Kroger Supermarket Chain to Close 60 Stores Across the U.S.

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

With the apparent beginning of WWIII and the conflict between Israel and Iran dominating the headline news this past week, many other significant news stories have seemingly flown under the radar of both corporate and alternative news sites this past week.

On Friday during a 2025 1st quarter sales report, Kroger announced that it is planning on closing 60 stores nationwide in the U.S. during the next 18 months.

Kroger is one of the largest grocery chains in the U.S. with 2,731 stores employing 409,000 people, so closing 60 stores is 2% of all its locations.

I have read several articles that covered this announcement from yesterday, and nobody reporting on this can give a good reason why Kroger is doing this.

The nationwide grocer is one of the largest supermarket chains in the U.S. and currently operates over 2,700 stores nationwide. Which stores it plans on closing and why remains unclear. (Source.)

The reason they don’t want to say why is because it is politically incorrect to do so.

Because if you blame it on tariffs, or the rapidly declining farm labor due to ICE actions, then Trump will humiliate you publicly as he has done to other major retailers recently, such as Apple and Amazon.

This is only going to get worse.

The tariffs are not in the news much these days, but they are still there, and scheduled to increase substantially in early July.

And many U.S. farmers are struggling because ICE is deporting much of their farm labor. Not only are these deportations affecting farm production, they are taking $dollars out of the economy from these laborers who spend what they earn, and grocery stores are going to feel a major brunt of this reduction of spending in the economy.

This was published in the Wall Street Journal three weeks ago:

Ending Parole for 500,000 Migrants Creates New Headaches for Employers

Excerpts:

The Supreme Court’s decision allowing the Trump administration to revoke temporary protections for half a million migrants brings the U.S. economy closer to labor shortages in industries and regions that rely on foreign workers.

The impact will take time to unfold, but could be far-reaching.

The potential departure of hundreds of thousands of people from the labor force is creating anxiety for employers and adding a fresh dose of uncertainty for an economy already grappling with the administration’s tariff policies.

LeadingAge, a group representing nonprofit aging-care providers, said the court ruling means many members will lose workers. “The sudden loss of these employees will have repercussions,” the group said.

The administration’s efforts are creating significant uncertainty for employers, said Helen Konrad, an immigration lawyer at McCandlish Holton who advises firms with hundreds of thousands of workers.

In recent months, Konrad has heard accounts of staffing agencies being asked not to provide foreign workers out of concern from clients that the workers could lose their immigration status—a request that cannot be met without violating antidiscrimination statutes.

“Employers are totally getting crushed in the middle of this chaos,” Konrad said. (Source.)

As far as the tariffs, the data regarding the slow down at U.S. ports is just now starting to be reported, as container rates dropped the most in two years at the busiest ports on the West Coast according to data from May.

It is going to get worse.

This was reported last week:

Imports to the busiest U.S. seaport at Los Angeles dropped 9% year-on-year in May and could remain muted through the remainder of 2025, after companies responded to President Donald Trump’s 145% tariffs on China by canceling or putting holds on shipments, according to port officials.

China is the top U.S. supplier of seaborne goods, and Los Angeles is the No. 1 port for those imports. Domestic businesses ranging from retailer Walmart, to automaker Ford on the toys, furniture and auto parts that land on its docks.

The Port of Los Angeles handled the equivalent of 355,950 20-foot shipping containers of imports in May, when the 145% tariffs began to show up in data.

“May marked our lowest monthly volume in over two years,” Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, said on Friday.

“Many importers just simply slammed on the brakes.”

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach handle 31% of U.S. ocean trade and are a barometer for U.S. economic activity.

Long Beach has not reported May results. Its CEO previously forecast a more than 10% drop in May imports. (Source.)

No Shortages of Food in Stores in Iran in Spite of the Bombing

One place where there are no shortages of food nor a shortage of shoppers is reportedly in Iran.

PressTV out of Iran published this report today.

Iran, of course, has faced many years of sanctions by the U.S. and Europe, so they are not dependent on Western supply chains. Iran has also never been a colonized nation, either under the British Empire or the modern American Empire, and that may actually help them now, especially after the war as they look to restore their infrastructure and economy.

