The world’s largest retail department store and supermarket discount chain announced this month that it has launched a global commitment to a program of buying and selling that is designed to help sustainable agriculture grow and, in particular, to help small and medium sized farmers survive and grow.

In making the announcement from its worldwide headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas, officials of the company noted that “more than 1 billion people around the world rely on farming and hundreds of millions of them live on less than $2 a day.”

It’s nice that Walmart is making a commitment to help those folks, but how are they going to do it? They don’t say, so be very careful not to take this at face value.

“Through sustainable agriculture, Walmart is uniquely positioned to make a positive difference in food production - for farmers, communities, and customers,” said Mike Duke, president and CEO. “Our efforts will help increase farmer incomes, lead to more efficient use of pesticides, fertilizer and water, and provide fresher produce for our customers.”

With millions in the U.S. and around the world becoming more concerned every year about the source of their food - there is a widely embraced “know your farmer” movement in the U.S. - the growth of the organic food industry is rapid and continuing. Also, it has not escaped the notice of giant food corporations who would like to cash in on what is becoming an international trend.

The problem is that, in the U.S. at least, the percentage of organic food and beverage sales stands at about 3.7 percent of overall food sales, according to the 2010 industry survey of the Organic Trade Association. If organic sales are not growing as fast as it could, it’s probably because the number of organic farms is not growing fast enough to fill the demands of a populace that is more and more concerned about the quality of their food.

There are many reasons for that impeded growth, but the main reason is that the U.S. is officially not that friendly to small farm agriculture. It prefers the giant operations that are conducted on an industrial scale. It just easier to gather the food, distribute it, and retail it that way, and all of that can be done by giant corporations like Walmart. As long as the reliance on a cheap source of petro-chemicals and cheap labor is discounted, they can claim some sort of efficiency in their operations.

Organic farming is that which is done without the use of chemical fertilizers, chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, as well as with an aim toward constantly improving the soil and the general health of the farm. Also, ideally, organic farming is done in such a way that it provides healthy working conditions, pays a living wage, and improves the community in which it is practiced. A farm can be certified after inspection and interviews show that the farm meets the standards that are now maintained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In recent years, in an effort to improve the likelihood that small farm agriculture will grow in America, there has been an addition to organics as a desirable way to farm and it is called “sustainable,” which is defined by USDA as “an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will over the long-term: Satisfy human food and fiber needs, enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agriculture economy depends, make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls, sustain the economic viability of farm operations, and enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.”

Unlike organic farms, the use of some chemicals in sustainable farming is not prohibited and the general practice appears to be aimed at maintaining and encouraging growth of small farms - all a part of the “buying local” campaign that has spread across the country. Sustainably produced food that comes from local farms, therefore, has begun to move in on purely organic food production as a desirable farming system. One of its features is that people know the farmer and the “carbon footprint” of the food is much smaller, not having to travel across the continent or oceans to be sold at retail.

Although Walmart a few years ago announced that it was launching a significant campaign to sell organic food in its thousands of stores in the U.S. (it has 8,400 stores in 15 countries and employs some 2 million workers), the effort to go organic in that many stores must have run into the stone wall of the limited number of organic farms in this country and the effort was just allowed to fade away. They could have bought organic food from places like China, but there are too many questions about who does the organic certification and under what conditions.

“Sustainable” is easier to handle and there are many more farms worldwide that would meet at least some of the standards and allow Walmart to retail the food from them as part of their big “sustainability” effort.

But, Walmart’s history has to be considered in their announced plan. As the world’s biggest retailer, the company has been able to dictate terms to every supplier, no matter where in the world they are located. They have been able to continually hammer sweatshops in low-wage countries to lower their costs even more. The only place these suppliers can cut costs is to reduce pay to a minimum and, even, to steal wages from workers by making them work “off the clock.”

Walmart has not hesitated to exercise its immense power in the global marketplace. This is a company that, for years, advertised that its goods were “USA made,” prided itself on its support for American companies and American workers. When minimum wage laws and other labor laws, as well as other factors were seen as hindering the maximization of profits, they just began to get their goods from low-wage countries. Soon, all of their goods were from those countries, just as with thousands of other American corporations.

Officials announcing the new “sustainable agriculture goals” noted that “more than 1 billion people around the world rely on farming and hundreds of millions of them live on less than $2 a day,” and they intend to give them a leg up, in places like India and China. Walmart has had something to do with that on $2 a day, along with other companies that have exploited the peoples of scores of countries over many years. As well, Walmart is notorious for its treatment of its U.S. workers - low pay, no pay (working off the clock), and benefits that amount to little, if anything. It is one of the most notorious anti-union companies in a nation full of anti-union, anti-worker companies.

In fact, the Walmart was criticized roundly a few years ago, when it was discovered that it was taking out term life insurance policies on its workers, with the company as sole beneficiary. The insurance paid off, even if the worker was no longer employed by Walmart when he or she died. Even in death, the Walmart worker simply became an asset - a cipher - and the insurance payoff was added to the profit side.

How much differently will Walmart be treating small- and medium-sized farmers? Will the company be looking for the lowest prices? If it is willing to pay what amounts to a living wage to farmers, it will mean a change in the entire culture of the corporation and that’s not an easy thing to do. In virtually every place where they have put one of their stores (and they’re everywhere), small businesses have fallen by the wayside, with just a few exceptions. How will small, sustainable and organic farmers be treated when it comes to price?

Right now, they are talking a good game. For example, not only are they promising to increase the income of small farmers it buys from by 10-15 percent (that won’t be hard in India or China, where farmers are often destitute), but they promise to do things like only buy beef that comes from farms that do not add to the deforestation of the Amazon. And officials of the firm leave out that, in India, for example, 600 million of 1.1 billion people are directly tied to farming. There, even mighty Walmart will barely make a dent.

Nothing is enough for transnational corporations like Walmart. It is making its moves on Africa, with a $4 billion offer earlier this month to buy Massmart, South Africa’s third-largest retailer, according to Reuters. If it were to be successful, it would not only be a power in South Africa, but would have, according to the news service, “a foothold in 13 other countries in sub-Saharan Africa.” Also, an emerging middle class in Africa, generally, will provide a consumer base of 1 billion, it was reported.

Considering the global “land grab” that is now under way in developing countries, Walmart’s sustainability campaign might just make certain that the largest retailer will not be left out, when it comes to exploiting the land that is ripe for the picking. Developed or industrialized or “first world” nations that are running out of room to grow their own food - or didn’t have any to begin with - are buying up or long-term leasing land in Africa and South America to raise food to ship back to their own countries.

Like most announcements ushered in with great fanfare, Walmart’s sustainability program needs to be studied carefully to see what is behind the public relations and press releases, because what’s good for Walmart is not necessarily good for the country or the world.

BlackCommentator.com Columnist, John Funiciello, is a labor organizer and former union organizer. His union work started when he became a local president of The Newspaper Guild in the early 1970s. He was a reporter for 14 years for newspapers in New York State. In addition to labor work, he is organizing family farmers as they struggle to stay on the land under enormous pressure from factory food producers and land developers. Click here to contact Mr. Funiciello.