Can Food Co-ops Survive the New Retail Reality?

Civil Eats

Can Food Co-ops Survive the New Retail Reality?

From Amazon-Whole Foods to Costco, community grocery stores are being forced to reinvent to stay relevant.

By Stephanie Parker, Food Deserts, Local Eats, Nutrition, Feb. 28, 2018

The Good Earth Market food cooperative in Billings, Montana, which opened its doors 23 years ago, closed in October 2017. Over the last few years, the long-loved community market had a hard time keeping up with increasing competition.

“Costco and Walmart and Albertsons and everyone has organic,” said Carol Beam, board president of the market for the last 13 years. “We knew what we needed to break even every week, and every week we were anywhere from $8,000 to $10,000 short.”

It’s not just in Montana—around the country, food retail is in a state of upheaval. In addition to co-ops being squeezed out of the organic food market they once largely provided, conventional grocery stores are also facing pressure from online retailers. And though food co-ops are no longer the easiest, or even the cheapest, way to access organic and local foods, those that have succeeded for the long haul may offer signs of hope for local economies.

C.E. Pugh, the chief operating officer of National Co+op Grocers (NCG), a cooperative providing business services for 147 food co-ops in 37 states, said co-ops began seeing a change in their fates starting in 2013. “The conventional grocers got very serious for the first time about natural and organic and added lots of products,” he said. “The impacts manifested themselves almost overnight in 2013.”

NCG has seen six cooperatives close since 2012, but has also welcomed 23 new stores in that same period, some of which were newly opened co-ops, and some of which already existed but had not yet joined NCG. The Minnesota-based Food Co-op Initiative, a nonprofit focused on helping new co-ops open and thrive, supported the launch of 134 co-ops in the last 10 years. Of those, 74 percent are still in business.

Minnesota's Cook County Whole Foods Co-op. (Photo credit: Tony Webster)

Minnesota’s Cook County Whole Foods Co-op. (Photo credit: Tony Webster)

While the number of food co-ops in the U.S. is growing overall, some are still struggling against an influx of available local and organic markets. As co-ops face increased competition from mainstream retailers, advocates are considering how to distinguish themselves—and how to adapt to ensure survival.

The Rise of Organic in Conventional Grocery Stores

After 40 years, the East Lansing Food Co-op (ELFCO) in East Lansing, Michigan, closed in February 2017. “I have anecdotal evidence that when the co-op was started in the 1970s, there was almost no access to organic food whatsoever,” said Yelena Kalinsky, president of the co-op board during ELFCO’s last year. “Now there are a number of ways.”

One of which was likely a Whole Foods, which opened a store in April 2016 a mere 200 yards away from ELFCO. Even besides Whole Foods, there were already other natural grocers in town, such as Fresh Thyme and Foods for Living.

“Even Kroger has an organic foods section that’s doing very well,” Kalinsky added. “The positive spin is that we achieved our mission of making organic and local food possible. But after Whole Foods and Fresh Thyme came in, our numbers went down.” In May 2016, sales were down 20 to 30 percent over the previous year, which the co-op blamed on stronger competition.

Annie Knupfer, professor emeritus of educational studies at Purdue University and author of Food Co-ops in America: Community, Consumption, and Economic Democracy, acknowledges the abundance of organic food purveyors in today’s marketplace. “I think today the question would be, why a food co-op, when there are so many other options, like farmers’ markets, CSAs, organic food stores,” she said. “Unless you have a strong commitment to the ideals of food co-ops, you have a lot of options.”

Pugh of NCG echoed this sentiment when discussing the ways conventional mega-retailers like Costco, Walmart, and Kroger encroached on the organic market. Currently, Costco is the largest retailer of organic food in the U.S., with four billion dollars in annual organic sales in 2015, while Whole Foods had $3.6 billion. And in 2017, Kroger reportedly broke $1 billion in sales of organic produce.

“This new thing with the conventional [retailers] was kind of insidious, and people didn’t quite see that,” he said. “[Co-op leaders] thought, ‘Our customers won’t go there,’ but they were already there, buying products the co-ops don’t carry, like Charmin. And so they’re there anyway, and then they see organic milk, and they think, ‘Oh that’s a good price.’”

