Even if they do this in a small superficial way it will wake up other chain stores to the idea, and may change the trends away from local food production and eating seasonal foods.
This could be very good news indeed.

From the linked article: "Wal-Mart considers locally grown produce anything farmed within a state's boundaries." (emphasis added)

So does this mean that if the food is grown on a huge corporate mega-farm controlled by multinational agribusiness corporations that the food is still "local" as long as it's grown in the same state as the store that sells it? If so, that's not what locally grown food is all about. I would like to know how much of Wal-mart's "local" food comes from small family farms that have respect for the land, benefit the local economy and support rural communities. Selling "local" genetically-modified, Roundup-ready corn that's been sitting in one of Cargill's storage facilities for half a year isn't going to do a lot of good.

=== authors' response follows ===

My sense of the article (not having read a WM press release) is that this is about fresh produce and not so much about grain or processed foods made from the grain co-products.

John Laumer: I appreciate your response to my comment. This topic deserves more investigation. One of the Wal-mart press releases on this subject tells about how it buys its onions in Georgia from "onion farmer Delbert Bland" whose "family farm" has been in operation since the 1940's.

Sounds nice doesn't it? Now, check out the New York Times Article stating: "For the 1998 crop, Bland Farms planted 2,600 acres in onions, more than twice as much as any local competitor and almost a fifth of the entire Georgia crop . . . The company mails two million catalogues a year, through which it sells not only onions but also baked goods, relishes and salsas and other onion products. In dollar volume, it is second only to the Northwest giant Ore-Ida in supermarket sales of frozen onion rings. With 125 full-time employees and 1,200 or so seasonal helpers, Bland Farms will gross something in the neighborhood of $30 million in 1998 . . . ."

Does this sound like a small, family farm to you? I do think Wal-mart gets some credit from not getting its onions from China, but supporting large, mega-farms that happened to be "family owned" in name only isn't the same as supporting small, family farmers who use ecologically sound farming practices. Transportation is a very small part of the overall ecological footprint of food. Corporate control of the food system is not a good thing, even if the mega-farm is technically local.

I do believe that it's possible for Wal-mart to do good things, but I think we need to view its actions with a critical eye and realize that its real motive is making money.

Of course Walmart is the largest purchaser of local produce, in the same way that Starbucks is the largest purchaser of fair trade coffee. This claim is simply bending the statistics.

I have to agree with Uncle Mike. Even if Wal-Mart does the mega-corporate version of supporting local suppliers, it's a move in the right direction.

We also have to realize that a company that size can't profitably deal with hundreds of small family businesses. They will have to strike a balance and find local producers who can supply the volume they require. Making deliveries to a Wal-Mart distribution center - one pickup truck load at a time - isn't going to work.

Anything that supports local fresh produce, particularly if it includes regional and heirloom varieties, is a good thing. Let's hope Wal-Mart turns this idea into a profitable venture that can bring us good food from good people.

"We also have to realize that a company that size can't profitably deal with hundreds of small family businesses."

I think that's a good point. Large corporations aren't in the best position to supply sustainably produced food from small family farms. Case in point: Organic Valley’s insistence on higher prices for its farmers led to the removal of the cooperative’s organic milk products from Wal-Mart in 2004. You can't squeeze enough of a profit out of the little guys to "roll back prices" to dirt cheap levels.

So we have to decide whether we want to pay a little more and support truly local, sustainable agriculture -- or whether we want to give our money to a giant retailer who is buying produce from "local" conventional mega-farms to save money on shipping costs. My money's going to the farmer's market and CSA, but people are free to choose. Just don't think that buying something locally from Wal-mart is the same as buying it locally from someone who cares about the environment and people more than profits.

This is just smart business as fuel costs go up. By produce "locally" to minimize shipping to the distribution warehouse. Then put the said produce on trucks with a lot of other materials and ship all over the country. This is just a good side effect of rising fuel prices.

Um, duh! When your business is literally everywhere in this country, they will call everything local. I wonder how many farms are outside of a 100 or 250 mile radius from a Walmart store, distribution center, shipping partner, etc.

What's with those watermelons?

== author's response follows ===
Grown inside a removable box.

