Good News about healthier food

This is really just a step, and without any further "action" it really isn't anything other than a PR move by Wal-Mart. I will accept that Michelle Obama's concern over the American diet/weight problem is genuine, but this really is just scratching the surface. The idea of cheaper vegetables is a good one. Less salty/sugary processed food is still processed food. Another part of the initiative is also bringing special Wal-Mart stores to the inner cities - whatever that means. And I would love to know a bit more about what that means.

Also, I know very little about farm subsidies, but I know that it makes a difference whether a farmer is growing to sell their crop whole or for processed foods. Maybe someone could fill me in on this.

Finally, there was a brouhaha in 2007 when Barack said he wouldn't shop at Wal-Mart because of their anti-union stance (and again, I'm grabbing this from a loose skimming of some articles, know little about it). At that time Michelle dropped off some sort of board of directors related to Wal-Mart. I'd like to know where Wal-Mart stands with unions and worker treatment these days. Have they changed? And if not, why has the the Obama family changed.

A corporation is a corporation. I'm as much a sucker for "A Christmas Story" as the next person, so if I hear something about a company wanting to "make a difference" I would love to given them the benefit of the doubt that they are having a change of heart like Scrooge and earnestly passing out Xmas turkeys to all the peasants. But Wal-Mart has a history of being a problem, and when you have a history like that you simply don't get to make a move without some healthy skepticism being thrown your way.

I know they're trying to move into NYC, I think the plan now is to open a bunch of smaller stores, a la Duane Reade than to put any megastores in Manhattan / Brooklyn.

I got a postcard in the mail the other day FROM WALMART telling me to support THEIR cause. That I would definitely save money if Wal-mart came into my neighborhood. Do you think they target poor neighborhoods? Hmmm.

Is it any worse than Family Dollar? We already have those.

I'm all for Wal-mart selling Organic Foods in the suburbs. I am glad those suburbs almost universally have some kind of Farmer's Market, too. It would require an awful lot of reprogramming to get all people out of the big box mentality. I don't know if our energy is well-spent there. Better just to offer more choices, and hope the supporters of the local farms grow in number.

Of course, buying local food is better and Walmart's carbon footprint is already through the roof. Maybe this will bring it down? I'd prefer to get a bushel of fresh tomatoes from Upstate NY in the summer, and peel and freeze them, than buy cans of organic Muir Glen tomatoes shipped from California. At a certain point being organic can mean supporting factory farms, which I think we'd be hard pressed to say is optimal. But not everyone wants to peel and can their own tomatoes.

You folks do understand that like it or not, Walmart IS the nation's largest grocer so the fact that they're making these changes is a good thing. Since most folks nationwide are shopping there anyway at least they'll be offered better options.
Whether people should shop there or not is a whole 'nother discussion.
While I'm living about 20 miles outside of Charleston, I'm in the middle of no where. There are 3 developments of about 2500 homes total in this plantation. The closest supermarket is Walmart which is about 12 miles away. There are 3 other supermarkets, but they're about another 3 miles farther away. Charleston does have a weekly farmers market, but when you got a family wanting dinner & you're working full time you're not about to drive 40 miles round trip & pay more for produce then you can at the local Walmart, which is a lot closer & cheaper. Sure, we can drive over to the Publix, BiLo or Food Lion, but they're no better than Walmart, just more expensive for the same bag 'o lettuce.
Now, I'm not saying its right or wrong, its just how things are.
On the upside, Walmart would never make it in NYC. The unions are too strong there, you have easier access to farmer's markets & fresh local produce.
We barely have unions here. A little over 5% of our population are in unions. We're a "Right to Work" state, meaning you don't have to join a union to get a job. Yet folks wonder why everyone is so under compensated for their jobs.

It all depends on who you're talking to Ben.

