Wal-Mart’s Opposition to Country of Origin Labeling--and what we are doing about it

Wal-Mart has long been opposed to mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for food products--the law which was passed and requires grocers to inform consumers where the meat they buy for their families is coming from. For a company that proclaims to help people “live better lives”, isn’t this a bit hypocritical? That’s why we’re running radio ads to inform the public about Wal-Mart once again saying one thing while doing another.

Wal-Mart used to proclaim to be an All-American company, one which sourced products from the United States. Now, not only do they fail to source meat from American farmers, the company won’t even tell shoppers where the products they are eating come from. Wal-Mart should drop its opposition to Country of Origin Labeling, tell consumers where the meat they are buying is raised, and use its market power to be a force for positive change. Until they do, Wal-Mart is guilty of saying one thing and doing another--this time at the expense of consumers and American family farmers.

Listen to the ad and check out our page on Wal-Mart’s opposition to COOL.

Posted by Enviro. Team on Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Click Here for a Printer-Friendly Version

COMMENTS

Wal-Mart is not interested in being a force for positive change. The only thing they are interested in is the bottom line--profits. And next to “profits” we should add
“stockholders.” If anybody thinks they really care about their customers and saving them money, well, they don’t. This is business plain and simple. Profits and stockholders are the only thing they really care about. Keep in mind, though, that NOBODY gets this big without having problems, and Wal-Mart certainly has had its share lately!

Jane in N.Y. in
Thursday, April 05 at 08:40 AM

I’ll start this one with…

“So, what?”

The article/ad campaign reads as if Wal-Mart is single-handedly out to destroy the American farmer, which, in my opinion, is typical WMW playbook fare (and a sign of desperation on WMW’s part, as they are running out of groups to woo).

“If” WM was to get in the business of importing certain food products, I say go for it, so long as WM’s offerings meet USDA standards (which all consumables entering the U.S. from foreign ports are supposed to be doing, anyway).

Pet food is obviously, another story, and one that both the pet food industry (e.g., Nestle Purina, and others) and the USDA need to work-together on (though I am certain sooner or later the usual finger-pointing at WM will happen).

As for those American farmers that were mentioned, I suspect they are going to be plenty busy, this year with corn crops that will be ultimately go to your local E85 pumps.

Jim Bunch in
Thursday, April 05 at 08:42 AM

See, Jim, I too get deleted.... :o)

Ken V in Texas
Thursday, April 05 at 09:10 AM

I don’t eat meat, but I am concerned about where the other food comes from. I do my damnedest to buy food that is locally grown and I haven’t stepped foot in a WalMart in years. The ones in our community pay sewerage rates based on their small number of sinks and toilets while the runoff from their big boxes pollutes our watershed (and yours), the workers are poorly paid and treated and the tax business, well… that was all too much for me. I vote with my dollars elsewhere. Local farmers, organic from locally owned grocers and free trade after that.
I even buy my CFCs from a local hardware store. So there WalMart. No love lost, I’m sure.
Further reading: The Home Town Advantage, The Future of Food, The Botany of Desire and The Omnivore’s Dilemma.
Like Thomas Friedman says in the recent NYTimes article, we’re going to have to be flexible and innovative to achieve the Chindia prices globally in this pending green revolution. WalMart is not the only offender, but in a free market economy, I’ll chose other markets for my shopping, thank you.

Susan in Cleveland, Ohio
Monday, April 16 at 02:08 PM

Commenting is not available in this content entry.