I'm no economist (
) but, rather than this all being a big supermarket conspiracy against those living in poverty, surely it's simply that there is more room for profit margins in a Charlie Bigham's Tikka Masala than there is in Generic No Frills Rice? Ergo, the price of the CB meal can take the global price increase (of rice for example) without having to alter their price because there was already a high-profit margin where there is little to none in the NoFrills? Am I dumb?
Of course, it is wrong that people living in poverty are having to pay more but that's an issue with low wages, insecure jobs, inflated rent/utilities etc and not because beans were 24p and now they are 34p (can get beans for 20p in my Tesco
).