The White House announced today that Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest retailer, is working in partnership with the First Lady’s Let’s Move! initiative in a wide-ranging program to encourage healthier eating.
Wal-Mart has pledged to improve the nutritional profile of thousands of packaged food products sold under its Great Value house brand, meeting specific targets for sodium, trans fats and added sugars over the next five years. Perhaps of even greater import, Wal-Mart has also agreed to press its major food suppliers to follow its lead with respect to their own products. Given the tremendous market power wielded by the company, such pressure could have enormous impact. Says the New York Times, “Some say the company has almost as much power as federal regulators to shape the marketplace.”
Wal-Mart has also agreed to lower the prices on fresh fruits and vegetables sold in its stores, build additional stores in urban areas which are currently “food deserts,” and increase its charitable contributions for nutrition programs.
According to the Times, Wal-Mart had been in the early stages of planning the initiative when Michelle Obama became involved. Her aides say “it is the first time Mrs. Obama has thrown her support behind the work of a single company.” Mrs. Obama and her advisors met extensively with Wal-Mart in planning the program and also succeeded in getting the company to hold itself publicly accountable through monitoring by the outside non-profit organization, The Partnership for a Healthier America.
The plan has been criticized by some as not going far enough (for example, added sugars in sodas will not be reduced) or taking too long to fully implement, and no doubt the devil is in the details. Nonetheless, I can’t regard this development as anything but positive.
Kudos to Mrs. O and Wal-Mart for working to make healthier food more affordable and accessible for all Americans.
[Ed Update: Bri of Red, Round and Green posted this critique of Wal-Mart’s initiative here. You can see my thoughts in the comment section — take a look at Nestle’s post and let me know your thoughts, too.]
Bri says
Marion Nestle had an interesting post about this too: http://www.foodpolitics.com/2011/01/what-are-we-to-think-about-walmarts-healthy-food-initiatives/
bettina elias siegel says
Bri: Thanks very much for posting this. I agree with Nestle that the most promising initiative is the lower prices on healthier foods (although her point re: possible effects on small growers is a good one). I’m always less impressed with the nutritional “tweaking” of processed foods, as I’ve long maintained here in the school food context.
I know that Wal-Mart is not acting altruistically, and I know that there might be unintended harm stemming from its actions, but still — lower prices on healthier food at America’s largest retailer is, to me, a net gain.
Curious to hear what others think?
NotCinderell says
I’m with you, Bettina. Yes, they’re acting in self-interest, but the public still benefits. Win-win.
Em says
As I said on Marion Nestle’s site, I think there’s a huge potential for enormous harm to small farmers, and I think that’s also potentially far more damaging than beneficial. Small, sustainable, crop-diverse farmers are our only hope.
We think we’re food-secure as a nation, but if we continue to practice mono-cropping, as will remain necessary to feed monoliths like Walmart, our food supply is always in danger. The Irish potato famine happened because of mono-cropping. Bananas are dying because of mono-cropping. Heck, salmonella-tainted eggs happened because of what amounts to mono-cropping with chickens.
To me, there’s a much bigger issue than making vegetables cheaper, here.
Renee says
I think the point (in the comments on Food Politics) about self-regulation of the tobacco industry was a good one. I don’t trust large corporations to ever have good intentions –their only intention must be to increase their profit for share-holders. That is their only bottom line. I think Marion’s point about how these large corporations are basically trying to preempt federal regulations is really what’s going on here.
I believe that government is necessary and good –I want laws that protect public health, not smoke and mirrors from corporations.
Kim says
They’re Walmart for pity’s sake. I don’t trust ’em and likely never will after so many years of repeated egregious discriminitory employment practices. They employ the working poor and they’ve treated their own employees unfairly. Why should we think a company like that will give farmers a fair shake? Or change labeling for the benefit of its customers? I’m not impressed. Not one bit.
Viki says
Lets play a word association game.
Walmart…good intentions
trust….Walmart….altruistic….Walmart…Healthy Food….
I don’t know, it just isn’t working for me.
Just as I have a hard time with the government telling me or my kids what to eat, I have a hard time with Walmart having so much power . This just seems like another big business sticking it’s finger in the nutritional pie. Walmart will be hitting consumers with a multitude of packaged foods using their house label. Regional groceries do this too, but don’t have the power to change ingredients.
It really is a move to preempt coming federal regulations…those corporate lawyers are smart.
The threat to small farmers and Mom and Pop stores is bothering too. Like the big M seed company the big W steamrolls over the little guys with no remorse.
Kim says
Love your failed word association, Viki! Sooo funny and spot on.
jenna Food w/ Kid Appeal says
my first reaction to the nutrient changes was, low sugar and less trans fat is fine and good, but what about all the other bizarre factory made chemicals that are so abundant in processed food? will the new house label have less chemical additives too?
now if walmart said they would be reducing their middle of the aisle shelves by 20% and increasing their bulk food, produce, meat and cheese areas by the same, as well as making room in the produce section for local and/or sustainably grown food, i might be hopeful.
maybe walmart’s supply chain and logistics gurus can figure out a way to get real produce grown in healthy soil without chemicals in 30% more US grocery stores at reasonable prices.
bettina elias siegel says
All good points raised by you and previous commenters. I think I’m feeling another Wal-Mart post coming on . . . 🙂