+0
Hi

The fact is, convenience-store operators who operate in neighborhoods in “food deserts”
are reimbursed just as well for junk food as they are for fresh fruits and vegetables. As a result,
they have no incentive for stocking anything other than candy and packaged snacks. They are
not going to put an orange or some fresh spinach on the shelf because fresh things have a shorter
shelf life. If the food stamps pay for potato chips and other things that have a longer shelf life,
economic pressures favor the worst foods.

Does the word "pay" in this context means "get reimbursed"? So if the owner of the shop gets reimbursed for potato chips and other things with longer expiry date, then in the times when the economy is bad, unhealthy products win.

Do I understand it correctly?
+1
NewguestDo I understand it correctly?
No. The grocer does indeed get reimbursed, but that's not what "pay" means in the sentence. An equivalent sentence would be, " If the food stamps can legally be used to buy potato chips and other things that have a longer shelf life ...."
+1
Newguestin the times when the economy is bad, unhealthy products win.
It's not quite a matter of an economy in bad times. It's more like this:

In places where it is financially risky for shop owners to obtain and display products that may spoil before they can be sold, they will prefer to sell less perishable items. In this way, unhealthy products win.

CJ
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Comments  
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.