Plenty of invective greeted last Thursday's announcement by Walmart that it will reduce sodium and sugar and eliminate trans fats in all its private-label foods, support local, or more-local, growers of produce, and develop a nutritional seal of approval to put on the front of all packages whose contents meet an as-yet-undefined set of nutritional criteria.
How could it be otherwise? Everything the country's largest retailer does, and particularly its history with unions and labor, is controversial. Its responsibility is to shareholders, not the public good; if it's doing anything "good," that's just a way to pressure the First Lady to show up at a press conference it sponsors, winning it an avalanche of good press with the very communities it ruthlessly exploits. As for local produce, if you think it has any intention of supporting small farmers, ask all the small businesses it has driven into bankruptcy—if there are any left to ask.
The cynicism is as understandable as it is inevitable. But it's important to keep an eye on the effect any action by Walmart can have, as I reported last year, when I got word before Walmart was ready to announce it of a company initiative to buy more produce than it previously had from regions where staple crops had long been commercially eclipsed. In this case, as with the local-buying plan, any possible benefits were quickly discounted.
Yes, Walmart is a business, and won't do anything that will damage its growth and profits. But it's also doing something no large retailer has done voluntarily (or is saying it will; the White House plans to hold the company accountable with independent progress reports tracking how well it's adhering to the timelines it announced). Jane Black took the measured tone I advocate in her piece for the Food Channel, and a "Room For Debate" exchange on nytimes.com featured more of it. This from our Kelly Brownell:
To read the rest of the story, please go to: The Atlantic (Washington, D.C.).
