Andronicos stops selling Tobacco products

Progressive Grocer reports that as of last Monday, Andronicos has pulled all Tobacco products from their shelves. Part of a broader initiative called “clean and green” that will be continuing over the coming months.
“We have been contemplating this for several years,” said president and c.e.o. Bill Andronico. Adding, “It’s all part of a rising consciousness at Andronico’s that will include the upcoming Clean and Green initiatives. . .”

I certainly agree that the widespread use of most tobacco products creates a burden for taxpayers, a certain health risk for users and a nuisance for many others. Putting that aside, I wonder if there are any responsible tobacco growers and tobacco product manufacturers out there. It seems that Andronicos could still carry tobacco products under those conditions?

Regardless, Andronicos has made substantial efforts to inform their customers of the impact of their purchases at their stores. Specifically the sustainable ratings system applied to the fish for sale at their markets. They also receive high quality ratings from sites like The Eat Well Guide for buying locally and sustainably.

I’m looking forward to seeing what the next initiative is to roll out.

Also seen on Marketing Profs Daily Fix.

Photograph courtesy of Marco Giardini.

9 Comments so far

  1. waybeyond (unregistered) on February 7th, 2008 @ 11:06 pm

    Are you kidding me? I definitely identify myself as a liberal but this is starting to get ridiculous. What’s next? Alcohol? High-sugar content products? High-fat products? Give me a break. When did it become okay for us to become a nanny-state?

  2. Champ Steakpunch (unregistered) on February 8th, 2008 @ 10:14 am

    Andronico’s has an enormous wine and liquor selection (thank god), one wonders why that’s okay and smokes are not. Is cirrhosis less of a burden on society than emphysema? And if you want to get nit-picky on green issues, why do they sell meat? Methane gas and overgrazing are bad for the environment, and obesity and heart disease are bad for people. Maybe Andronico’s should just close, that’s the only logical thing to do.

  3. Be There Now (unregistered) on February 8th, 2008 @ 11:18 am

    Big Deal…They overcharge for everything else so they have no financial risk in not selling tobacco. I doubt the reason was an altruistic one. If they really want to help out they could lower the prices to be more competitive more with others. You have to walk through aisles of booze to get to any "real" food. Give me a break…

  4. Richard (unregistered) on February 8th, 2008 @ 11:20 am

    I don’t see why they should have to stop selling anything at all, personally.

    Although if they did continue selling cigs, and this applies to booze and meat, and any other product that has *hidden* costs, or what economists like to call *external* costs, then they should be sold at their TRUE price.

    Which means that a pack should cost around $15 (guess) per to cover the public health burden and the impact of super-farming tobacco to the environment. Ask a family that lives close to a tobacco farm what the incidence of cancer is in their community?

    Peel it back, take a deeper look.

  5. San Francisco Photos (unregistered) on February 9th, 2008 @ 7:10 am

    Hey not a smoker but do know plenty and while around them the smoke drives me crazy so I guess it’s for the best, right? Thank you!

  6. cd (unregistered) on February 10th, 2008 @ 8:55 pm

    Wow, I’m kind of surprised at the reactions to this. I don’t buy tobacco products (and I never spent that much time shopping at Andronicos even when I lived within a few blocks of it because I’m cheap) so i doubt i’d have noticed. Nor, I’m guessing, would many people. those that would, probably didn’t prefer Andronicos for their cigs anyway, right?

    why must we always go straight for the slippery slope argument – first tobacco, what next, meat?! – why not just be comfortable with the fact that the world is nuanced and stuff is complicated?

    a few glasses of wine can have health benefits. i don’t think the same has ever been said about tobacco.

  7. Patrick (unregistered) on February 11th, 2008 @ 8:11 pm

    I am a vehement anti-smoker, mostly because of how terrible cigs are for MY health. Why should I have to pay any price for whatever destruction someone wants to have on their body?

    Whatever I happen to drink in alcohol doesn’t ever have a _direct_ impact on anyone else, and when used in moderation won’t ever have any impact on anyone else, so that’s the clear difference between these oft related vices. Tobacco users seem to be completely able to shrug off the guilt and responsibility they should feel for burdening others because of their own harmful habit.

    Another thing, complaining about cigs being under fire because of some vice inequality or discrimination is just damned foolish. Comparing things like tobacco and alcohol as equals ignores too many differences…apples and oranges.

    Making cigarettes available at fewer locations will hopefully put smokers out enough to make them think, even if only for a second. No sympathy here.

  8. DoogieHowsah (unregistered) on February 17th, 2008 @ 2:11 pm

    Is there a reason we’re capitalizing "tobacco" now? Did we move to Germany?

  9. Richard (unregistered) on February 18th, 2008 @ 10:06 pm

    They spell tobacco with a capital T in Germany?

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.