La’Randa Jackson, shown here, supports her mother and her younger brothers by working at the Walmart store in Cincinnati, Ohio. “I skip a lot of meals,” she says. “The most important thing is food for the babies, then my younger brothers. Then, if there’s enough, my mom and I eat.”

La’Randa works for the nation’s largest private employer, and she is not alone in her struggle to afford enough food.

On $10.10 an hour and an unpredictable part-time schedule, Cantare Davunt – a Walmart customer service manager from Apple Valley, Minnesota – winds up digging into her cabinets for older, non-perishable foods like Ramen so she can have a hot meal. Diana Tigon, a cashier at the Walmart store in Arlington, Texas, often finds she is strapped for cash and during rough weeks goes full days without eating meals.

These tragic stories are all too common among workers at America’s largest retailer, which enjoys $16 billion in annual profits. The Walton family, which owns Walmart, has assets valued at an obscene $150 billion.

My latest report shows the direct connection between the unfair working conditions that Walmart perpetuates and the key factors that contribute to hunger in America. For example, 88 percent of households receiving food bank assistance have incomes of less than $25,000 a year; as many as 825,000 Walmart workers are paid than $25,000 a year. Also, more than 57 percent of employed recipients of food assistance work part-time; there are an estimated 600,000 part-time workers at Walmart, though many want to work full-time.

Because Walmart workers must rely on federal assistance programs to fill in the gaps, American taxpayers are subsidizing the retailer’s business model of exploitation. One report from Americans for Tax Fairness estimated the cost to taxpayers of Walmart workers’ reliance on public assistance is $6.2 billion a year.

In a twisted closed loop system, Walmart is also the largest retailer for food stamp spending in the nation, capturing about 18 percent of all food stamp revenue, estimated at $13.5 billion. If Walmart paid its workers a living wage they wouldn’t need to rely on public assistance.

Walmart has the ability – more than any other business – to lift hundreds of thousands of working families out of poverty by improving jobs at its stores, which would, in turn, reduce hunger across the nation.

You can download the complete report here.

Thanks to Anna Lappe’ for inspiring the report’s title with her excellent 2013 article at TakePart.

My blog post appeared on:
Huffington Post
Civil Eats
EcoWatch
Corporations and Health Watch
Vegecareian
TreeHugger
Living Green
Organic Connections

My article with Christopher Cook on AlterNet:
Are Corporations and Big Banks Making a Windfall From Food Stamps?

Reuters story: Report wants to know how much soda is bought with US food stamps

Reuters story also appeared on:
-       AlterNet (Thomson Reuters)
-       Baltimore Sun
-       Fox News
-       Huffington Post
-       Yahoo News
-       MSNBC
-       CNBC
-       MSN Money
-       The Mercury
-       News Direct
-       The Republic
-       Buffalo Public Radio
-       Northeast Public Radio
-       Rhode Island Public Radio
-       South Florida Public TV
-       Time of News
-       Red Orbit
-       Food News
-       EmpowHER

Additional coverage:

- VegNews Magazine: SNAP Out of It (PDF)

- Virgina Watchdog: Food stamps a ‘sweet’ deal for recipients, but critics sour on costs, fraud

- The Atlantic: In Defense of Food Stamps

- AlterNet: America’s 47 Million Hungry Mouths Are Just Another Corporate Cash Cow

- KCBS In Depth (radio): Follow the Money Behind Food Stamps

- Up with Chris Hayes (blog): The decades-long debate over food stamps

- The Columbus Dispatch (editorial): Food Stamp Secrecy: Federal government should release data about how this aid money is spent

- Washington Examiner: The New American Food Stamp Plantation

- Time Moneyland: Food Stamps: More Benefit to Big Food than to the Poor?

- Food Sleuth Radio Interview

- San Francisco Chronicle: Use of government aid for junk food questioned (front page)

- New Jersey News Room: Millions of food stamp dollars go to junk food, companies

- The International: Food Stamp Funding Faces Deep Cuts in US Congress

- The Daily: Hungry for Profit: More Americans going on food stamps means a windfall for JPMorgan

- KTRH Houston News Radio Interview

- Washington Times: Top secret: $80B a year for food stamps, but feds won’t reveal what’s purchased

- Chicago Tribune: Politicians, health advocates seek transparency, restrictions in food stamp program

- NPR: Report Urges Food Stamp Program to Clarify Purchases, Corporate Profits
Cross-posted on:
WGBH – Boston
KALW – San Francisco
(numerous other NPR affiliate sites)

- Marion Nestle: Who benefits most from food stamps? Follow the money!
Cross-posted on Food Safety News
The Atlantic: Do Food Stamps Need More Restrictions?

