The commissary at Fort Knox offers a display of what nutrition experts call “better for you” foods for easy access at the front. The commissary recently earned a silver category recognition for its efforts in increasing the quality of life of Soldiers and their Family members. (Photo courtesy of Laura Bottoms)
There’s been growing interest lately in the idea of creating public grocery stores – places run on a nonprofit model, similar to the U.S. military commissary system, where people could buy food at lower, stable prices.
For many, this sounds like a practical way to counter food deserts, rising prices, and corporate consolidation in the grocery sector.
But others have a strong reaction against the concept. One common concern goes like this:
“If the government runs a grocery store, it becomes a monopoly. You’ll only be able to buy what they offer, at whatever price they set. If they don’t have something, you go without. Every attempt at this in history has led to shortages and hunger.”
It’s an understandable worry if the only examples you’re thinking of are command-economy systems that banned private markets entirely. But the proposal on the table – and the real-world model it’s based on – is something very different.
Public grocery stores using the U.S. military commissary model wouldn’t replace the private sector or ban competition.
They would function the same way commissaries already do: as an additional option that coexists alongside Walmart, Target, Aldi, Kroger, H-E-B, farmers markets, and every other private retailer.
The U.S. military commissary system has operated for decades with:
-normal supply chains
-multiple competing suppliers
-stable inventory
-lower prices
-consumer choice
-and zero evidence of “fewer options” or “more hunger.”
It is not a monopoly.
It is one more outlet in the marketplace – very similar to a co-op, credit union, or nonprofit retailer.
And crucially: nobody is required to shop there.
If a public grocery doesn’t carry what you want, you go to any of the dozens of private stores that remain fully available.
The historical examples critics cite – Soviet ration shops, state-run command economies, etc. – have nothing to do with a U.S. commissary-style public option. Those systems banned competition.
A public grocery does the opposite: it adds competition, giving shoppers another choice and pushing private retailers to keep prices in check.
This is what public options do in other sectors:
-public libraries coexist with Amazon
-public parks coexist with private resorts
-public schools coexist with private schools
-public transit coexists with private cars
-the VA coexists with private hospitals
None of these eliminate private choice. They simply guarantee a baseline of affordability and access.
So the concern that a public grocery means “you buy what they offer or go without” doesn’t apply. A commissary-model store is not a monopoly. It’s an extra lane in the market that keeps prices honest, especially in areas underserved or exploited by corporate retailers.
If anything, the historical record shows the opposite of the criticism:
Where only private monopolies dominate (Walmart in rural towns, Kroger mergers, Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods), consumers end up with fewer options, higher prices, and food deserts.
A public grocery option expands choices. It doesn’t remove them.
To quote at length from Errol Schweizer's excellent article, "How Public Groceries Can Make Food Affordable Again":
"Public groceries hit the mainstream with Zohran Mamdani’s successful mayoral campaign in New York City. The good news for boosters is that it already exists at scale in the US military’s commissary system. The military commissary system underwrites the gross margins of retail operations so that retail prices are 20 to 30 percent lower than grocery prices. The military commissary generates over $5.6 billion in annual sales and leverages large-scale buying power to ensure low wholesale costs and a great selection.
The commissary system is well-loved by US service members. An army officer friend summed it up to me, saying, “Always less expensive. Good food. There should be a push for public PX-style grocers across the country.” In New York City, there is a commissary at Fort Hamilton, in the Bay Ridge neighborhood of Brooklyn. This market has 193 ratings on Google Maps, averaging 4.6 stars. The commissary system is proof that the government can operate efficient, popular grocery stores that customers genuinely appreciate.
What such public grocers sell is up for discussion, but over a dozen cities already have well-established values-based purchasing programs that prioritize fair wages, human rights, animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and community benefits. Public grocers could leverage existing advantages of scale — such as in New York City, where public institutions already purchase over $500 million in food a year — or form purchasing cooperatives between municipalities, just like private, independent grocers do to bring down costs and compete with Walmart.
The math behind affordability is this: leverage scale to bring down wholesale costs on a limited assortment, then subsidize the retail margin. Following this logic, which was pioneered in the private sector but extends naturally to the public sector, public groceries could be the best and cheapest groceries out there.
There is ample precedent for this idea. Depression-era New York City mayor Fiorello La Guardia built a network of city-run indoor markets, and six of these La Guardia markets still operate today as partially subsidized retailers.
Outside the United States, the idea is far from unusual. India’s Public Distribution System (PDS) distributes subsidized food and nonfood items to India’s poor. Istanbul’s nonprofit stores sell food at or below cost. Bulgaria’s government has announced plans to create a network of 1,500 stores. In South Korea, public investment in “precautionary” supply chains ensures that public institutions have access to healthy products.
Mexico has 25,000 basic goods outlets, with plans for 30,000 tiendas bienestar (well-being stores) by 2030. Brazil has pulled out all the stops to address poverty and hunger: cash transfers, a universal school meals program, an increase in the minimum wage, public procurement from family farmers, and granting every Brazilian the human right to adequate food in national law.
Over 83 percent of Americans also think that food should be a human right. The remaining question is what we will do to ensure it.
Faye Guenther, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 3000, put it well, saying:
'Over the last four decades the supermarket industry has become highly concentrated and the power of workers and consumers has been dramatically reduced. We need a public option in the supermarket industry — stores that are focused on providing healthy food in our communities, while providing jobs with good wages and benefits.'
But public sector retail is just the start. A more ambitious vision could also include public sector investment further back in the supply chain — in wholesaling, processing, and manufacturing. Even home delivery, which is rarely profitable for grocers, could be treated as a public service. Such a model could operationalize the right to food, bringing it out of the realm of an abstract principle and into the realm of an actual material entitlement. Where markets can’t or won’t serve basic human needs, where profit takes precedence over provisioning, public groceries can solve the affordability crisis, ensuring good food for all."
Tim Hjersted is the director and co-founder of Films For Action, an online library dedicated to the movements creating a more free, regenerative, and democratic society.