• About the Author

  • All original content on this weblog, including the archives, is licensed under a Creative Commons License and is copyrighted by the author. Images may not be used without permission.

Reading online




« new and "improved" poison ivy | Main | sunday times: rescuing tropical frogs »

07 June 2006

Comments

Jordan T. Cox

I always find statistic conclusion drawing an interesting endeavour. Simply because Americans spend 9.7% of their income on food does not mean that the food we eat is any cheaper than food in any other nation. 100% of $5000/month is more than 100% of $100/month - and so the percentage of money spent on food can increase while actual money spent remains the same.

Organic food is about spending more of our agriculturally rich land on less food - but in a better (presumably more sustainable) way. Even if Wal-Mart was to offer 100% organic food raised in the "happy" way it would have ill effects.

The supply of food available decreases when grown in an "organic" fashion. Demand remains the same, so price goes up. The kind of people who shop at Wal-Mart for groceries (as far as I understand) can't really afford price increases (they could sell their shiny TV, but that's another economics discussion). With that, food is priced out of the reach of the individuals who shopped there for their "discount food". Where do they go now?

Just a few thoughts on the matter. No matter how you slice it Wal-Mart's entrance into the organic food market would be bad.

Nuthatch

You raise a couple of good points, Jordan. I think perhaps the point of the 9.7% statistic was that Americans are not willing to pay more for food, even if they can afford it, in the same way we balk at paying more for gasoline. I agree that in some areas, Wal-Mart shoppers may be low income. But I guarantee that there are HOARDS of Wal-Mart shoppers that can well afford caviar and filet mignon, but just want cheap food. If Wal-Mart didn't have these shoppers, they wouldn't sell big screen plasma televisions. As a biologist, I don't make a lot of money. But whenever possible, I bite the bullet and pay a little more for sustainable goods. I don't think the majority of Americans would do the same.

Jason Sailing

I'm glad that many people are talking about Wal-Mart getting into organic foods, and I thank you for passing the info. along - I had not seen the article but had read a few op-ed type pieces. I also appreciate your comment about the "double-edged sword topics these days - I am pro-wind power, but as a birder, it's hard to get excited about the growth of wind farm projects that seem to crop up in the most unfortunate places, like off South Padre Island and closer to my home, near Horicon NWR.

Thanks for the great post.

Jenn

There was an article at TreeHugger last month about Walmart meeting with the CEO of Seventh Generation (maker of environmentally-aware cleaning products and paper products). I've noticed the supermarkets around here are expanding their store-brand products to include an organic line. Interesting to see the trend continue.

This doesn't necessarily have to result in the corruption of organic values, as long as the public demands that companies be held accountable for the decisions they make. Perhaps exposing more people than ever before to organic products will help facilitate that. As internet technology has become more widespread, we have entered an era of consumer empowerment, where consumers are more likely to voice their opinions directly to companies, and companies are more willing to listen. Education takes a long time - baby steps, right?

Jane Shevtsov

I posted a reply to this on my blog, Perceiving Wholes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Well, search me!