Search results: walmart

I’ve been asked to comment on Amazon’s proposal to buy Whole Foods.  So much has been written about it that it’s hard to add anything new.

My immediate thoughts:

• Monopoly capitalism in action
• Amazon owns everything
• This won’t help feed the poor

The facts: Amazon offered $13.7 billion to buy Whole Foods.  This may seem like a lot of money but it’s just 3% of Amazon’s $470 billion holdings.

How did this happen?

• Whole Foods CEO calls it “love at first sight” and a “whirlwind courtship.”
• But the marriage depends on approval by anti-trust regulators.

What are the implications?

Effect on retailers: Their stocks dropped immediately.  Amazon is serious competition.

Disruption: This may be a major disruption to grocers, but this industry may have had it coming.

Organics: Whole Foods specializes in organics; producers already cannot keep up with demand.  Farmers will have to grow more, but if Amazon imports organics that will open up possibilities for fraud.

E-commerce: this could increase the value of physical stores if done right, as well as online grocery shopping.

Food chains: Amazon on top.

 “Conscious capitalism”: The end

Maybe, feeding the world (says Alice Waters)

Better food for all?  Civil Eats considers this question, but asks will this do what Walmart does—force lower wages for workers and lower prices for farmers. 

Humor: Alexa: tell me some jokes about Whole Foods’s prices, drones, and Amazon’s ruling the world.

Advocates have been pressing USDA for years to (1) get data on what SNAP recipients buy with their benefits, and (2) permit pilot studies of what happens to purchases of soft drinks if you exclude them from the benefit package.

In 2012, I did a post on the 2012 SNAP to Health report.  Its recommendations:

1.  Protect SNAP benefits.
2.  Collect data

Lots of people have been trying to get USDA to produce data.  Anahad O’Connor, the author of the New York Times account, filed a Freedom of Information request with USDA.  In response, USDA sent him a report it had commissioned from IMPAQ, a “beltway bandit” consulting firm.  His story is here (I’m quoted).

Now we have a partial answer.  IMPAQ analyzed data from one large, unnamed retailer (could it be Walmart?).

Here’s USDA’s summary of the study (and here’s the complete study).

The USDA says the study shows that SNAP recipients buy pretty much the same amounts of what everyone else buys.

Summary category data show that both SNAP and non-SNAP households focused their spending in a relatively small number of similar food item categories, reflecting similar food choices. The top five summary categories totaled about half of the expenditures for SNAP households and non-SNAP households (50 versus 47 percent). Commodity-level data (in the full report) show that both SNAP and non-SNAP households made choices that may not be fully consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

My reading of the report suggests that in this study, SNAP recipients spent more of a combination of their SNAP benefits and their own private money on:

• Sugar-sweetened beverages
• Hamburger
• Frozen meals
• Salty snacks
• Lunch meats
• Flavored milk
• Kids cereals
• Frozen French fries
• Convenience foods in general
• Infant formula

The report does not discuss why these differences might exist but it would be interesting to find out.

If sugar-sweetened beverages really comprise 9.5% of purchases, that comes to $6 billion a year.

That’s why taking them off the list of eligible foods is worth a try.

Recent SNAP news

The USDA is sponsoring a pilot project to allow SNAP participants to buy foods online from certain retailers, including Amazon in three states, Fresh Direct in New York, and various grocery chains in other states.

The idea is to make it easier for SNAP participants to get access to healthier foods.

I hope the USDA is keeping score on what gets bought online, and whether foods cost more.  The benefits are not allowed to be used for delivery costs.

Yesterday, the FDA opened for public comment its long-awaited guidance for industry about reducing salt in processed food products.  The guidance affects about 150 products.  It gives baseline data for those products and sets targets for salt reduction.

Please note that I am using the word salt, not sodium.  The targets are for sodium reduction.  Most dietary sodium comes from salt added to processed foods and pre-prepared foods.  Salt is 40% sodium.  The target dietary intake of 2300 mg sodium comes to just under 6 grams of salt a day, which is not particularly low.  It is, however, lower than current intake levels.