- Yahoo! Finance video interview by Aaron Task: Marion Nestle on The (Big) Business of Food Stamps: “Here’s Where the Profits Come in”

- Marc Gunther: Soda, Obesity, and Your Tax Dollars at Work
Cross-posted on Sustainable Business Forum

- Marc Gunther: Anti-hunger, Pro-soda: Are you kidding me?

- Grist: Oh snap! Are food stamps another big subsidy for Big Food?
Cross-posted on Daily Kos

- Raj Patel: We Know More About Who Makes Our Bombs Than Who Feeds Our Kids

- Slate’s Moneybox: Food Stamps Are Not a Corporate Giveaway

- The Packer: Do as Simon says: Food stamps data should be open for review

- Everyday Health: Should Food Stamps Users Be Able to Buy Junk Food?

- AllGov: Which Corporations Profit from Food Stamps?

- Sunlight Foundation: Who’s money behind the farm bill?

- Small Planet: Food Stamp Subsidies for Junk Food Makers, Big Box Retailers, and Banks?

- Care2: Lining the Pockets of Big Food with Food Stamps

- Food Safety News: 2012 Farm Bill Advances Under Pressure Over Healthy Food

- Blisstree.com: We Don’t Need to Track Food Stamps Buys to Say Subsidizing Soda Isn’t Good

- Cheery Observations: Farm Bill Update: The Ongoing Food Stamps Debate

- The Lunch Tray: The Farm Bill: A Link Round-Up

- Daily Finance (AOL): Junk Food: The Pariah That’s Replacing Tobacco

- Republic Report: How JP Morgan Makes Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars On Food Assistance Programs

- Examiner.com: J.P. Morgan makes billions in profits from food stamps every year

As Congress proposes cuts to hungry families, my new report raises questions about how much food makers, retailers, and big banks profit from food stamps.

With the debate over the 2012 Farm Bill currently underway in the Senate, most of the media’s attention has been focused on how direct payments—subsidies doled out regardless of actual farming—are being replaced with crop insurance, in a classic shell game that Big Ag’s powerful lobby is likely to pull off.

Meanwhile, the Senate may hurt the less powerful by cutting $4.5 billion from the largest piece of the farm bill pie: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps). Reducing this lifeline for 46 million struggling Americans (more than 1 in 7—nearly half of them children) has become a sideshow in the farm bill circus, even though SNAP spending grew to $78 billion in 2011, and is projected to go higher if the economy does not improve.

While New York Senator Kristen Gillibrand’s amendment to restore cuts to SNAP by reducing insurance payments is a noble effort, what’s missing from this conversation is the role of corporations. Much attention has focused on how agricultural subsidies fuel our cheap, unhealthy food supply. In reality, the largest and most overlooked taxpayer subsidy to Big Food in the farm bill is SNAP, which now represents more than ten percent of all grocery spending.

In a report I released today—Food Stamps, Follow the Money: Are Corporations Profiting From Hungry Americans?—I examine the role of three powerful industry sectors that benefit from SNAP: 1) major food manufacturers such as Coca-Cola, Kraft, and Mars; 2) leading food retailers such as Walmart and Kroger; and 3) large banks, such as J.P. Morgan Chase, which contract with states to help administer SNAP benefits. Findings from the report include:

• Powerful food industry lobbying groups such as the American Beverage Association and the Snack Food Association teamed up to oppose health-oriented improvements to SNAP, at times working with anti-hunger groups
• At least nine states have proposed bills to make health-oriented improvements to SNAP, but none have passed, in part due to opposition from the food industry
• In one year, nine Walmart Supercenters in Massachusetts together received more than $33 million in SNAP dollars—over four times the SNAP money spent at farmers markets nationwide
• In two years, Walmart received about half of the one billion dollars in SNAP expenditures in Oklahoma
• J.P. Morgan Chase holds contracts in 24 states to administer SNAP benefits, indicating concentrated power and a lack of competition
• In New York, a seven-year deal originally paid J.P. Morgan Chase $112 million for EBT services, and was recently amended to add $14.3 million—an increase of 13 percent
• States are seeing unexpected increases in administrative costs, while banks and other private contractors are reaping significant windfalls from the economic downturn and increasing SNAP participation.

