You thought you took home a haul at the farmers market last week, but you've got nothin' on Wal-Mart. The big-box retailer has become the nation's largest buyer of local produce, planning to purchase and sell $400 million worth of locally grown fruits and veggies this year. Wal-Mart says it works with "hundreds" of individual farmers, and has 50 percent more partnerships with local growers than it did in 2006. During the summer months, says the company, one-fifth of available produce in Wal-Mart stores is sourced locally. An emphasis on local produce -- which Wal-Mart defines as grown and sold within the state -- keeps the company's delivery trucks from burning about 100,000 gallons of diesel, slices its customers' farm-to-plate distance by 672,000 miles, and saves it $1.4 million each year.
source: Associated Press, Reuters, PR Newswire
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Threaded
JimBaker Posted 6:40 am
02 Jul 2008
First, Wal-Mart is sourcing at farms that are near its DISTRIBUTION CENTERS. They are not sourcing near local stores. These suppliers are highly unlikely to be the farms you imagine when you think of "farmer's markets." They are probably very large, corporate farms capable of supplying several Wal-Mart stores with produce. "Farmers" is probably not the correct word to describe these entities.
Second, remember that 80% of what you buy at Wal-Mart is NOT locally sourced. The vast majority of Wal-Mart's produce is stale and old.. and may have been carted in from another country.
If you want to support local growers, go to your nearest farmer's market. Not Whole Foods. Not Wal-Mart.
Permalink
rythmik1 Posted 8:20 am
02 Jul 2008
Wal-Mart considers locally grown produce anything farmed within a state's boundaries. Galberth said customers will soon see signs near produce that indicate it comes from the same state.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:45 am
02 Jul 2008
We're bigger than most countries, ya know.
Permalink
JimBaker Posted 10:47 am
02 Jul 2008
They shouldn't be using the word "local" at all. It's a huge stretch. There are only 112 distribution centers. Each serves 75-100 Wal-Mart stores within an average radius of 250 miles. That means big corporate farms and long rides.
To most people, "local" does not mean 2/3/4/5/6 hours away.
Permalink
Alison Wiley Posted 1:09 am
03 Jul 2008
http://www.diamondcutlife.org/walmarts-green-face-are-we- ...
Permalink
cyberfarer Posted 5:05 am
03 Jul 2008
Wal-Mart is sourcing closer to home to reduce the costs of shipping from the other side of the planet. But the Wal-Mart model is still about destroying real local economies that feed, employ, and sustain real communities.
Wal-Mart is still all about acres of parking, cheap labour, and cheap crap destined for the landfill.
Grow up for God's sake. Your children are inheriting a planet on which life will be very different and far less comfortable and secure. A large part of that is because of the consumer culture we all bought into and the uber consumer culture of gluttony, obesity, and the wanton waste symbolized very appropriately by Wal-Mart.
Next time you see one of their parking lots, think how much local food could have been grown their for your family and neighbours.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 6:05 am
03 Jul 2008
In addition to that, though, I might ask you to grow up as well Cyberfarer. Which of these two scenarios is more likely in the next 20 years?
#1.) Wal-Mart goes out of business and is shut down, leaving pristine local markets around the world to cater to the local population's every need.
#2.) Because of increasing energy costs and a new carbon tax Wal-Mart realizes that "green" and "greed" are the same thing for them. the greener they are the more profits they make. Because of their unbelievably huge impact on the economy, even seemingly small actions on their part like:
CFLs posted on end caps of every isle at bargain prices
reducing truck fleet gas use by half
putting new cheap solar panels in the bargain bin at every check-out with the "Get 'er done!" guy in a cardboard cut out pointing at the panels.
buying food from within the state instead of Brazil
cutting its building emissions in half
ALL of these things bringing them higher profits, AND just through sheer coverage, muscle power, and numbers, having a significant impact on total U.S. emissions.
I hate Wal-Mart, but from a practical point of view (and really at this point in the game what other point of view can we have?) we can capture their greed and make it our tool for societal transition. Wal-Mart makes BIG things happen FAST with MANY people.
Wal-Mart can make more Americans go green without even realizing it before one-thousand Sierra Clubs ever could. And speed of change, and volume of change, are what this is about when speaking of climate change.
What did you think the benefit of a carbon tax was anyway??? It steers the greed juggernaut towards green.
Sometimes we just wont like the window dressing around the tools we will use for the transition. So be it. Hold your nose.
Permalink
Raki Posted 7:57 am
03 Jul 2008
Permalink
christophersj Posted 9:15 am
03 Jul 2008
A company, good or bad, having a "latest ploy to cut transportation costs" is a good thing.
Now lets hope gasoline prices go up another dollar as well.
Permalink
swan Posted 12:58 am
04 Jul 2008
WalMart is loyal first, last and always to their shareholders - Amen. However they can make the most money for the corporation is all they are about. Do not kid yourself.
And it's not a matter of holding your nose. The means ARE the end.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 2:58 am
04 Jul 2008
Am I being heard correctly?