Distinguishing Co-ops from the Competition

“Each individual co-op and each individual community has to determine its relevance today,” Pugh said. “There’s no question of what its purpose was 10 to 20 years ago, when it may have been the only source or the best source of organic products. [But] why is it relevant today?”

According to Knupfer, one thing co-ops offer is a sense of community and empowerment in decision-making. “You can’t go into a CSA or grocery store and participate,” Knupfer said. “But you can raise concerns at any business. So I think what a co-op needs to provide is a sense of community.”

Coffee time at Ithaca's Green Star Co-op. (Photo credit: Joeyz51)

Coffee time at Ithaca’s Green Star Co-op. (Photo credit: Joeyz51)

Co-ops do this in a number of ways, including hosting community events, organizing local producer fairs, meet-your-farmer events, and other community-building activities. Some co-ops, including the Missoula Food Co-op, which closed at the end of 2017, and the highly successful Park Slope Food Co-op in Brooklyn, have tried to build community and lower prices through a worker-owner model. For most of its existence, the Missoula Food Co-op required all members to work in some capacity for at least three hours a month, and only members were supposed to shop at the store.

However, this was a controversial policy. The time commitment was a limiting factor for some people who might have otherwise joined and supported the co-op. Kim Gilchrist, a board member at the Missoula Food Co-op, thinks that the worker-member policy hurt the organization in a number of ways. Adding the work requirement on to the store’s out-of-the-way location may have sent potential members to more easily accessible retailers, and she says the co-op didn’t do enough outreach in its neighborhood to be economically sustainable.

Gilchrist also believes the worker-owner model might have hurt the co-op through inferior customer service. Worker-owners, not being employees, did not go through a long training, and didn’t have to worry about being fired. When the store opened to non-members, it was still staffed by unpaid, part-time member-owners. The customer service, or lack thereof, became a problem.

“We heard feedback sometimes you walk in and there’s not a cashier, or they’re not super friendly,” Gilchrist said. “Sometimes there’s music playing, sometimes there’s not. If you’re a stranger coming into the store, you want a friendly face, you want some help.”

Adapting to Compete in the Changing Market

While some co-ops are struggling, others are succeeding in a changing market with different adaptations. “The market has gotten tougher, but the difference has been that our member co-ops have been adapting,” NCG’s Pugh said. “As the competition got tighter, management at the individual co-ops just buckled down to find ways to get better.”

Some co-ops, like the Harvest Co-op in Cambridge, Massachusetts and the Food Front Cooperative Grocery in Portland, Oregon have begun offering online sales. Others, like the Seward Community Co-op in Minneapolis, Minnesota, are focusing on ensuring diversity in the food co-op landscape.

Photo courtesy PCC Markets.

Photo courtesy PCC Markets.

Meanwhile, as Whole Foods adapts to its recent acquisition by Amazon, its role as a local foods purveyor has come into question. As it operations are centralized, co-ops may be able to reclaim their role as the best place to buy local food products and support local producers.

Allan Reetz of the Co-op Food Stores, multi-million dollar businesses with two locations in New Hampshire and one in Vermont, stressed the importance of keeping one eye on the local food system while also watching the broader market. “Cooperatives are a way to build security in your local food system and involve the community at a grassroots level,” Reetz said. “But that does not guarantee anything. You still have to compete in the marketplace you find yourselves in.”

The Co-op Food Stores, which date back to 1936, have expanded beyond a regular food co-op to include things such as delicatessens, a sushi bar, and even an auto service center. It sells co-op staples like tofu and raw milk, but also offers a range of conventional food products like Frosted Flakes in order to be a one-stop shopping location.

Despite growing competition, the Co-op Food Stores are thriving. “It’s not to say we’re doing something extra special others have ignored,” Reetz said. “Grocery retail is a tough business. Co-ops have really established a market that now the big chains have moved into over the years, so there’s a lot of attention paid to the turf that we crafted.”

Across the country in Medford, Oregon, the much smaller Medford Food Co-op, which opened in 2011, is also doing well in this difficult atmosphere. Halle Riddlebarger, the store’s marketing manager, credits the co-op’s success to its relative youth, which she says makes the store nimble and better able to respond to people’s requests.