As I have written previously, I have had many Iranian friends here in the U.S. over the years, and at times some of them have shared with me Iranian pistachios that they brought back from Iran, but cannot be purchased here, and they were some of the best pistachios I have ever had!

But I cannot import them and sell them in my online store, due to U.S. sanctions.

In 2011 I published an article comparing Iran’s agricultural system, which at that time 14 years ago had a goal of being 25% organic in 5 years.

How could they accomplish that? Because “organic” principles without heavy chemical inputs was how “normal traditional farming” was done throughout Iran, and they didn’t even know it had a label (“organic”).

If you looked at their neighbors, however, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the first things the U.S. occupying country did when they invaded and toppled the government, was to let Big Ag come in and take over with GMO seeds and massive chemicals.

Here is the article I published back in 2011. I am going to reproduce it here so Americans can have a historical perspective of how America treats their colonies once they take over.

US Foreign Policy Destroys Native Sustainable Agriculture

by Brian Shilhavy
Health Impact News Editor

December 20, 2011

Lost in the current debate regarding U.S. foreign policy in this current election cycle, is the question of how our military involvement in the Middle East has affected the local populations, particularly their native agriculture. Unfortunately, this is a story that is largely ignored by the mainstream media.

Iraq

In Iraq, for example, the U.S. basically wiped out local native agriculture, which was primarily sustainable, and replaced it with the same Big Ag policies and practices that now dominate U.S. agriculture. Instead of native heirloom crops, genetically modified seeds were imported and used to replace crops that have been grown for centuries in what was once the “fertile crescent.” Watch this short video and see how for the first time in history, the people of Iraq are not able to feed themselves:

VIDEO NO LONGER AVAILABLE

Daniel Stone wrote some interesting comments on the U.S. take-over of Iraqi agriculture back in 2006:

Wars are invariably a pretext for economic expansion and opportunities for corporate greed. What better target for U.S. agribusiness than a U.S.-occupied country such as Iraq? Such a country would be powerless to oppose the re-writing of its laws… No better evidence of this was the installation in April 2003 of Daniel Amstutz, former Cargill Corporation executive, to oversee the “rehabilitization” of agriculture in Iraq. Cargill, a violator of the rights and independence of family farmers throughout the world, is notorious for using massive subsidies from the U.S. government to dump vast amounts of grains in poorer countries. This action “undermines small farmers, helps to destroy the local food production systems, and forces dependence of small farmers and local rural economies on corporate agribusiness.”

After the so-called “transfer of sovereignty” in June 2004, when former Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) administrator L. Paul Bremer III left Baghdad, he left behind the 100 orders he enacted as head of the occupation authority in Iraq. Of Bremer’s 100 Orders, Order 81 contains the edicts (paragraphs 51 – 79) pertinent to agriculture. Order 81, while claiming otherwise, will actually reduce biodiversity and thus lead to a monoculture susceptible to disease, increase chemical use, and pave the way for Genetically Modified Organisms (“GMOs”) to dominate food production in Iraq. (See: The collapse of native Iraqi agriculture, and the prosper of US Biotech and GMOs in Iraq)

Earlier this year Peter Van Buren, a 23-year Foreign Service officer with the U.S Department of State, published a book entitled: We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of Iraqi People. Mr. Van Buren spent one year in Iraq in a “reconstruction” capacity and saw firsthand how $58 billion was wasted trying to show Iraqis how to do things the “American way.” Here is a short video clip describing his experiences:

I purchased the Kindle copy of Mr. Van Buren’s book. One chapter that caught my attention right away was the chapter “Milking the US Government.”

