This is a nice thought, but it isn’t realistic. People shop at places like Walmart out of necessity, not because they like it. If you ask anyone why they shop at Walmart, the typical answer will be “because of the low prices.” If a single parent is presented with 2 identical packs of toilet paper, one selling for $2.99 and the other for $5, it doesn’t really matter which store is offering it…
…I think it’s inappropriate to expect people to change their shopping habits if it means a lower quality of life for them.
I agree with this completely. ‘Luxuries’ like Starbucks excluded, places like Walmart help out people who need that help. People are people and they’re just trying to get by… no need to make them feel guilty about it. Thanks karmcity.
The mistake we make is to accept that this is our problem, and that we can only solve it as consumers. We didn’t cause the problem, and in fairness neither did Wal-Mart. The problem lies in the way the global food industry has been structured by the governments of the Global North, and by the vested interests (including Wal-Mart) on behalf of which they act. The consequences of all this result in problems for consumers and producers all over the world, and for our environment. The solution lies in making these problems for governments and powerful commercial interests. We do that, not by using the blunt and puny weapons available to us as consumers, but by wielding our much greater power as citizens - forcing food onto the political agenda, forcing McCain, Obama, Brown and the rest to reshape the global food industry. There are plenty who will claim that this is a demand simply for more regulation. But it’s not. There is plenty of regulation in place already, it’s just that it’s designed to protect the interests of a small number of global corporations. So more regulation isn’t the answer, but different regulation that shifts the balance of power back towards those who suffer at the hands of Big Food.
More here.