“We’re not set in our ways from having done something one way for 20 years,” Riddlebarger said. Recently, based on member requests for more prepared food, the co-op opened a café and deli. “Co-ops have to be able to respond to what people want and not take a decade to do so.”

In some rural areas, becoming a cooperative can offer a lifeline for struggling grocery stores. The North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives runs the Rural Grocery Initiative under the direction of Lori Capouch. Because so many small, rural grocery stores in the state are struggling, the initiative has helped some become cooperatives, giving these stores the support of the local community. These cooperatives are generally conventional grocery stores, selling all the regular staples instead of focusing specifically on local or organic food.

“I think that that cooperative, community-owned business model is going to become more and more important in these small communities that are at a distance from a full-service grocery store,” Capouch said. “That’s going to be the way to keep fresh foods available for people living and working in small towns.”

Indeed, perhaps the biggest challenge food co-ops face is not the competition from Whole Foods or Costco, but finding the balance between their original ideals and the ability to adapt to what consumers want and need now.

“I think some of us have been a little idealistic, and we need to learn more about how businesses work, because a food co-op is a business,” Purdue’s Knupfer said. “How do you make food co-ops a small business that’s also a community? People need to think outside the box.”

Top photo courtesy of The Seward Coop.

Wisconsin Supreme Court deals blow to union elections

The Seattle Times

Wisconsin Supreme Court deals blow to union elections

 

MILWAUKEE (AP) — The administrative agency that oversees employee union elections in Wisconsin can decertify collective bargaining groups if they don’t file election paperwork on time for an election — even if they miss the deadline by an hour, the state’s Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The decision Wednesday reverses lower court rulings that sided with the unions’ argument that the Wisconsin Employee Relations Commission overstepped its authority when it proceeded with decertification. The groups missed the deadline by about an hour each in 2014.

The case stems from the Wisconsin’s Act 10, which effectively ended collective bargaining for most public workers, required them to pay more for their pension and health benefits, and weakened their ability to organize. The law enacted shortly after Republican Gov. Scott Walker took office in 2011 also required annual recertification elections for state and municipal employees by Dec. 11.

 The commission’s rules require filing for recertification by the end of business on Sept. 15 to be able to have an election.

In the ruling, the Supreme Court said the commission “has express authority” to “require a demonstration of interest from labor organizations interested in representing collective bargaining units.” The Supreme Court went on to say the commission also has the power to decertify.

An attorney representing the unions in the case said the groups have since had elections to certify.

“The issue is moving forward whether or not the commission is going to be able to erect this sort of artificial barrier that’s not called for in the law in future elections,” said Nathan Eisenberg, adding, “And the Court held that they can.”

The unions involved in the case are: The Wisconsin Association of State Prosecutors, representing assistant district attorneys, and the Service Employees International Union Local 150, representing food service and custodians in Milwaukee Public Schools and the St. Francis School District.

Walker and conservatives have said the law was needed to help balance the state budget and reduce school and local governments’ costs.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissented, saying state law requires the commission to hold elections for collective bargaining units because the statute reads it “shall,” making it clear that elections need to be carried out.

“In other words, each requires that an election be held annually. Full stop. No conditions,” she said.

She went on to say the court’s decision has “drastic consequences for employees.”

“It denies blameless employees the right to vote for union representation if their union narrowly misses a deadline,” she said.

The Town Where Women found Refuge from Domestic Violence,

22 Words Presents‘s video to the group: LIGHTWORKERS of THE WORLD 

The Town Where Men Are Banned

The Town Where Men Are Banned

Today I learned about a self-sufficient women-only village in Kenya. ♀️ ♀️ ♀️It's a safe haven for women fleeing domestic violence or sexual violence.Thanks INSH for sharing!

Posted by 22 Words Presents on Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Norway is building a hotel that will produce more energy than it consumes

 

EcoWatch

February 28, 2018. Harvesting the sun’s rays as they reflect off a mountain.

