The new normal? How inflation has ruined how we shop for groceries

At the beginning of the pandemic, the phrase “new normal” began to be used with great frequency, almost as if insisting that there was a semblance of normalcy to the situation would, in fact, make it so. In the new normal, happy hours took place within the confines of a Zoom meeting room’s digital rectangles, held with the knowledge that inevitably one’s WiFi would drop or one’s screen would freeze mid-sip; standing six feet apart during a conversation became a courtesy, instead of an oddity among those among us who distrust those who speak at close quarters; and, for a period of time, wiping down bags of potato chips and cans of soda with antiseptic spray was not an activity reserved for germaphobes.

Over time, some of our pandemic-era habits have worn off (even public health workers and scientists want us to continue), though there is one area where many Americans are still adjusting to our current “new normal” — the supermarket.

New data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that while the cost of groceries moderated last year, this is the first month of year-over-year acceleration in U.S. food prices since August 2022. That means that, since COVID began in March 2020, the cost of food at home has increased by 24.6%, which explains why a 2024 study found that 72% of American respondents said that groceries are where they feel most affected by inflation.

As part of that survey, respondents indicated that they also experienced more negative emotions — such as anger, anxiety and resignation — while grocery shopping. However, inflation hasn’t just changed how people feel about grocery shopping. It has fundamentally changed how they Actually store, and not necessarily for the better.

For example, grocery shopping has become more common among shoppers looking for bargains.

The average American bought food at 20.7 stores in the year leading up to February, up from 16.8 in the same period in 2019 and 2020, according to data from Numerator. Similarly, May data from grocery shopping app Flashfood shows that 36% of platform users “visit more than one retailer to shop” offers offered through the app, and the company estimates that a customer who buy in multiple stores save almost three. times more than those who buy only in one.

Even the Wall Street Journal has declared that “the era of one-stop grocery shopping is over,” though the strategy for how to better afford groceries doesn’t stop there.

On May 14, the Urban Institute released a new study outlining how many households in 2023 relied on credit, including Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) and payday loans, and savings to meet their food needs . According to the organization, “families already facing food hardship were more likely to take on food debt, which could leave them less able to meet their basic needs in the future.”

According to the study, about 33.4% of adults managed to pay their credit card bills in full after using them for grocery shopping, while 20% only made the minimum payment and 7.1% failed to meet the minimum payment. The data also revealed that more than one in six adults used Buy Now Pay Later services in the past year, with 3.5% specifically using BNPL for groceries. Alarmingly, 37% of these BNPL users missed payments.

Additionally, 19.3% of adults used savings earmarked for other purposes to cover food expenses. The survey found a significant correlation between financial hardship and the use of alternative payment methods, particularly among those experiencing severe food insecurity. Debt repayment challenges were most prevalent among those with very low food security, with nearly half relying on credit cards for groceries but struggling to pay off their balances.

“Although access to credit and loans can provide a lifeline for households struggling to meet basic needs, over-reliance on these financial coping strategies can lead to financial instability if households find it difficult to maintain debt or do not recover from the use of savings not intended for routine expenses,” said Kassandra Martinchek, senior research associate at the Urban Institute.

The survey follows another May study by the organization that found Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits did not cover the cost of a modestly priced meal in 98% of U.S. counties last year. As such, part of the Urban Institute’s recommendations, the Urban Institute suggests lawmakers reconsider plans to cut funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

Martincheck continued: “To address the challenges of families meeting their basic needs, policymakers can increase the accessibility and adequacy of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and other safety net programs, while also providing short-term options to help households manage their current debt burden and access affordable credit.”