It is EXACTLY because we know of Wal-Mart's motivation that we can make them a tool for the fast and substantial change of many, many ignorant people who are not going to do the right thing on their own.
It may be cynical, and it may be elitist, but I dont think you are going to get the millions and millions of people out of Wal-Mart in 20 years. I think they are too under-educated and selfish.
But if the bargain bins at all of the Wal-Marts in the world are telling these masses that this here $5 solar panel is going to knock off 25% of their electric bill, THEN you have MASSIVE movement QUICKLY.
All of this movement also requires a price on carbon, of course.
Do you guys understand the difference between what we would LIKE to see happen in the future and what our tools actually are, here in front of us?
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:31 am
04 Jul 2008
While you make some valid points, you never address the consumerist culture that Wal-Mart encourages and causes. (Not that Wal-Mart was an original cause of overconsumption, that existed well before Wal-Mart.) Overconsumption is one of the root causes of all significant environmental and ecological problems. So, Wal-Mart can NEVER be green, because it's main function is to make money by getting people to buy cheap crap they don't need, and which they wouldn't normally buy if the crap's costs more truly reflected costs that are illegitimately escaped, such as environmental harms and actual or virtual slave labor.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 12:39 am
05 Jul 2008
The point that I thought was fresh and new, and one that I give columnists like Thomas Friedman credit for [winces], is this:
Just poo-poing Wal-Mart, which is now done on "auto-pilot" and so easy, and even mainstream these days, skips over the opportunity to change the carbon-behavior of the masses quickly.
How many Wal-Mart shoppers in po-dunk are going to read Mother Earth magazine and get inspired to go to the farmer's market?
By the way, I was in central Arizona recently and I found no farmer's markets. Arizona MUST have trucked in food from California.
Permalink
green girl Posted 4:24 am
05 Jul 2008
Permalink
christophersj Posted 5:22 am
05 Jul 2008
"Seriously, how do we get people to care about the environment?"
Put a cost on it.
Put a cost on it.
Put a cost on it.
Money talks: Gasoline goes up a dollar a gallon and SUV sales go down 30%. The evidence is before us in today's headlines.
In Los Angeles, the financial rate of returned recycling is good, so literally hundreds of folks down on their luck scour every trash bin for anything recyclable and take it to nearby centers for cash. It's like clockwork -- every day -- every street. And it happens because a cost was put on it.
I wish it could all happen for moral reasons, but I dont see evidence of that. Capturing people's self interest with financial reward and punishment seems to be the key.
A carbon tax. A cap and trade. Ect.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 10:33 am
06 Jul 2008
Permalink
sycamore Posted 1:33 am
07 Jul 2008
I find it refreshing to see some clear thinking. It is always about money! I don't have any problem with Wal-Mart hyping it's "local, Green" changes as it gets the public to think about the problem.
Green girl,
Glad to see you doing something. Do not be discouraged, as example is the best teacher. Working at Wal-Mart is no worse than working at GM. Ford or the Government all of whom has huge carbon foot prints and need to be doing more to build a sustainable world. Keep up the good work.
Environmental change is brought about by political change. The current "two party system" is a cancer on our society. If all the people who are concerned about the environment donated the money that they contributed to political candidates to an environmental organization of their choice the millions of dollars donated would give us environmentalist some real results that you could see and measure. What we get for our dollars from the candidates is just "talk". They are both owned by the corporations and our voices won't be hears.
Farming organically in Ohio
Permalink
JMR Posted 10:31 pm
08 Jul 2008
Permalink
bkrell Posted 10:55 pm
08 Jul 2008
Now, the biggest concern will be to try and get them to use a greater percentage of locally-sourced fruits and vegetables. But unless the consumer comes to the realization that they can't have the exact fruit or vegetable that they want year-round, that won't happen.
But if the cost, due to rising fuel prices, makes imported or long-distance produce prohibitively expensive for the average Wal-Mart customer, the problem will take care of itself. More local farmers will be the only game in town because long-distance transport won't be an issue....
Permalink
needletoofar Posted 12:35 am
09 Jul 2008
have the option, financial means, time, or motivation to shop at farmers markets. For the millions of people that are going to get their groceries at WalMart anyways, let them buy foods that come with smaller environmental price tags.
And I am surprised that people think that in-state is not local enough. Here in Maryland, even at my health food store and organic foods home delivery service, local means anywhere from New Jersey to North Carolina. In order to get truly local produce, I have to drive past two farmers markets to go to an Amish veggie stand 20 miles away. Now, I do that periodically, but honestly? If Walmart, 1.5 miles away has in state produce, I'll take that over North Carolina produce or over driving 20 miles for the same produce any day.
Permalink
rjmart01 Posted 12:50 am
09 Jul 2008
I looked at the cited sources, and found no backup for the one-fifth number. In fact, in one of the articles, I found that the Wal-Mart rep had specifically declined to state a percentage.
Definitions of "local" and "farmer" notwithstanding, what's the definition of "available"?
Permalink
mtvyfan Posted 2:28 am
24 Jul 2008
Permalink
BSTNH1 Posted 10:55 pm
15 Aug 2008
Permalink