Read more about Norway: ecowatch.com/tag/norway

via World Economic Forum

Norway is building a hotel that will produce more energy than it consumes

Harvesting the sun's rays as they reflect off a mountain. Read more about Norway: ecowatch.com/tag/norwayvia World Economic Forum

Posted by EcoWatch on Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Dick’s Sporting Goods will no longer sell assault-style rifles:

Good Morning America

Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO on decision to no longer sell assault-style rifles: ‘We don’t want to be a part of this story’

David Caplan and Katie Kindelan      February 28, 2018

Dicks Sporting Goods Takes a Stand!

CNN
February 28, 2018

“If these kids are brave enough to organize and do what they’re doing, we should be brave enough to take this stand,” says DICK’S Sporting GoodsCEO Edward Stack, after the company announced it would stop selling assault-style weapons in all of its stores http://cnn.it/2t66Njk

Dick's CEO discusses decision to stop selling assault-style weapons

“If these kids are brave enough to organize and do what they’re doing, we should be brave enough to take this stand," says DICK'S Sporting Goods CEO Edward Stack, after the company announced it would stop selling assault-style weapons in all of its stores http://cnn.it/2t66Njk

Posted by CNN on Wednesday, February 28, 2018

US inequality persists 50 years after landmark report

Associated Press

Study: US inequality persists 50 years after landmark report

By Russell Contreras, Associated Press        February 27, 2018

Lawsuit: Bank cares for foreclosed homes based on racial makeup of neighborhoods

The right wing’s 40-year attack on unions is coming to the Supreme Court, and this time it could win

The Los Angeles Times

The right wing’s 40-year attack on unions is coming to the Supreme Court, and this time it could win

By Michael Hiltzik        February 23, 2018

The right wing's 40-year attack on unions is coming to the Supreme Court, and this time it could win
Poised to cut the legs out from public worker unions: Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, seen here at the time of his 2006 confirmation hearings. (Charles Dharapak / Associated Press)

 

For 40 years, right-wing activists and fronts for the 1% have had their knives out for a Supreme Court precedent that protects the ability of public employee unions to represent their members and even nonmembers, and to speak out on matters of public interest.

That precedent faces a mortal threat in a case scheduled for oral argument at the Supreme Court on Monday. Indications are that a conservative majority of justices is poised to overturn it. That would have implications for worker rights, principles of fair compensation and income inequality, none of them good — unless you’re a millionaire.

The case is Janus vs. AFSCME. The issue in the case is the “agency fee,” which public employee unions in 22 states, including California, charge workers who are represented by those unions. The fee is a subset of union dues, which are paid by members. It’s supposed to cover only contract-related union functions such as contract negotiations and enforcement, including grievance procedures.

“The free-rider argument as a justification for compelling nonmembers to pay a portion of union dues represents something of an anomaly.” Supeme Court Justice Samuel Alito. 

Through the agency fee, workers in union-represented jobs pay for those services but are shielded from paying for political activities with which they disagree. In those 22 states, the unions are legally bound to represent all workers in jobs under their jurisdiction, even if they aren’t members. The fee obviously is a key to unions’ performing all their functions, for if it weren’t required, many members would quit the union, taking their dues with them and leaving the union without the resources to do its job. That’s what union opponents would like to see.

As my colleague David G. Savage has reported, the nominal plaintiff in this case is Mark Janus, a child support worker for a state agency in Illinois who objects to the $45 monthly fee he pays to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, ostensibly because the fee covers political positions he doesn’t support. But the case was initiated by the state’s Republican governor, Bruce Rauner, who had to duck behind Janus when a court ruled he had no standing to sue because he wasn’t paying the fee.

The groups backing the Janus case like to dress up their quest as a campaign to protect the free speech of teachers, healthcare workers or other public employees. We’ve explained before that it’s nothing of the kind. The cases aren’t about free speech or improving education for children. They’re about silencing the political voice and the negotiating strength of teacher and other public employee unions by cutting off their revenues. The campaign is a prime example of pure political cynicism, garbed with faux principle and backed by billions of self-interested dollars.

 

The main object of the Janus case and others like it has been to overturn a 1977 Supreme Court precedent known as Abood vs. Detroit Board of Education.

Abood established the principle that while public employees represented by unions couldn’t be forced to support union political positions with their dues, they shouldn’t get a free ride on the nonpolitical activities of unions either.

Thus did the “agency” or “fair share” fee receive the Court’s seal of approval. The implicit idea was to address the free-rider problem — people who received the benefit of union representation but didn’t want to pay.