As the book explains, the idea was to develop a milk industry that would provide jobs and an industry that would lure young men out of the ranks of al Qeda and terrorism. Millions of dollars were spent on this project, apparently with no regard as to how the Big Dairy industry was failing miserably in the U.S. for many years now. As Mr. Van Buren explains:

We were going to change the way farmers sold milk. From year zero, Iraqi farmers in our area had raised a cow or two each. The farmers kept some of the milk for themselves, selling the excess to their neighbors. Lacking refrigeration, transportation, and an organized distribution system, each area instead sought a delicate balance between the number of cows, the number of people, and the need for milk. It worked well enough for everyone but us. Without checking with the farmers, we decided to modernize the whole milk chain to create jobs. Farmers would sell their milk to our newly built centralized collection centers equipped with refrigerated tanks, and the centers would then sell the bulk milk to dairy-processing plants, also built by us. The processing plants were expected to sell to the farmers’ neighbors, who would surely be waiting around wondering what happened to the friendly farmer who used to bring fresh milk around daily. (Van Buren, Peter 2011. We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People (American Empire Project) (p. 81). Metropolitan Books. Kindle Edition.)

Sound familiar? Replace the local “milkman” with a highly processed and industrialized system. Fortunately for the Iraqis, the whole project failed. Unfortunately for the American taxpayers, we paid for that failure.

Afghanistan

In June this year Patricia McArdle wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times: Afghanistan’s Last Locavores. Ms. McArdle spent one year in Afghanistan as a State Department political adviser:

Many urban Americans idealize “green living” and “slow food.” But few realize that one of the most promising models for sustainable living is not to be found on organic farms in the United States, but in Afghanistan. A majority of its 30 million citizens still grow and process most of the food they consume. They are the ultimate locavores.

During the 12 months I spent as a State Department political adviser in northern Afghanistan, I was dismayed to see that instead of building on Afghanistan’s traditional, labor-intensive agricultural and construction practices, the United States is using many of its aid dollars to transform this fragile agrarian society into a consumer-oriented, mechanized, fossil-fuel-based economy. (Full article here.)

Is the American Biotech Industry’s Desire to Control the World through GMO Seeds Fueling Some of our Foreign Policy?

There was much written in 2011 about information revealed in the now infamous “Wikileaks” detailing just how much pressure the U.S. government has applied all around the world to get countries to adopt U.S. genetically modified seeds. For example:

In one cable, an unnamed State Department official tells a Pakistan finance minister, who notes that drought and water issues remain a primary barrier to increasing the country’s agricultural capacity, that “the integration of genetically modified seeds is critical to increasing agricultural productivity.” The official then requested “enhanced U.S.–Pakistan collaboration” on biotechnology research. (Full article here)

Is Iran Next?

Much of the rhetoric regarding U.S. foreign policy in the recent presidential debates has centered around Iran, and their supposed threat to obtaining a nuclear weapon. They are often cited as a threat to other countries due to their “Jihadist” theology. Currently, Iran is isolated from U.S. businesses for the most part.

What is the current state of their agriculture? The English News Iran Daily reported earlier this year that the country’s current five year economic plan (2010 through 2015) had a goal of having at least 25% of their agriculture being produced by organic standards:

It is predicted that 143 million tons of agro products will be produced by the end of Fifth Plan, of which 30 million tons would be organic crops, Esmaeel Negaresh stated, INN.ir wrote.

Organic farming is a form of agriculture that relies on techniques such as crop rotation, green manure, compost and biological pest control to maintain soil productivity and control pests on a farm.

Organic farming excludes or strictly limits the use of manufactured fertilizers, pesticides (which include herbicides, insecticides and fungicides), plant growth regulators such as hormones, livestock antibiotics, food additives, and genetically modified organisms.

Pointing to the responsibilities of Agricultural Jihad Ministry in this respect, Negaresh said standards for production of healthy crops have been compiled, adding the maximum residue level (MRL) database for over 2,000 crops has been prepared and notified to provinces.

Total area under cultivation in Iran is 11-13 million hectares most of which are under traditional farming systems with smallholder farmers involved in subsistence agriculture.

Since many farmers in their small farms and gardens never use agrochemicals and employ sustainable approaches for crop production during land preparation, crop nutrition, soil fertility as well as pest, disease and weed management, their agroecosystems are potentially organic or can be easily converted to organic. (Full Article Here.)

If the U.S. decides to start another war, targeting Iran this time, what do you think will happen to this traditional agricultural system? History would seem to indicate that the same thing would happen that happened in Afghanistan and Iraq.