On the Wal-Mart watch: Slate.com wondered "Is Whole Foods Wholesome," in a March 17 posting by The New Yorker's Field Maloney which found a left-wing use for Wal-Mart's constant evolution and innovation to capitalize on market trends and expand revenue. Maloney argued that if not for Wal-Mart's entry into selling organic groceries, "poor" Americans will be doomed by obesity-inducing non-organic, highly-processed foods while "rich" Americans might well shop at boutique organic outlets like Whole Foods.
The organic-food movement is in danger of exacerbating the growing gap between rich and poor in this country by contributing to a two-tiered national food supply, with healthy food for the rich. Could Wal-Mart's populist strategy prove to be more "sustainable" than Whole Foods? Stranger things have happened.
And here I thought Wal-Mart was good for nothing but keeping prices low, giving millions of people worldwide steady jobs, donating millions in Hurricane Katrina relief, being a solid return on investment for shareholders, and leading a highly competitive national retail industry.
Maloney first pointed to some inconsistencies and quandaries a good liberal might find himself facing with Whole Foods produce:
Let's say you live in
New York City/>/> and want to buy a pound of tomatoes in season. Say you can choose between conventionally grown New Jersey/> tomatoes or organic ones grown in Chile/>/>. Of course, the New Jersey/>/> tomatoes will be cheaper. They will also almost certainly be fresher, having traveled a fraction of the distance. But which is the more eco-conscious choice? In terms of energy savings, there's no contest: Just think of the fossil fuels expended getting those organic tomatoes from Chile/>/>. Which brings us to the question: Setting aside freshness, price, and energy conservation, should a New Yorker just instinctively choose organic, even if the produce comes from Chile/>/>?