In a blog post, FDA official Susan Mayne said the link between sodium intake and blood pressure is “strong and well documented,” but

In fact, it’s very difficult in the current marketplace NOT to consume too much sodium. The average intake today is over 3,400 milligrams—significantly more than the 2,300 milligram limit recommended by federal guidelines. And it’s not just adults who are eating too much sodium: Children and teens consume more than is recommended.

Vox, for example, provides a terrific chart on the amounts of sodium in foods.  It starts with this:

Susan Mayne goes on to explain that

the FDA assessed the sodium content of thousands of products in the marketplace and engaged with experts in industry, academia, and government to get the best available scientific and technical input. We know that sodium has important functions in many foods, such as taste, texture, and microbial safety… Our approach encourages gradually reducing sodium in the majority of foods that contain it…Moreover, our draft targets apply to processed and prepared foods that are eaten both at home and outside the home.

Despite the voluntary nature of the guidance and the lengthy timeline (up to ten years) for implementation, the makers of processed foods are sure to object.  At their urging, the House committee on appropriations, in draft report language, urged the FDA to postpone guidance on salt until the CDC and Institute of Medicine update the Dietary Reference Intake standards for sodium intake.

The Salt Institute, the trade association for the salt industry, issued a press release charging malpractice:

The issuance today of new “voluntary” sodium reduction mandates by the FDA is tantamount to malpractice and inexcusable in the face of years of scientific evidence showing that population-wide sodium reduction strategies are unnecessary and could be harmful. This effort will limit the food choices of Americans, not increase them as the FDA claims. It will make our food less safe and endanger public health.

In JAMA, CDC Director Thomas Frieden rebuts the scientific arguments point by point and, in my view, demolishes them.  He explains how important this initiative is to public health:

Thirty-nine countries have established sodium targets for foods and meals, with 36 of those adopting voluntary approaches. Setting targets helps create a level playing field for the food industry, supporting reductions already begun by companies such as Walmart, Darden, Unilever, PespsiCo, General Mills, Mars, Nestlé, and others. The United Kingdom set voluntary sodium reduction targets in 2003; from 2003 to 2011 sodium intake decreased 15%. During this same period, average blood pressure decreased, and, following no change in prior years, deaths from ischemic heart disease and stroke decreased by approximately 40% [the reference for this last statement is BMJ Open. 2014;4(4):e004549].

Most people would be healthier cutting down on salt intake.  Food company executives know this.  Politico Morning Agriculture points out that some Big Food companies have joined the public health community in supporting the FDA’s proposal.

The band of strange bedfellows – the American Heart Association, Mars, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Nestlé, PepsiCo, American Public Health Association, Unilever and the Center for Science in the Public Interest – all signed on to a letter last month to Senate Appropriations ag subcommittee Chairman Jerry Moran and ranking member Jeff Merkley to support the FDA on sodium. Find that here.

From a public health perspective, the FDA initiative is a step in the right direction but could go further.  It should have required mandatory salt reduction.  Judging from the Salt Institute’s reaction, this is still a big step.  The New York Times quotes Michael Jacobson:

“The F.D.A. found a sweet spot between doing nothing and regulating…This will at least give the public benchmarks against which we can gauge sodium content of foods.”

FDA resources:  

• Federal Register Notice.  The home page explains how to submit comments by October 31 to Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0055
• Draft Guidance Document in PDF (132KB)
• Draft Food Categories and Draft Voluntary Targets for Sodium Reduction (Appendix Table 1) (XLSX: 43KB)
• Summary Explanation of the Draft Food Categories and Draft Voluntary Targets for Sodium Reduction (Appendix Table 1) (PDF: 277KB)
• Sodium Reduction At A Glance
• Presentation: FDA’s Voluntary Sodium Reduction Initiative (PPTX 3MB) 
• Constituent Update: FDA Issues Draft Guidance to Industry for Voluntarily Reducing Sodium
• Blog: Reducing Sodium in the Food Supply
• At a Glance: Lowering Sodium in the Food Supply
• Frequently Asked Questions on FDA’s Sodium Reduction Strategy
• Additional Information and History of Actions on Sodium Reduction

Philip H. Howard. Concentration and Power in the Food System: Who Controls What We Eat?  Bloomsbury, 2016.