Anti-union forces rapidly geared up to combat Abood. They pressed for state laws to invalidate agency fees. In California, they brought three anti-union initiatives to the ballot between 2000 and 2016, including a 2005 measure sponsored by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. All three failed.

And they went to court.

The labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute and Mary Bottari of In These Times have documented that the anti-Abood coalition includes right-wing groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, and the State Policy Network. They and other sponsors of these legal cases and related legislative initiatives are affiliated with the Koch brothers, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Mercer Family Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation.

 

Some operate behind the scrim of umbrella groups such as the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Center for Individual Rights. But at heart, they’re a network of right-wing billionaire families. The outfit representing Mark Janus, the Liberty Justice Center, is an offshoot of the Illinois Policy Institute; both have received funding from organizations in this network, including the Charles Koch Institute.

Do you really think these people have the interests of ordinary workers at heart? Me neither.

The lawsuits aimed at overturning Abood have been relentless. In 2012, the Supreme Court heard Knox vs. SEIU, a California case that turned on the type of fee notice unions had to give nonmember employees. The court upheld Abood, but Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, expressed doubts about the precedent. “The free-rider argument as a justification for compelling nonmembers to pay a portion of union dues represents something of an anomaly,” he wrote — “one that we have found to be justified by the interest in furthering ‘labor peace,’ ” but “an anomaly nevertheless.”

Alito implied that he would take a hatchet to Abood if the opportunity arose, giving heart to anti-union forces.

 

In 2014, Harris vs. Quinn, which had been launched in 2010 on behalf of home healthcare workers in Illinois, reached the Supreme Court. The court didn’t overturn Abood, ruling instead that the home care workers weren’t actually full-fledged state employees so the precedent didn’t apply to them. Alito again wrote the majority opinion and took further potshots at Abood, which he denigrated at length.

That drew pushback from Justice Elena Kagan, who replied that “the Abood rule is deeply entrenched, and is the foundation for not tens or hundreds, but thousands of contracts … across the nation.”

Kagan also pointed out the downside of stripping unions of their financial resources. The agency fee recognizes the special role of unions in public employee bargaining, she observed, because they must represent members and nonmembers equally. “It ensures that a union will receive adequate funding, notwithstanding its legally imposed disability … so that a government wishing to bargain with an exclusive representative will have a viable counterpart.”

Then came Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Assn., a 2016 case, also from California, that took direct aim at Abood. Friedrichs was about to give the court’s conservatives the opportunity they sought to overturn Abood, but an act of God intervened: the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who was expected to join the anti-Abood majority. That left the court split 4-4, which meant the pro-Abood decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco stood. Now that Scalia’s seat has been filled by the even more conservative Neil Gorsuch, the anti-Abood cabal feels even more confident. At its core, Janus is just an Illinois version of Friedrichs.

The backers of these lawsuits have tried to turn the “free-rider” principle on its head, arguing that mandatory agency fees turn nonmembers into “forced riders.” They say that the resistance of some workers to paying even agency fees shows that those workers don’t believe they get any benefit from union representation.

That notion was challenged in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by 36 moderate and progressive economists. They observed that workers might refuse to pay voluntary fees out of “simple self-interest” — that is, saving the money, even if they appreciated the union’s representation. This, of course, is exactly what union opponents are hoping for.

Roy Moore is haunting the GOP Senate primary in Missouri

ThinkProgress

Roy Moore is haunting the GOP Senate primary in Missouri

The failed Senate candidate and accused child molester has endorsed a fringe candidate in the race, and his biggest donor is bankrolling the establishment favorite.

Addy Baird     February 26, 2018

A women wears an “I voted” sticker as she waits the arrival of Republican senatorial candidate Roy Moore for his election night party. Credit: Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Failed Alabama Republican Senate candidate and accused child molester Roy Moore is now haunting the GOP primary in Missouri.

Last Friday, Moore endorsed Courtland Sykes, a Republican who demanded in an official campaign statement last month that his fiancée always have a home-cooked dinner waiting for him.

“I want to come home to a home cooked dinner at six every night, one that she fixes and one that I expect one day to have daughters learn to fix after they become traditional homemakers and family wives,” Sykes said in January. “Think Norman Rockwell here and Gloria Steinem be damned.”