Most details about where SNAP dollars go remains hidden. For example, although such data is readily available, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (which administers food assistance) refuses to make public how much money individual retailers make from SNAP. In addition, Congress does not require data collection on specific SNAP product purchases (such as Coke versus Tropicana), despite such information being critical to effective evaluation of the program.

USDA also does not collect national data on how much money banks make on SNAP. States bear much of the burden of these administrative costs. Are lucrative contracts with private banks the most cost-effective way to administer a critical food assistance program at a time of severe budget cuts? Could we feed more hungry Americans with some of the profits these corporations are making?

Anthony Smukall is a SNAP participant living in Buffalo, New York, where he says his fellow residents are “facing cuts year after year, with no sustainable jobs to be able to get off of programs such as SNAP.” He thinks that “transparency should be mandatory. The people have a right to know where our money is going, plain and simple.” He added: “J.P. Morgan is shaking state pockets, which then rolls down to every tax-paying citizen. I am disgusted with the numbers in this report, it is unimaginable. If the people knew how such programs were run, and how money is taken in by some of the world’s conglomerates, there would be outrage on a grand scale.”

Jennifer L. of Massachusetts is a single mother who recently re-entered the workforce and hopes Congress does not cut SNAP because as she explains: “SNAP makes a huge difference in my ability to support my children and pay the bills. Food prices have been skyrocketing while salaries remain unchanged. Many people I know have two jobs to try to make ends meet.” She added: “I am in favor of making retailers’ and banks’ information regarding SNAP public. What are they hiding?”

Instead of hurting families during these hard times with cuts to SNAP, Congress should require program improvements that would restore its original purpose: providing a safety net for those in need while also helping farmers. Congress should also make SNAP more transparent by mandating accurate tracking of SNAP expenditures. Why should only the likes of Walmart and Coca-Cola know how billions of our tax dollars are spent each year? Is SNAP truly “putting healthy food within reach” as its tagline proclaims?

You can download the full report here.

Update: See Reuters story.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

As 2012 Farm Bill debate rages in Congress, a new report demands SNAP program transparency

Oakland, CA, June 12, 2012 — Are food stamps lining the pockets of the nation’s wealthiest corporations instead of closing the hunger gap in the United States? Why does Walmart benefit from more than $200 million in annual food stamp purchases in Oklahoma alone? Why does one bank, J.P. Morgan Chase, hold exclusive contracts in 24 states to administer public benefits?

These are a few of the questions explored in a new report called: “Food Stamps, Follow the Money: Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?” from Michele Simon, president of Eat Drink Politics, a watchdog consulting group. This first-of-its kind investigation details how the food stamp program—originally designed to help farmers and those in need—lines the pockets of junk food makers, food retailers, and banks.

Right now, Congress is debating the farm bill, including significant cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps). Much attention has focused on how agricultural subsidies fuel our cheap, unhealthy food supply. In reality, the largest and most overlooked taxpayer subsidy to the food industry is SNAP, which comprised two-thirds of the farm bill budget in 2008.

“Michele Simon’s well-researched, credible investigation breaks new ground and exposes who else stands to gain from the government’s largest food assistance program,” said New York University Professor Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics. “While reauthorizing the farm bill, Congress needs to make sure that the poor get their fair share of SNAP benefits,” she added.

Food Stamps, Follow the Money examines what we know and don’t know about how much the food industry and large banks benefit from a tax-payer program that has grown to $78 billion in 2011, up from $30 billion just four years earlier, and projected to increase further due to current economic conditions.

“Transparency should be mandatory. The people have a right to know where our money is going, plain and simple,” said Anthony Smukall, a SNAP participant living in Buffalo, New York. He says his fellow residents are “facing cuts year after year, with no sustainable jobs to be able to get off of programs such as SNAP.”

Smukall added, “J.P. Morgan is shaking state pockets, which then rolls down to every tax paying citizen. I am disgusted with the numbers in this report. If people knew how such programs were run, and how money is taken in by some of the world’s conglomerates, there would be outrage on a grand scale.

As the largest government-funded agriculture program in the nation, SNAP presents a tremendous opportunity to help tens of millions of Americans be better nourished and to reshape our food system in a positive way. SNAP dollars now represent more than 10 percent of all grocery store purchases.