I don’t know Philip Howard personally but I have long appreciated his graphic visualizations of the extent of concentration—only a few companies owning fast percentages of the market—in various industries:

• Organic Processing Industry Structure, January 2016

• Global Seed Industry Structure, 1996 to 2013

• Concentration in the U.S. Wine Industry, December 2012

This brief book summarizes his work in developing these graphics and makes it clear why he thinks industrial concentration is a problem for American democracy.   Without competition, these companies get away with doing whatever they want.  He gives a few examples:

Walmart, which controls 33 percent of US grocery retailing, is challenged for exploiting its suppliers, taking advantage of taxpayer subsidies, and paying extremely low worker wages…Monsanto, which controls 26 percent of the global commercial seed market, is denounced for its influence on government polocies, spying on farmers it suspects of saving and replanting seeds, and the environmental impacts of herbicides tied to these seeds.  These impacts tend to disproportionately affect the disadvantaged—such as women, young children, recent immigrants, members of minority ethnic groups, and those of lower socioeconomic status—and as a result, reinforce existing inequalities…Like ownership relations, the full extent of these consequences may be hidden from public view.

Howard’s solution?  The food movement!

Joining these movements and supporting the alternatives created by others could therefore be essential to maintaining our ability to feed ourselves in the future.

The book is fun to read (“seed-industrial complex”) and, obviously, well illustrated.  If you want to know how current-day food markets really work, this is the place to start.

If you are a maker of processed foods, and have exhausted low-carb and low-fat marketing options, all you have left is proteins—the hot new marketing tool.  Protein-supplemented products are all over supermarket shelves.  Never mind that most Americans get twice the protein required, and that even vegans can easily meet and exceed protein requirements.

As FoodNavigator-USA puts it, “manufacturers are now competing to impress shoppers with how much they can pack into bars, beverages and yogurts. In this FoodNavigator-USA special edition we’ll look at what protein options are available for formulators, from new insect and algal-based proteins to pea, soy, and dairy-based proteins.”

