I know lots of people who do it, though none of them would admit it or even see it.
The thing about privilege is that it is very hard to recognize our own. And I am not talking about ‘attaining status’ but rather about displaying status.
Honest question: When you serve a salad to your friends, or any food, do you make a point of mentioning that all or some of it is organic? Do they? We demonstrate our privilege to each other in subtle ways that include demonstrating our belonging in a group.
That doesn’t make it bad, but it does make it a symbol of status rather than a neutral statement. And it also makes it a way of differentiating ourselves from ‘others’ who don’t or can’t buy organic because it is too expensive.
Again, my point is that Walmart, the largest purchaser of farm products in the US, shifting to organic is not a bad thing. People who choose to, or must, shop at that store will only benefit from access to affordable organic food. Workers on farms that produce that organic food will not be exposed to the toxic chemicals that they might have. Watersheds and soil will not be poisoned, on a large scale (given the size of Walmart). That is all separate from the other issues inherent in Walmart - which are huge, real and a significant problem for all of us.
I just can’t see that as a bad thing - once you remove any unconscious perception of status from the production and consumption of organic food.
No, unless someone asks. And my friends don’t either. I’m more likely to cover it up, actually, because I also interact with a lot of people who consider organic food a silly or overly fussy waste of money. I’m not out to show off to them, nor to convert them to my ways. I do recognize that as with any expensive realm of products, some people consume organics that way, but I don’t, and again, I don’t know anyone else who does.
Interesting concepts, and I’m sure they apply to some consumers of organic food, but again, surely not to all. You’re ignoring a huge swath of consumers who have other interests and concerns – political, social, ecological, and environmental ones, for starters.
As for privilege, yes, organic is more expensive on the consumer end (though not in larger terms, which is a different conversation), but that doesn’t mean only those with high financial privilege (i.e., more money) buy it, nor that a diet that includes organic food necessarily ends up costing a person more overall. After all, many who buy little or no organic food also buy a lot of processed food and drink, frozen dinners, fast food, and so on, all of which can be more expensive than food made from fresh ingredients that include organic.
I get your point that organic food is another self-conscious marker of status for some consumers, but again, I also know many people (including myself) who have no interest in using it to lord over others. We’re disgusted by Wal-Mart, but not because “lower class” people shop there – it’s because the corporation itself is run by greedy fucks, whose actions are ruinous in all the ways you’re probably familiar with.
Granted, at an ostensible level, but you seem to trust Wal-Mart as a corporate entity a lot more than I do. Again, they have a way of ruining or at least degrading most of what they touch.
I have little doubt that “organic” will mean something far different there from what it means at my local co op, where local food, fair labor practices, lowest-possible prices (though yes, higher than non-organic), and actually “organic” food, raised in actually (or at least relatively) environmentally harmless ways, comes along with the word.
You seem fixated on status issues, while my friends (or tribe, in these terms) and I have other concerns, ones summed up in part by chgoliz’s words above: “I wouldn’t put it past the Waltons to lobby/pay for new regulations watering down the definition of organic.” Kind of like “free-range” chickens, which as I understand can now mean that the term can apply in cases where tens of thousands of enclosed chickens compete for space in a tiny, few-square-foot outdoor enclosure – most of them don’t even go out there.
Also, Wal-Mart’s well-known effect of killing smaller businesses, such as local farms in this case, is already in effect:
If expanding the organics market is good for the planet, why are many people skeptical of Wal-Mart’s plans? Stroll down Wal-Mart’s grocery aisles and a few organic brand names pop out. Horizon Organic, a subsidiary of the $10.5 billion conglomerate Dean Foods, provides much of the milk. Wal-Mart’s private-label milk comes from Aurora Organic Dairy, which raises its cows on large corporate farms with minimal access to pasture. Many of the vegetables come from Earthbound Farm, a 30,000-acre behemoth. In his book Organic, Inc., journalist Samuel Fromartz documents how Earthbound’s growth has put smaller farms out of business. . . .some scientists believe that as organic farming upsizes, many of its benefits diminish or even disappear. “For honest, uncompromising organic crops and dairy, you really need a scale that one farmer can comprehend,” says Rutgers University conservation biologist David Ehrenfeld. Wal-Mart’s leading vendors, by contrast, operate on a scale that can only be described as industrial.
I get your points, though I am not sure it is actually mathematically possible to feed 7 billion people organically from small farms - at least until/unless we are willing to return to spending >50% of our income on food. On top of that, most organic fertilizer is manure, which requires cattle - and I don’t think there are enough cows in the world (nor should there be) for that scale.
Size of an operation is not inherently a bad thing. Efficiency in production is largely why we are all living lives of relative luxury compared to our ancestors. ‘Honest, uncompromising organic crops’ are nice, but not actually applicable on the global scale.
I find myself in a weird position of defending Walmart, which I definitely am not doing. I just don’t think them selling organic food is a cause for outrage, rather a step in the right direction. Walmart absolutely has some major issues - though they would have zero success if it wasn’t for all the people who shop there.