In the same statement, Sykes called feminists “she devils” and said he didn’t want his someday-daughters, bless their hearts, to be “career-obsessed banshees.”

Moore — who lost to Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) last December after eight women came forward during the election accusing Moore of sexual misconduct  — wrote in a letter endorsing Sykes that the Trump-styled Republican is a “man of impeccable character, courage, and Christian faith.”

Here are all of the women who have accused Roy Moore of sexual impropriety

“We need men like Courtland Sykes in the Senate of the United States, a leader who will not only say what is right, but also a leader who will do what is right,” the letter said. “If you are tired of special interest politicians and liberal news organizations who seek to control us with ‘fake news,’ then I ask for you to vote for Courtland Sykes in the upcoming election for United States Senate.”

Sykes backed Moore during the special election, saying the judge was a “legendary patriot who stands up and fights no matter what” in a video released last November.

In addition to endorsing Moore’s campaign, the video was a 40-minute “mini-documentary” full of conspiracy theories undermining the women who accused Moore of sexual misconduct and abuse and railing against The Washington Post, which first reported some of the allegations against Moore.

“If the Washington Post has its way with Roy Moore in Alabama, then liberals win any election by liberal media lying, and fake news media returns to control politics in America with propaganda, with fake news like the floozy attacks, until conservative America ends or until America itself is finished,” Sykes said in the video. “And we’re not going to let that happen.”

Watch:

In a release announcing Moore’s endorsement Monday, Sykes reportedly thanked Moore and said it was an honor to be back by one of the country’s “most courageous and legendary conservative figures.”

Sykes is considered a long shot candidate by both Republicans and Democrats in Missouri. The campaign had just $1,800 in the bank at the end of last year, according to The Kansas City Star.

But Sykes isn’t the only Republican Senate hopeful in Missouri running in Moore’s shadow.

Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley (R) is benefiting from donations from businessman Richard Uihlein, who was revealed last November to be Moore’s biggest donor. Through the Proven Conservatives PAC, Uihlein donated $100,000 to support Moore. Now, the mega-donor — who dropped eight figures on 2016 races — has turned his sights to Missouri.

Uihlein has donated $2 million to the Club for Growth Action Missouri super PAC, which is backing Hawley. Uhliein also donated the legal maximum directly to Hawley’s campaign.

Asked whether he’d vote for Moore in the special election last December, Hawley declined to reject the accused predator, saying he “would want to see the evidence.”

Missouri Republican says the sexual revolution caused human trafficking

“At least some of them are allegations of criminal wrongdoing,” he told reporters at the time. “And that I don’t know what the truth is, but Judge Moore does. And I think that if these allegations are true, he should not be running… I would want to see the evidence. It would be the obligation of the ethics committee, if they did undertake an investigation, to gather actual hard evidence, to weigh the facts and make a report on it.”

In a statement in January, the Missouri Democratic party hit Hawley over the remarks.

“Now we know why Josh Hawley refused to denounce Roy Moore — they share the same out-of-state megadonor,” communications director Brooke Goren said. “This revelation is further proof that a small number of millionaires and dark money special interests are trying to buy Missouri’s U.S. Senate seat for Josh Hawley — and Hawley is willing to do what they ask in return.”

Republicans reportedly have been privately fretting about Hawley in recent weeks, however, after Hawley fell short of expected fundraising goals recently and drew national attention for comments he made linking the sexual revolution to human trafficking.

“We have a human trafficking crisis in our state and in this city and in our country because people are willing to purchase women, young women, and treat them like commodities,” Hawley said in audio first obtained by The Kansas City Star last month. “There is a market for it. Why is there? Because our culture has completely lost its way. The sexual revolution has led to exploitation of women on a scale that we would never have imagined, never have imagined.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story said Club for Growth was backing Sykes. They are backing Hawley.

The Netherlands has become the world’s second biggest food exporter

February 24, 2018

An agricultural giant.

via World Economic Forum

The Netherlands has become the world’s 2nd biggest food exporter

An agricultural giant.via World Economic Forum

Posted by EcoWatch on Saturday, February 24, 2018