This week’s post has no real theme. I was looking around for something big to write about, and all I found were these factoids. Well, they’re a little most substantial than factoids, but not much. So without further ado, I present: the mixed bag.
First I want to provide a little update to last week’s post on Walmart. I received no negative comments, but what’s more apropos, I got no comments of any nature. This makes it difficult to calculate percentages (division by zero is frowned upon by my fellow Pythagoreans). Grist has an interesting article on the recent supportive press Walmart has gotten. The author wants us to remember that Walmart as an organization has created much of the ruin they are now getting laurels for trying to fix. While it is probably difficult to trace the numbers back to their source, the article points out that the rise of Walmart has been paralleled by the dramatic increase in miles driven by the average American. Perhaps one of the most interesting points in the article was about the effect Walmart has had on the life expectancy of our household products. Walmart is an aggressive business partner. That’s why everything they sell is so cheap. The power Walmart has at the bargaining table is unrivaled. To submit the lowest bid or to meet Walmart’s price demands, suppliers change their processes and materials. These changes are not benign. While your toaster is now only ten bucks, it only lasts six months. Your jeans are 15 dollars, but they won’t live to see the next year. Iron desk fans from the 40’s are still spinning. The clip-on polystyrene fan from Walmart will keep you cool this summer. Only this summer. Alright, enough examples. There’s more in the article, check it out if you’re interested.
Now for a bit of popular history. Meryl Streep has apparently been a major advocate for sustainable foods. She was a champion of local and organic foods before those categories even had proper names. I did not see Ms. Streep’s latest film, but it is not her latest engagement with the Julia Child character. Streep reached out to Child to help her fight the industrial agriculture lobby. To Meryl’s surprise, Julia was not interested in helping, and became incensed. In any event, this isn’t a juicy Hollywood gossip column. I just thought is was funny. Check out the details of Meryl Streep’s work here. It’s pretty interesting. Of course, the fact that a three-time academy award winner has the leisure time and money to think about and pay for good food may not say terrible much about average Jane. That’s another conversation.
Shifting gears again, what do you think is a more effective way to get people to buy healthy foods, a subsidy or a tax on junk food? According to a new study out of The University of Buffalo, taxing is the way to go. Check out the link for some details on the study. My first thought is, what are the social justice implications? Junk food is cheap, and taxing it certainly disincentives it, but what of the population that buys junk food because that is the only category of food that they can afford? American’s spend a fraction of what European’s spend on food, but that’s small consolation to someone working paycheck to paycheck for food and rent. Disregarding economic efficiency, it is a social imperative to offer affordable food. If we choose to tax junk food, we need to offer an affordable healthy alternative. Two last remarks: 1) I don’t think anything I’ve said is startling. 2) Junk food is a poorly defined category; I use the term for lack of a more precise term.
Topic the next: Starbucks Fair Trade. I’ve written a little about Starbucks before, but it was a while ago, so I feel justified in writing on this topic again. Last time I wrote, Starbucks was the world’s largest buyer of Fair Trade coffee. Not surprisingly, that is still the case. Treehugger has an little article about their relationships with Fair Trade suppliers. There’s nothing that really knocks my socks off in this article, but it seems in line with my post last week. In the 50’s it was the communists (reds). In the 80’s it was IBM (blues). In a galaxy far far away it was the dark side. These days it’s fear itself. There is always a menace, some other we need to fight against and fear. Even the people who resist the popular other have their dark specters. Perhaps the danger is exaggerated sometimes. Walmart and Starbucks may have a bright side. Seeing shades of gray is an energy-intensive activity.
Okay, enough philosophy. I’ll end on a lighter note. Check out this egg cracker. What do you think? Need one? I love how these product commercials always make the most mundane tasks seem intractably difficult. Cracking eggs is more difficult than watching TV (the gold standard), but it’s really not something that requires that much effort. More than that, though, cracking eggs is kind of fun. Every try two at once? That’s a party. A part of me wants to try the EZCracker. It’s the same part of me that wanted to press all the buttons on the remote when I was a toddler. The same part that wanted to touch the walls of my Aunt’s house when I walked down the hall (a sin punishable by death). These products prey on that primal interest in gadgets, that tactile glee we all enjoy. They don’t solve problems (at least not serious ones). It’s just more junk.