“Every year, tens of billions of SNAP dollars are propping up corporations that are exploiting their workers and producing foods that are making America sick,” said Andy Fisher, founder and former executive director of the Community Food Security Coalition, who is currently writing a book about the anti-hunger movement. “It’s high time we stopped this madness, and returned the food stamp program to its original purpose: providing needy Americans healthy real food grown by farmers,” he added.

“I hope Congress does not cut SNAP. Food prices have been skyrocketing while salaries remain unchanged, and many people I know have two jobs to try to make ends meet,” said Jennifer L., a SNAP participant living in Massachusetts. “As a single mom who has only recently re-entered the workforce, the SNAP assistance I receive makes a huge difference in my ability to support my children,” she added. “I am in favor of making retailers’ and banks’ information regarding SNAP public. What are they hiding?”

Food Stamps, Follow the Money offers several recommendations on how to improve SNAP in order to maximize government benefits for those in need. These include:

• Congress should maintain SNAP funding in this time of need for millions of Americans;
• Congress should require collection and disclosure of SNAP product purchase data, retailer redemptions, and national data on bank fees;
• USDA should evaluate state EBT contracts to determine if banks are taking undue advantage of taxpayer funds.

“Congress should make SNAP more transparent by mandating accurate tracking of SNAP expenditures. Why should only the likes of Walmart, Coca-Cola, and J.P. Morgan know how many billions of our tax dollars are spent each year?” said Ms. Simon.

Download the complete report: “Food Stamps, Follow the Money: Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans” here.

About: Michele Simon is a public health lawyer specializing in industry marketing and lobbying tactics. She is president of Eat Drink Politics, a consulting group that helps advocates counter corporate tactics and advance food and alcohol policy. www.eatdrinkpolitics.com Twitter: @MicheleRSimon

###

So far the online debate over Growing Power taking this funding is predictable: some defend it for pragmatic reasons, while others deplore the move, either because they don’t like this particular company or they think all corporate money is evil. However, this donation cannot be viewed in such a narrow context. There is a pattern here that spans decades. By partnering with a group that could otherwise be one of its staunchest critics, Walmart is taking a page right out of the Big Tobacco playbook: Buying silence.

Philanthropy to win over causes that could cause them trouble is a time-honored tradition of Corporate America, and this is the just the latest installment. The tobacco industry saw great success with sponsorships of women’s causes (Virginia Slims tennis anyone?) and both the tobacco and alcohol industries have bought off Latino groups along with plenty of others, as I’ve described before.

It’s easy to justify taking this sort of money. Of course Growing Power needs the cash and will do good things with it. It’s understandable, in these hard times, how the group could justify taking it. Why not put a corporation’s profits to good use? Viewed in that narrow frame, almost any donation can be justified.

But what happens when Walmart’s pledge made earlier this year–with the first lady by their side–to sell more fresh produce at affordable prices falls through (or squeezes farmers) as it inevitably will? What happens next year, when Allen needs more money, and Walmart ups the ante? One colleague had no problem with deal as long as Walmart didn’t ask for a seat on Growing Power’s board. They just might.

It’s not at all clear where Growing Power is drawing the line. On their blog, Allen defends the move by arguing that we “can no longer refuse to invite big corporations to the table of the Good Food Revolution.”

Invite them to the table? These corporations: McDonald’s, PepsiCo, Kraft, and especially Walmart, have already been to the table: they have set the table, and left a stinking mess for us to clean up.

Has Corporate America really been left out of the conversation about our food supply? My book was inspired by the response of the food industry to the criticism being leveled against them. Responses in the form of a massive public relations campaign designed to convince the American public and policymakers alike that they have it covered.

McDonald’s pushing cheeseburgers and fries? No problem, now they sell salads. General Mills promoting sugary cereals to kids? Enter whole grain Reese’s Puffs. Not enough access to fresh food in poor areas? Walmart to the rescue.

Meanwhile, any policy effort to reform the food system in more meaningful ways is resisted by these same companies with powerful lobbying campaigns. Walmart is no exception to this pattern.

