Here at Right Angles we’ve found occasion to remark on the Left’s strange, self-defeating animus against Wal-Mart (except, of course, when one wants buy, say, a PS3 and can send someone else in his stead). I encountered this Atlantic story from my friend Abby Alger’s Twitter feed, in which she wrote, quite accurately, “Atlantic writer discovers Walmart better than Whole Foods, tries to remain calm, snobby.” An illustrative paragraph:
… I had trouble believing I was in a Walmart. The very reasonable-looking produce, most of it loose and nicely organized, was in black plastic bins (as in British supermarkets, where the look is common; the idea is to make the colors pop). The first thing I saw, McIntosh apples, came from the same local orchard whose apples I’d just seen in the same bags at Whole Foods. The bunched beets were from Muranaka Farm, whose beets I often buy at other markets—but these looked much fresher. The service people I could find (it wasn’t hard) were unfailingly enthusiastic, though I did wonder whether they got let out at night.
The author proceeds to purchase the same amounts of “environmentally correct” food at Wal-Mart ($126.02) and Whole Foods ($175.04), and have chefs prepare them and serve them at a taste testing to “16 critics, bloggers, and general food lovers.” The results are worth the read, and explain my poorly punning allusion in the headline to the movie Bottle Shock. In sum:
As I had been in my own kitchen, the tasters were surprised when the results were unblinded at the end of the meal and they learned that in a number of instances they had adamantly preferred Walmart produce. And they weren’t entirely happy.