• Protein water hits the mainstream as Protein2o rolls out at Walmart: Protein2o – a rapidly-growing line of flavored waters infused with electrolytes and 15g of protein – is rolling out to 750 Walmart stores this month, says the firm, which is targeting consumers that are looking for more refreshing beverages that pack in a meaningful amount of protein, without the calories… Read
• Flapjacked meets demand for more protein with easy-to-make pancake and muffin mixes: High protein, easy-to-eat foods are no longer limited to bars and shakes – now they can also be found in familiar baked goods that appeal to carb-loving consumers, thanks to companies like Flapjacked. .. Watch now
• fairlife: ‘We’re responsible for a large portion of the growth in the value-added dairy category‘: Coca-Cola-backed high-protein milk brand fairlife isn’t sharing any numbers, yet. But if you’re wondering how it’s performing, the answer is very nicely, says communications director Anders Porter, who says the firm is also working on a suite of products utilizing the milk “that can be consumed during any day part”. .. Read
• Earth’s first superfood? Solazyme’s whole algae protein gains traction as formulators seek more vegan options: New sources of protein from edible insects to hemp are being incorporated into a growing number of products from bars to beverages. But does microalgae have what it takes to become a serious player in the so-called ‘alternative proteins’ market?.. Read
• C-fu’s new processing platforms could help pave the way for an insect commodity market: Two new, versatile production platforms created by ingredient supplier C-fu FOODS could crack open the nascent insect protein commodity market in North America by “abstracting the product from its source,” a company co-founder says… Read
• Tiny plants with huge potential: Introducing two new players to the plant-based protein market: Two firms that generated a lot of buzz at the IFT show this year were Parabel and Hinoman, which are both selling brand new nutrient-packed ingredients from tiny aquatic plants. But do they have what it takes to give more established players in the plant-based protein category a run for their money?.. Watch now
• EPIC Provisions: ‘If an opportunity came with the right strategic partner, we would absolutely take it’: Revenues at EPIC Provisions more than tripled to $6.8m in 2014, and are on course to triple again to $20m in 2015 as the EPIC brand – which first hit shelves in 2013 – continues to lure new consumers to a category (premium meat snacks) that has rapidly gone from lukewarm to red hot… Read
• Jerky is the ultimate high protein, low fat, low carb, healthy snack, says Oberto: Most Americans eat meat. But only a small percentage eats meat snacks. So does this disconnect simply reflect the fact that beef doesn’t pair too well with a mid-morning mocha-latte, or is it proof of a huge, still largely untapped, market opportunity? .. Read
• Blending soy and dairy proteins adds benefits for consumers, manufacturers, DuPont says: Two sources of protein in a finished product are better than one when it comes to blending soy and dairy, according to DuPont Nutrition and Health… Read
• Trend toward higher protein doses to continue, but big tubs will still rule, consultant says: Innovation in protein sources and mixtures continues, but delivery mode innovation has not kept pace, at least not in the US market, said consultant Ralf Jaeger, PhD… Read
• Protein powders: The heavyweight in the $16bn sports nutrition market: The US market for sports nutrition plus energy/nutrition bars and sports drinks is set to cruise past $20 billion by 2020, says Euromonitor International, but which segments are driving growth, and how is the ‘regimentation of fitness’ influencing product development?.. Read
• Protein is hot, but customers are getting more discerning about the source and quality, says Glanbia Nutritionals: Glanbia Nutritionals has expanded beyond its dairy roots to add pea, chia and flax protein concentrates to its portfolio to meet growing demand for vegan protein, says business development manager Vicky Fligel, who caught up with us for our special edition on protein… Read
• Ancient, yet modern? Sacha inchi and hemp give formulators new options in plant-based proteins: Hemp and sacha inchi – two ‘ancient yet modern’ sources of protein from seeds – are gaining traction in the burgeoning plant-based protein set, although their premium price tag means they are unlikely to become as big as rice or pea protein – at least in the short term, says AIDP.  .. Read

Just remember: Diets adequate in calories are highly likely to be adequate in protein, and average protein intake in the population is twice the amount required.  From the standpoint of nutrition, protein is a non-issue.  But that doesn’t stop marketers from looking for ways to push it.

Today is the day your taxes are due (in case you hadn’t noticed) and I’ve been collecting items on how tax dollars are used to subsidize businesses that rely on low-wage workers.

1.  Fight for $15 is mobilizing fast-food and other low-wage workers to walk off their jobs today in what the group says is the most widespread mobilization ever by U.S. workers seeking higher pay.  It expects protests in “more than 100 cities, in 35 countries, on six continents, from Sao Paolo to Tokyo.”  USA Today has the story on it.

2.  The New York Times featured people who are working, but still need public assistance to get buy (and they qualify for it).

Yet these same people also are on public assistance — relying on food stamps, Medicaid or other stretches of the safety net to help cover basic expenses when their paychecks come up short.

And they are not alone. Nearly three-quarters of the people helped by programs geared to the poor are members of a family headed by a worker, according to a new study by the Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California. As a result, taxpayers are providing not only support to the poor but also, in effect, a huge subsidy for employers of low-wage workers, from giants like McDonald’s and Walmart to mom-and-pop businesses.

3.  The Washington Post also covered this story, which comes from a report by  from the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education.

Families in which at least one member is working now make up the vast majority of those enrolled in major public-assistance programs like Medicaid and food stamps, according to a new study. It’s a “hidden cost” of low-wage work, researchers say, and it costs taxpayers about $153 billion a year.

4.  The Restaurant Opportunities Center (ROC) just released a report, Picking up the NRA’s Tab: The Public Cost of Low Wages in the Restaurant Industry.