Christopher Cook (author of Diet for a Dead Planet: Big Business and the Coming Food Crisis – which I highly recommend) recently hit the nail on the head, posting to a list-serve that such donations are “not only tainted but tied to political allegiance with the corporate agenda.” He goes on:

The PR and influence that Walmart and others gain from this “charitable giving” expands their corporate power and their market control–the very things that are directly undermining our food system, sustainability, and food access and justice. These corporations are a huge part of precisely why we are in such deep trouble with our food today. It’s not just about “tainted” dollars, it’s about how these corporations will profit (and they will) both economically and politically by buying market share in the food justice movement.

See also Andy Fisher’s excellent critique on Civil Eats concluding that Walmart cannot possibly be part of the solution to our broken food system because the company “hurts communities more than it helps them.”

So what then, I hear many asking, is the alternative given that the money is still sorely needed? Cook offers an admittedly more challenging solution: “We need a strongly united movement pushing aggressively for public investment in the great and vital work of Growing Power and other groups.”

Let’s get to work.

The following op-ed was recently published in numerous newspapers across the country through McClatchy-Tribune News Service.

The one-year anniversary of the first lady’s Let’s Move campaign to “end childhood obesity within a generation” was marked by celebratory speeches and fanfare – much of it generated by the White House itself.

It’s certainly true that Michelle Obama has been tremendously successful in summoning both the resources of her office as well as her own positive energy and enthusiasm to get the nation to focus its attention on this important problem. She also deserves credit for specific gains made in the past year, including championing school food and shining a light on the serious problem of “food deserts,” neighborhoods that lack even a basic grocery store, let alone a farmer’s market.

However, her highly touted “Let’s Move” campaign can make no claims of progress in combating the 800-pound gorilla in America’s dining rooms: Junk food marketing to children. While Mrs. Obama may have elevated the national conversation about childhood obesity, that discourse has actually been going on for almost a decade now. In 2006, a damning report from the Institute of Medicine on food marketing to kids called upon Congress to act within two years if industry made no significant improvements on its own.

In the wake of that threat, food companies made many promises to clean up their act; commitments were announced, self-regulatory bodies were formed. It all sounded very impressive. And yet recent reports coming out of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University as well as the government’s own Federal Trade Commission continue to document ubiquitous junk food and fast-food marketing to children.

Just take a stroll down the cereal aisle and you can find such childhood-obesity-inducing products as Cupcake Cereal and Cookie Crisp Sprinkles Cereal. Even Cheerios now comes in a chocolate variety. And these days, the ads aren’t just on TV. Our digital world contains endless marketing opportunities designed to reach kids wherever parents are not.

The first lady does mention this problem in her speeches, but her campaign is unable to tackle the issue directly, not only because Mrs. Obama has no policymaking powers but because to do so means threatening her husband’s business-friendly image. A sure sign of how small a threat “Let’s Move” is to the food industry is just how eager companies have been to jump onto its bandwagon.

Most successful was Wal-Mart, which recently gained Mrs. Obama’s endorsement of the company’s 5-year plan to improve the quality of its foods. Merits of the announcement aside, particularly troubling was that the first lady’s staff had been meeting in secret with Wal-Mart executives for months, negotiating the final – albeit vague terms of the plan.

The real question may not be if “Let’s Move” is going far enough, but what role is it playing in our national agenda on solving childhood obesity? Negotiated deals with the likes of Wal-Mart cannot become a substitute for actual policymaking. As messy and as imperfect as the democratic process is, it needs to be based on serious policy – not public relations gestures – to work well.

Meanwhile, it seems clear that the Obama administration is unwilling to seriously address junk-food marketing. One idea is to have the government suggest guidelines for industry. In December 2009, a taskforce of several federal agencies did just that – releasing draft nutrition guidelines on the marketing food to children. Apparently, this meager first step – it would be entirely voluntary – set off such alarm bells within the food industry that we haven’t heard a peep from the task force since.

Instead of meaningful government actions we have only “Let’s Move” and more voluntary industry promises. Solving the complex problems of childhood obesity won’t be solved with cute slogans or deal-making with the likes of Wal-Mart. To win this battle, we need our political leaders to take on seriously the politics of marketing junk-food to our children.

The following newspapers have published this op-ed so far:

Minneapolis Star Tribune

Sacramento Bee

The Kansas City Star

Press of Atlantic City

Duluth News Tribune

The Janesville Gazette

The Bellingham Herald

Plus about 20 others at last count.