Seems down here, and in most of the south I'm told, they are anti-union. Our governor is even being sued for vowing to fight unions from starting up mostly due to Boeing moving their operations down here (reason they moved here is cause of the lack of unions with just over 5% of the SC working population belonging to a union) SC is a "Right to Work State" meaning anyone & everyone is entitled to work without having to join a union in order to do so, which sounds great in theory cause people shouldn't have to pay someone in order to have a job, until you realize that most folks are earning under $10/hr & have to work 2 jobs just to keep their heads above water & they don't get any benefits to speak of and folks are thrilled to have Walmart as a place to shop & work.
And they sure love their Walmarts! Why? I dunno.
Don't get me wrong, we have pretty much the same stores as in NY & everywhere else, and the big push down here is to BUY LOCAL! They even have ads everywhere asking folks to move at least 10% of their spending to local businesses & to avoid the chains whenever possible and I gotta say, folks do try & stay local, but its rural down here, its not like you can walk to the market or take a subway or bus. Its a hike over to Mt. Pleasant & you have to pay to park in Charleston. Local businesses, such as bars & restaurants, advertise that they only use local produce & seafood in their menu's yet there's always a crowd outside of Olive Garden, which I gave a shot & for the life of my I can't figure out why people go there to dine when their are so many better & cheaper local places to dine, but people do. Go figure.

Its called not being able to afford more than that $3 shirt that Walmart sells & still be able to put food on the table & a roof over the heads of your children. You don't think about the whole shebang, you're just trying to do the best for your kids today and let tomorrow worry about itself.

Back to your original post, Matt, yes, this is a positive step. But given the complexity of the situation, it seems like such a benign, mixed-blessing step. Maybe it's the "way to go" that I didn't agree with. If we are talking about a person who is trying to better their health and they start with a small step like not eating after 7pm, I say "way to go!"

First of all, we need to remind ourselves that impoverished neighborhoods means that people are really poor. This means that even a cheaper apple is less affordable than a 25-cent zebra cake. Focusing on Wal-Marts plans to put small stores in cities like NY, while I can say that there isn't a lot of organic food in the neighborhoods I've lived in and taught in over the years, there are plenty of fruits and vegetables. I spent 3 years walking pretty much every neighborhood in the Bronx visiting public schools and when it was lunch time, there wasn't a shortage of healthy options, just healthy options that were prepared. Cheaper fruits and vegetables doesn't solve the problem of time/effort needed to cook for working class families, and this countries general attitude towards food in general: Trader Joe's epitomizes the attitude that food is something you consume as a product, not something you prepare yourself. Wal-mart's healthier, lower-priced processed options would alsol perpetuate this problem.

The neighborhood "mayor" on my street once mentioned how he wished there was a place in the neighborhood where people could get a salad, some high-quality healthy options. There were no options like that. Now, there are some options springing up, but the whole other issue of class attitude comes with them. I take Marcella on dinner dates to certain restaurants that have appeared and the prices, staff vibe and atmosphere is tailored--picking a half-baked description--to the hipster crowd with a college education and/or income level. It's clear to me that they impoverished residents are not really welcome there and the appearance of the restaurants and health food stores is a part of the gentrification wave that will push a lot of those families out anyway.

I'm out of time and this post is all over the place, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. I think this issue is way too complicated to give Wal-Mart a way-to-go, I think their motives are suspect to the point where that this initiative will not be followed by larger policy changes on their part in terms of what they sell and how they treat there workers. It's a thrown bone. They are the most powerful grocery chain in the country. They can do WAY better, but I don't think way better interests them. I'm not going to pat them on the back unless I think they've really done a 180:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LALbdGv8mBc

This is a good sobering look at what this really means. Its a system and a culture, and Walmart (far from the only ones) "gives" with one hand while taking away with the other. Its better for there to be healthier food available, but lets keep the "celebrating" to minimum.

Ben sets a great example for us all on these sorts of topics--look closely, stay skeptical, try and see the bigger picture. I guess that's something to celebrate.