I have no interest in dealing with Walmart, and thier beat the price down every possible cent way of doing business, besides the fact that there is no way I could supply what they need at even one of thier big boxes, but if they do something, other businesses take a look and follow suit.

I may be too small for Walmart but It would be nice to be able to sell hot house tomatoes to the 3 or 4 small stores around me. I think importing them from Canada to Clark County Washington is idiotic.

==== author's response follows ====
This sets up an opportunity for small farmers to form distribution coops that can contract with sellers on their behalf ... similar to dairy industry coops.

I love this website except for the endless "articles" about how Wal-Mart is "going green" (making green, at the expense of everyone, and everything). Cut it out, please. How obvious can you get about the special deals Wal-Mart must be giving Treehugger to write about them? Gross.

Why are there so very many articles about Walmart on TH, most of them positive?

==== author's response follows ===
Speaking only for myself here: I post about specific WM activities when I see evidence that these actions are driving significant, transformational change.

Whether our readers like or dislike the direction of those changes is up to them: I try not to offer too many opinions.

O my gosh,
Do you people still belive in this...?,
this is insane for the people who really cares about the environment and sustainability, tree hugger is now in charge of the marketing of wallmart?, where are the values of TH?

i'm not ally of wm.
but what's really gross is when th readers get all uppity and so worried about the latest anti-X fad that they can't see progress when it's right in front of them. whether you like walmart or not, they are making good steps. get over yourselves.
what do you care about more? being pro-green or anti-walmart?

Thank you Ron!
Geesh People! I maybe would have had a problem with "Posers" in High School, but when you have a global power like WM bringing recognition to the Green Initiative, just be thankful! Every time I see a supermodel or a Hollywood celebrity carrying a canvas bag with a catchy green slogan on it, I don’t care if they are doing it as part of the growing green fad or because they’re really eco-conscious. I am just happy because I know that hundreds, if not thousands of people will be inspired or influenced by that famous person’s new “awareness”. They’ll want canvas of their own, they’ll look into Hybrids or buy local organic produce… Does it matter if they are doing it because it’s cool? No, it has the same effect on our Environment! I don’t care whether WM is becoming green because they’re really eco-conscious or because they know that it will drive sales, I just care that somehow, someway – it is going to help the overall big picture. If you really care, start looking at that big picture and get out of the High School mentality that some of you seem stuck in.

my pleasure:)

it seemed like a lot of the anti-wm comments came from the same person too.

you're right -- who cares why? if wm and other companies go green, the planet is a step closer to being saved. isn't that what we all care about?

:^)

Mind my context* Im speaking from knowledge of Fresh Produce NOT any kind of live animal production.

I'd be interested to see these "Test Tube Pesticide Laden Mega Farms" - A few posts up have discredited a family owned farm based on its size. The reason for its Large size is because it has built its business through successful practices.

A larger farming operation is going to be the most responsible for its practices because they have the means to do so. They have the money to spend on not cutting corners and growing the fruit or vegetables right.

it amazes me the perception that "locally grown" or smaller farming operations are viewed as caring about the environment more.

In order for a grower to get their food to the market place the have to grow it then sell it to a packer and shipper who then sell it to a Wal-Mart or Grocery Chain. There are local and federal standards that the food must meet before it can safely be transported and sold to a consumer.

A Famers market type grower who sell their fruit independently does not have to put his product through any standards. There is no checks and balances that that grower has to go through to deem the product as safe for people to consume. There is no accountability.

From a food safety standpoint a Larger farming operation - if there is a problem with a piece of food they grow - can trace the product right back to the plot and in some cases the tree where the defect came from. Something an independent pure grower can't do.

The days of DDT Are over - most growers large and small use ECO friendly practices. Much of the illnesses that can be associated with produce comes from after harvest handling, not from genetically modifying the food.

A theme flowing through the discussion is that profits and sensitivity to small business and the environment are mutually exclusive.

Money has always been traded for something of value...in this case, the large corporation trades theirs for the advantage of sourcing a product locally.

Calculated over time, the environmental and economic impact is massive. It's a "win-win-win" situation for all parties - producer, distrubutor and consumer.

Making money is not inherently evil and if more environmentalists would embrace this idea we would move at more than a glacial pace towards reform.

Just my two cents....