When Michelle Obama first announced her Let’s Move program to end childhood obesity “within a generation” last year, I tried to remain open-minded. Like many others, I was happy to have the First Lady bring attention to this important problem. And there’s no doubt that her leadership has helped, for example, to get Congress to make improvements to school meals. But I remained concerned that the White House was reluctant to take on the food industry in any meaningful way. It seems that things are worse than I thought.

Last week, Walmart executives announced what Michelle Obama hailed as a new “nutrition charter,” which consists of a number of promises to sell healthier food. While the media reported the news with much fanfare, serving up the positive spin that Walmart hoped the First Lady would help provide, there was little critique to be found.

I am less interested in the specifics of the proposal than I am in the fact that the White House endorsed it. This secretly-brokered deal raises numerous troubling questions about the respective roles of industry and government as it relates to setting food and nutrition policy for the nation. For starters:

1) What was the First Lady’s staff doing in secret talks with Walmart for over a year? How did such an approach even get started? Here’s an alternative scenario: Congress holds hearings (you know, in public) on how the entire food industry should be changing its ways with enforceable, meaningful laws that apply to everyone, not just Walmart.

2) Why not wait until Walmart has actually accomplished something to give them credit? Any company can promise something. And we have plenty of examples of other food companies making promises that weren’t kept. (Shameless plug: my book is chock-full of them; can someone please send a copy to Mrs. Obama? No really, please.)

Does anyone remember how McDonald’s promised to stop using trans fats, but oops, didn’t? Or how about the time Ruby Tuesday’s promised to list nutrition facts on its menus until they decided that wasn’t working out so well. And then there’s the soda industry, which has made so many broken promises, it’s hard to keep up. The biggest one was in 2006 when Bill Clinton announced a deal (also secretly brokered) in which soda companies promised to change the beverages they sold in schools. While industry claims mission accomplished, recent research suggests otherwise. But all that was before Michelle Obama’s time I guess.

3) What has the White House traded in exchange for Walmart’s pledges? In most negotiations, each party gives up something to gain something. While the White House may not admit it, Walmart does reap valuable rewards besides just good PR. As I also describe in my book, the goal here is for companies to avoid actual government regulation by claiming that voluntary, self-regulation is the way to go. This is obviously what Walmart intends with its pledge to develop “strong criteria for a simple front-of-package” label despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration has announced its intention to address this issue. But who needs scientific government agencies telling food companies what belongs on food packages when the First Lady has that covered in her secret meetings?

4) Why would the White House endorse a plan with a 5-year timetable? How will it be monitored? And how will Walmart be held accountable? Is there some sort of contract between and White House and Walmart? If these were legal negotiations, a written agreement would be signed by both parties that would be be legally binding. So what happens in 5 years? Will Walmart host another press conference with the First Lady to announce how well they did with their list of promises? Don’t count on it. If history is any guide, no one will even remember Thursday’s PR stunt. Sure, it’s possible that some progress will be made by 2016, fewer salt grams here, a little less sugar there. But that will hardly make a dent in the public health crisis that faces our nation.

Oddly, Sam Kass, Mrs. Obama’s Senior Policy Adviser for Healthy Food Initiatives, defended the White House endorsement by claiming that “everything Walmart does is available to the public because they’re a publicly held company. It’s very easy to track.”

Say what? Can someone please educate Mr. Kass about how corporations work? Being a publicly-held company just means that the public can buy your stock. (As opposed to a company with privately-held stock.) It also means that Walmart is first and foremost accountable to those shareholders who own their stock. In other words, if less salt and less sugar also means less stock value, bye-bye Mrs. Obama and hello salt and sugar. The White House says that the Partnership for a Healthier America will track the success or failure of Walmart’s efforts, but what are the criteria or outcome measures? How are they developed? Why is this not a public process either?

Finally, what signal does this sends to the food industry at large? No need to worry about pesky government regulations when you’ve got the White House staff at the ready to bargain in secret over your business practices and conduct joint press conferences. While this announcement gives the appearance of government approval, it’s really quite far from actual policy-making. That involves the messy (and also imperfect) process of democracy. But it’s our messy democracy, where We The People still have some say. How and why does Michelle Obama get to replace public, democratic lawmaking with secret, brokered deal-making? And what is the President’s role in all this?

And shame on the media not asking such questions, but rather, helping to give Walmart exactly what they wanted: free positive PR spin within the warm glow of the First Lady.

In contrast, read my wonderful colleagues Marion Nestle, Anna Lappe, and Melanie Warner for their more meaningful takes. What do you think?