM, Tom Fields wrote:



Our local supermarket stocks both. Both are profitable.
...

Which would that be? And where located?


Actually, several area supermarkets have both.

I'd estimate that 20% of the produce section at each store is non-GMO
organics.

And of course there's http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com if you're lucky
enough to have one nearby.

That's got to be a sizable (and reasonably affluent) market then for
folks to have the wherewithal and time to worry over nothing...




My wife and I go to Whole Foods. For one thing, it's the closest grocery
store to our house. Since the food is high quality, there is little
waste and therefore not really (much) more expensive and a regular store.

In article , dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:12 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
...

What's your evidence that GMO-free organic tastes better? Don't forget,
it doesn't matter if it tastes better to you. If you want to sell someone
else on the taste, it has to taste better to them.
...

There isn't any that proves that particular point. The difference is
that much organic is grown in small plots more local and is therefore
not picked green (or a least not nearly _as_ green) and so therefore has
more natural sugars and flavors for simply that reason.

I thought we were talking about meat.

Much organic is grown in China and shipped to the U.S. No taste
advantage, and I'm dubious whether it's actually grown organically.

Cindy Hamilton
--

On 1/29/2014 8:37 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
In , wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:12 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
...

What's your evidence that GMO-free organic tastes better? Don't forget,
it doesn't matter if it tastes better to you. If you want to sell someone
else on the taste, it has to taste better to them.
...

There isn't any that proves that particular point. The difference is
that much organic is grown in small plots more local and is therefore
not picked green (or a least not nearly _as_ green) and so therefore has
more natural sugars and flavors for simply that reason.

I thought we were talking about meat.

Much organic is grown in China and shipped to the U.S. No taste
advantage, and I'm dubious whether it's actually grown organically.

Oh, I thought they orientation had shifted, sorry -- any and every diet
has some affect whether detectable or not. Milk from cows allowed to
pasture on winter wheat is one very common case almost everyone should
be familiar with altho these days probably are very few who could
identify the cause of the particular flavor because they're so far
removed from the farm to have no reference point by which to know.

The prime thing on meat I thought most were so hung up over was the
possible carryover of antibiotics or perhaps growth hormones. Neither
is detectable by taste test by anybody. There may well be other diet
factors that change quality plus the inherent variability of one carcass
to another that gets identified by association and it's that variation
that gets the guilt by association.

--

On 1/28/2014 5:16 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2014 02:27 PM, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:51 PM, Tom Fields wrote:
....

And of course there's http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com if you're lucky
enough to have one nearby.

That's got to be a sizable (and reasonably affluent) market then for
folks to have the wherewithal and time to worry over nothing...


My wife and I go to Whole Foods. For one thing, it's the closest grocery
store to our house. Since the food is high quality, there is little
waste and therefore not really (much) more expensive and a regular store.

They've found a niche and exploit it well for their benefit...it's the
Beemer phenomenon.

--

On 1/28/2014 2:47 PM, Tom Fields wrote:
On 01/28/2014 03:27 PM, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:51 PM, Tom Fields wrote:
On 01/28/2014 11:51 AM, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 10:30 AM, Tom Fields wrote:



Our local supermarket stocks both. Both are profitable.
...

Which would that be? And where located?


Actually, several area supermarkets have both.

I'd estimate that 20% of the produce section at each store is non-GMO
organics.

And of course there's http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com if you're lucky
enough to have one nearby.

That's got to be a sizable (and reasonably affluent) market then for
folks to have the wherewithal and time to worry over nothing...


Right! So you should have a nice big glass of glyphosate with your
dinner this evening. Bottoms up!

I'm not concerned by Roundup ready beans or other crops the least as far
as the effect on food value/safety. That will have to alter our
practices for preventing development of resistant weed species is a real
effect. But, while that is so, the furor raised negates the fact that
similar mutations have occurred for thousands of years and there's
really no difference other than it's possible to select particular
traits more quickly than by successive breeding or manual hybridization.

I _do_ wash produce even from own garden prior to eating it...

--

On 1/29/2014 8:54 AM, dpb wrote:
On 1/29/2014 8:37 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
In , wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:12 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
...

What's your evidence that GMO-free organic tastes better? ...

I thought we were talking about meat.
....

Oh, I thought they orientation had shifted, sorry -- ...

And, specifically, the "GMO-free" got me thinking that way but I suppose
you mean no Roundup-ready 'beans in the feedmix and that kind of thing.

I'll admit that as longtime rancher/farmer on 3rd generation mixed
crops/cattle operation it's hard to get a mind around the stuff the
"antis" can make up that mighta' coulda' possibly be that has no basis
in the actual makeup of plant and/or animal genetics.

Like the fertilizer thing, N is N in the elemental form the atom doesn't
"know" nor does the plant from whence it came. It just "is" what it is.

--

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:37:08 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article , dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 12:12 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
...

What's your evidence that GMO-free organic tastes better? Don't forget,
it doesn't matter if it tastes better to you. If you want to sell someone
else on the taste, it has to taste better to them.
...

There isn't any that proves that particular point. The difference is
that much organic is grown in small plots more local and is therefore
not picked green (or a least not nearly _as_ green) and so therefore has
more natural sugars and flavors for simply that reason.

I thought we were talking about meat.

Much organic is grown in China and shipped to the U.S. No taste
advantage, and I'm dubious whether it's actually grown organically.

I think in China, "organic" means in the fields where the crops are
grown, there are no political prisoners buried.

Cindy Hamilton

Tom Fields posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP




Right! So you should have a nice big glass of glyphosate with your dinner this evening. Bottoms up!

Tastes great - less filling yum!

--
Tekkie

micky posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP

I think in China, "organic" means in the fields where the crops are
grown, there are no political prisoners buried.


No it means they wiped their hands on their
"uniforms" after they relieved themselves in the
field.

--
Tekkie

On 01/29/2014 08:57 AM, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2014 5:16 PM, philo wrote:
OXefore not really (much) more expensive and a regular store.

They've found a niche and exploit it well for their benefit...it's the
Beemer phenomenon.




At least I can walk in there wearing my old clothing.


There is another grocery store in the suburbs I've been to a few times
but everyone in there is really dressed up.