I enjoyed reading Sharon Kiley Mack’s article titled “Farm bills ruled unnecessary” (BDN, Jan. 18), specifically as it relates to the bill that sought to eliminate large grocery chains from participating in state tax incentive programs if they (the chains) charged Maine farmers slotting fees. It is nice to know that this ill conceived bill has died a pleasant death, yet another portion of this same article has me quite confused, this being what appears to be a negative attitude towards Wal-Mart.

The article states (not attributed to a specific spokesperson) that:

“The Department of Agriculture is sponsoring workshops and training sessions for farmers to help them develop an increased, consistent volume and work toward cooperative marketing. This approach could help the local chains, Hannaford, Shaw’s and Associated Grocers, compete against the country’s largest food retailer, Wal-Mart.”

My initial question is: Is the Maine Department of Agriculture anti Wal-Mart with respect to its (the Department’s) position regarding Wal-Mart selling groceries and possibly Maine farmers products? The inference from this article would appear to be a “yes”, yet hopefully a state agency is not showing partiality to certain grocery chains versus others. Such would be poor government policy to say the least.

Possibly this anti Wal-Mart feeling is not the Department’s, but is instead somehow attributed to Sen. John Nutting for Ms. Mack quotes Sen. Nutting as stating:

“They [Hannaford, Shaw’s, and Associated Grocers] could have a huge advantage over Wal-Mart by featuring Maine products.”

This has me totally confused as it was my understanding that the major focus of LD 1534 was to expand markets for Maine farmers’ products, not somehow restrict or departmentalize who Maine farmers should and should not sell to. Why, might I ask, is a state senator playing favorites in seeking to expand markets of Maine farmers by including some supermarkets while excluding other supermarkets?

Possibly, as is inferred in the article, Hannaford and Shaw’s are “local,” yet somehow Wal-Mart is not “local.” This, I must admit is also confusing.

Apparently someone (the Department of Agriculture, John Nutting or both) has/have made the decision that if a supermarket is owned by a Belgium company, which Hannaford’s is, or a supermarket is owned by an English company, which Shaw’s is, then their respective stores in Maine, are considered “local”. On the other hand, if you have stores selling groceries in Maine and those stores are owned by an American company, these stores are not “local”. Does that mean American owned stores selling groceries in Maine are considered “foreign” by the Department, or Sen. Nutting? What am I missing?

Maybe this Is just another example of politics 101, yet it appears to me there are some inequities which need to be addressed, these being: One, the Department of Agriculture should not show partiality towards one type of business vs. another when seeking to expand the markets of Maine farmers. And two, if the goal is to expand Maine farmers’ markets, then let’s seek to sell Maine farm products to any business interested, whether they are foreign owned, such as Hannaford and Shaw’s, or whether they are American owned, such as Wal-Mart.

Benjie Grant lives in Holden.