Last week, Wal-Mart announced a new commitment to "go local" and source more locally-grown fruits and vegetables. Where did this come from? Is Wal-Mart's announcement a signal that the global food economy is undergoing a major shift toward local - or just opportunistic corporate marketing? Or maybe a little of both?
First, let's strip away the spin from Wal-Mart's press release explaining the decision to go local. The company touts the positive economic impact of its local food purchasing for local economies. But as Stacy Mitchell writes in the Big Box Swindle, the Wal-Mart model doesn't much care about local community economic development. Wal-Mart claims benefits for local farmers, but the company has a dubious record of squeezing every last cent out of suppliers around the globe. It's reasonable to assume that paying family farmers a fair price isn't at the top of Wal-Mart's list of priorities. The Ethicurean writes about other reasons to be skeptical of Wal-Mart's motives. (Last month, IATP signed onto "Consensus Standards" for the Big Box economy to challenge companies like Wal-Mart to do better on labor, environmental and community rights, and improve purchasing practices.)
In setting the pr aside, we find Wal-Mart's emphasis on reducing "food miles." While this is couched as an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - we are also told it is part of the company's effort to "cut shipping costs" in order to "keep produce prices down." Put simply, this new commitment to buy local food is about saving transportation costs in light of rapidly rising oil prices.
Over the last several years, IATP and others like Bill McKibbon have trumpeted the benefits of local food systems for the environment, farmers and rural communities and public health. But the case in immediate, narrow economic terms that a local food system is cheaper for consumers has been tenuous. Maybe Wal-Mart, in these days of $140 a barrel oil, is starting to make that case.