The report’s key findings:

• Nearly half of the families of full-service restaurant workers are enrolled in one or more public-assistance programs.
• The cost of public assistance to families of workers in the full-service restaurant industry is $9,434,067,497 per year.
• Tipped restaurant workers live in poverty at 2.5 times the rate of the overall workforce.
• Restaurant workers as a whole experience poverty at a rate over twice that of the overall workforce – 20.9%.
• Large full-service restaurant companies like Darden and DineEquity pay their workers so little that many of the employees of these companies rely on taxpayer-funded programs.
• The taxpayer cost of a single Olive Garden is $196,970 annually.

ROC United is spearheading ‘One Fair Wage,’ a multi-state and national campaign to raise the lower, tipped minimum wage–currently $2.13 per hour–to 100% of the regular minimum wage.

Now, how about setting the minimum wage at $15 per hour….

McDonald’s announcement yesterday that it is raising the pay of workers at the outlets it owns, although not franchises, still comes as good news to everyone who cares about the plight of low-wage workers.  Everyone should.

But before breaking out the champagne, read these comments from Brandon Weber:

      Five Things to Know About McDonald’s Wage Announcement.

1. Half a million Walmart workers just won raises to $10—456% more employees than are covered by McDonald’s announcement.
2. The increase applies only to workers at corporate stores, which means only about 10% of the company’s U.S. workers will see a change in their income. About 1.6 million workers worldwide will get a raise of $0.
3. Nearly everyone who works at McDonald’s will still get paid less than $10 an hour – not enough to pay the bills. And many will still be making far less. In many places, McDonald’s workers earn the federal minimum of $7.25, which means even those who will see an increase as a result of Wednesday’s publicity stunt will still be stuck trying to support families on $8.25 an hour.
4. The announcement came a day after McDonald’s and other fast-food workers announced plans for the biggest-ever strike to hit the fast-food industry—a 200-city walkout on April 15.
5. McDonald’s low wages cost taxpayers more than $1 billion a year. This won’t put a dent in that amount.

Fight for 15 (a minimum wage of $15/hour) is protesting McDonald’s weak announcement today in cities throughout the country.   McDonald’s has taken a tiny step.  It and other employers of low-wage workers need to do more.

I still quaintly read the paper copy of the New York Times so I know that the left column of yesterday’s  front page—judged by the editors as the second most important story of the day—was devoted to yet another exposé of supplement fraud.

The New York State attorney general did some sophisticated testing.  His report concludes that major supplement retailers—GNC, Target, Walgreens and Walmart—are selling herbal supplements that do not contain what the labels say they contain or contain unlabeled ingredients that could be allergenic.

The examples are either amusing or shocking, depending on point of view:

• A popular store brand of ginseng pills at Walgreens, promoted for “physical endurance and vitality”…contained only powdered garlic and rice.
• At Walmart…ginkgo biloba, a Chinese plant promoted as a memory enhancer, contained little more than powdered radish, houseplants and wheat — despite a claim on the label that the product was wheat- and gluten-free.
• Three out of six herbal products at Target — ginkgo biloba, St. John’s wort and valerian root, a sleep aid — tested negative for the herbs on their labels. But they did contain powdered rice, beans, peas and wild carrots.
• And at GNC…it found pills with unlisted ingredients used as fillers, like powdered legumes, the class of plants that includes peanuts and soybeans, a hazard for people with allergies.

I’ve been writing about this kind of thing for years, but two aspects of this story are news.

• First, the state is doing what the FDA ought to be doing if its hands weren’t tied by DSHEA, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.  That act essentially deregulated dietary supplements.
• Second, these are not some fly-by-night supplement sellers.  They are major retailers.  The supplement industry’s argument that only a few unscrupulous small supplement makers are cheating on ingredients doesn’t work in this case.

Why don’t people stop taking supplements when they hear things like this?

The major proven benefits of supplements are their placebo effects.  The actual ingredients make no difference.

The obvious conclusion is that if you must buy supplements, buy the cheapest ones.  But that doesn’t work either because more expensive supplements produce stronger placebo effects.

Placebo effects are great things, and I’m for them.  But caveat emptor.

Related documents

• The 2013 New York Times article that led to all this
• The attorney general’s cease-and-desist letters
• What’s in those supplements?
• Letters Outlining What Was Found in Herbal Supplements