You claim you “get my points,” but on the other hand respond as if you didn’t read them. Again, you seem to trust Wal-Mart more than I do. For me, any step it takes in any direction deserves close scrutiny, because nearly all of its steps have been self-serving and destructive. There are many ways this step in question could be the same, and indeed, has already been the same. As Michael Pollan wrote back in 2006, when Wal-Mart first announced its entry into organic food sales (and speaking of, as you just did, of sustainability),
When Wal-Mart announced its plan to offer consumers a wide selection of organic foods, the company claimed it would keep the price premium for organic to no more than 10 percent. This in itself is grounds for concern — in my view, it virtually guarantees that Wal-Mart’s version of cheap, industrialized organic food will not be sustainable in any meaningful sense of the word . . . . Cheap industrial food, the organic movement has argued, only seems cheap, because the real costs are charged to the environment (in the form of water and air pollution and depletion of the soil); to the public purse (in the form of subsidies to conventional commodity producers); and to the public health (in the cost of diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease), not to mention to the welfare of the farm- and food-factory workers and the well-being of the animals. As Wendell Berry once wrote, the motto of our conventional food system — at the center of which stands Wal-Mart, the biggest grocer in America — should be: Cheap at Any Price!
As for feeding 7 billion people in ways that avoid the ravages and greedy rapaciousness of industrialized agriculture, I’ll let you do your own research on that. Many have proven that it can be done in many ways, and that the ultimately self-serving efficiency offered by U.S. conglomerates comes at many costs, not to mention that of limiting access for many to relatively tasteless and nutrition-free food. Those problems won’t change as Wal-Mart and other mega-businesses see more and more opportunities for $$ in peddling “organic” food.
E-commerce is beyond my grandmother’s internet skills. Also, it’s not exactly ideal for things that you need to actually interact with in person before buying (such as clothes), things that you need immediately (such as shoelaces), for things that can’t be shipped any distance (such as fresh groceries), for anything that you have questions about or need assistance with, etc. In other words, there are still plenty of gaps it fails to fill.
Oh, come on, I know you two regularly stick up for things moss of the BB peanut gallery find disagreeable, and hold your own doing so (shit, I’ve seen you be right to do so), but Walmart? Seriously? Howay, lads.
I’m not that impressed with Waitrose, TBH. I’ve got Newcastle’s Grainger Mkt right next door to Waitrose though, so I’m lucky. Does 'the_borderer mean you’re Northern England, West-Side, and you’ve got a Booths near you? Pisses all over every other supermarket if you can stomach Waitrose-level prices. All local suppliers too. Man, I love Booths. Nice Things from the Lovely Shop. Mmmmm.
I used to live in Carlisle, but I moved to Oxford ten years ago because of some local nastiness.
On my local bus route within walking distance, there is a Waitrose, a Co-op, an Iceland, a little Morrisons, the covered market and 3 little Sainsburys. No Tesco though, somehow.
I don’t see the reasoning for them doing that. Seems like a waste of money on their part. If you changed the rules to make organic food cheaper, then you would change the rules for everyone, which would also help your competition.
All I know is i eat a Marie Callendar meal for lunch everyday. The local stores sell them for $4 a piece. Walmart was selling them for $2.50. For the past month they have been only $2. They have cornered the Marie Callendar market for me.
Oh I agree. But I highly doubt there is only one type. Just not the type she wanted. Which ever “exotic” type that may be. Last time I bought a shoe string for my kid there was a small rack by the shoes with at least a dozen styles/sizes with shoe polish and cleaner.
Your grandmother has one pair of shoes and can’t wait a day for shoelaces to deliver? And you should help her set up one-click ordering, as that should fall within her internet ken. People have been buying clothes mail-order for a long time, and with generous return policies you can buy multiple sizes and return the ones that don’t fit (often for free).
And if her Walmart doesn’t also sell fresh produce I have difficulty believing it has displaced local grocery stores.
And back in the old, pre-Walmart days you can bet that there were still a lot of gaps in what could or could not be bought locally.
The fact remains, even if my grandmother was comfortable with e-commerice (which she isn’t and one-click isn’t going to help) Amazon isn’t a good place to buy lots of things - again, if you need assistance, if you can’t wait, etc. and their prices are pretty high for a lot of things, not counting shipping. Walmart has also driven out businesses that offer various services, not just retail. So Amazon doesn’t remotely help at all there. Walmart does sell fresh produce, but again, the selection is lacking. The gaps created by Walmart, which prevents any sort of competition from existing, are of a totally different sort than what existed before.
How does Wal-mart drive out services that they don’t offer, and which they don’t compete over?
It’s true that Wal-mart has changed things. It’s also true that Wal-mart is cheaper than the stores it displaces, otherwise they wouldn’t have been displaced. People like your grandmother who aren’t comfortable with Amazon (which is apparently expensive and lacks free shipping, now) might not get much benefit from those savings if they have to drive 60 miles for their daily shoelaces, but there are lots of people in the community who do benefit from the lower prices. Things change, and people, like businesses, have to adapt. If people truly preferred things the way they were before Wal-mart moved in, Wal-mart never would have succeeded in displacing those small businesses.
