Detailed Reply to Pollan Letter

by John Mackey, June 26, 2006 | Permalink

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your recent letter to me. I appreciate the fact that you wrote the letter in an overall positive tone. I want to respond to your letter with an equally positive tone and match your efforts in “constructive criticism.” I’ll take your letter section by section, with my responses below each section. I will then conclude by writing about some of the new initiatives Whole Foods Market will be beginning very soon, which I hope you’ll find exciting. I know that I’m very excited about them.

I’ll only say a couple of things as an introduction. One of these is that I’m disappointed that you didn’t respond at all to my short section on the history of the organic foods movement and how difficult it was for Whole Foods Market to develop sufficient supply and scale to actually get authentic organic foods into the hands (and mouths) of millions of people. You completely ignored that section. Without Whole Foods Market’s pioneering work and without the growth of our stores and distribution centers, it is very unlikely that the organic foods movement would be where it is today. You obviously admire the retail food co-op movement (which I supported myself in Austin prior to co-founding Whole Foods Market), but in fact this movement has never been large enough to successfully grow the organic foods movement. In 2005 the total sales of all the retail food co-ops in the United States combined was only about $700 million (source–National Cooperative Grocers Association), which was less than 15% of Whole Foods Market total sales that year. The simple truth is that the organic foods movement was largely a fringe movement with the number of adherents numbering only in the thousands before Whole Foods Market came into existence. The year-round supply of organic foods across the United States today consumed by millions and millions of people is in large part due to the success and growth of Whole Foods Market. Why do you not understand or appreciate this truth?

My second disappointment is that you don’t comment on the examples we gave of supporting networks and co-ops of small producers and family farms throughout our supply chain. I gave two solid examples in my letter—CROPP for Organic dairy products and Country Natural Beef—but there are many others. These networks and co-ops of small producers and family farms that banded together for distribution and marketing economies of scale are an important alternative to the large scale corporate farms that you find so alarming.

Last month, John Mackey, the president of Whole Foods, wrote me a letter (also published on the Whole Foods Web site), taking issue with some of the points I have made about his grocery chain-in my book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” in my column for TimesSelect and in some of my public remarks. What follows is my response to Mr. Mackey.

Michael, just for the record I’m co-founder, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, but not the President of Whole Foods Market. A.C. Gallo and Walter Robb are Co-Presidents of the company.

June 12, 2006

Dear John Mackey,

Thank you for your letter, and for the time you spent with me in Austin last month. I was delighted to have a chance to meet and to learn more about Whole Foods. Thank you, too, for the $25 gift certificate, which more than makes up for the $6 I spent on the disappointing Argentine organic asparagus. Though I know you are troubled by some of the critical things I have written and said publicly about Whole Foods, it was clear from our conversation that we agree about a great many things, including our concerns about the future direction of organic agriculture. Since you are in a position to do much to shape that future, that cheers me no end.

I want to take this opportunity to address some of the points you made in your letter, and to pose a few of the questions that it begs. I hope you will take my remarks in the spirit in which they are offered – as constructive criticism of an important institution that can do much to advance what you call the “reformation” of the American food system, something we both want.

Let me start by explaining why I did not seek to interview anyone from Whole Foods for my book, which you imply in your letter represents a journalistic lapse. (You should know I have interviewed people from the company several times in the past, particularly in connection with an April 2001 story I did for The New York Times Magazine “Naturally,” for which I interviewed Margaret Wittenberg. Over the years I have also interviewed several store employees of Whole Foods and a great many of its suppliers.) For the purposes of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” I approached Whole Foods less as a journalist than a consumer, since my goal was to capture how the store represents itself and the food it sells to a typical shopper: the signs and displays, the brochures, the labels, the photographs on the walls. Admittedly, this is not a systematic way to describe a supermarket chain-it depends on the sample of stores I visited and what they happened to be selling on any given day. It could be you have stores that sell substantially more local food than the stores I observed. But the fact remains that what I observed I observed, and that is what I wrote in the book. Nothing in your letter leads me to believe my account of what you sell in my local Whole Foods or the farms it comes from is inaccurate.

It is difficult to discuss this with you here, Michael, because you are falling back upon your own subjective experience as your only reference point. I want to point out, however, that we never merely “observe what we observe.” We bring to our observations our expectations, beliefs, biases, and world views, and these serve as perceptual filters that tremendously influence our observations. One of the main purposes of my letter to you was to try to get you to examine some of your biases and beliefs about Whole Foods Market that may be filtering what you are actually observing about us. If you come into our stores (or anywhere else) looking for what you don’t like, it is all-too-easy to find it.

With all due respect, Michael, I also think your response here is pretty weak because the fact is that you didn’t try to contact us. I think if you are going to criticize us publicly to hundreds of thousands of people and are going to compare us unfavorably with Wal-Mart, then you at least owe us the courtesy of talking to us first and hearing our side of the story. You certainly spent plenty of time talking directly to Joel Salatin for the book and didn’t approach him as simply an innocent “consumer.” Quite the opposite: you went and lived at his farm for about a week. That kind of first hand knowledge and experience is the essence of good journalism in my opinion and I think Whole Foods Market also deserved to be treated fairly and with respect.

I do appreciate your offer of journalistic access and “transparency,” though you may be interested to know that other journalists have not found you and other Whole Foods executives to be so accessible in the past. When researching his important new book “Organic, Inc.,” Sam Fromartz was turned down in his effort to arrange an interview with you. He was told (in an email from Amy Hopfensperger): “… we do not grant interviews for book requests at this time for several reasons. With the explosive growth in the organic and natural food industry and Whole Foods Market’s position as the leader in this industry, we are not interested in leaking any competitive information that may benefit our competitors.” I would hope this does not accurately reflect your feelings about talking to journalists, and to judge from my recent contacts with you, it does not. Transparency at every level is critical to reforming the food system.

Regarding Sam Fromartz, there is a misunderstanding here that I believe I can clear up. Whole Foods Market is very open to journalists who are writing stories in newspapers or magazines or doing radio or television shows about our business. This accessibility has resulted in several thousand stories in every kind of media about the company. However, Whole Foods Market hasn’t been very open to book authors in the past primarily because until Sam Fromartz, no author had ever approached us about writing a history of the organic or natural products industry. Instead, each year we are approached by several dozen business book authors who want to write in detail about our management methods, company culture, and/or strategic direction. We’ve almost always turned down these types of book requests since we believe our management, culture, and strategy are important proprietary information that we are not eager for our competitors to get hold of. However, in fact, we actually did work with Fromartz to some extent as both Margaret Wittenberg, our Vice President of Quality Standards, and David Smith, our Vice President of Marketing at the time, did talk with him while he was researching his book. He therefore wasn’t shut out from access to all of Whole Foods leadership, although I didn’t personally talk with him. By the way, I read Fromartz’s book, Organic, Inc., which I thought was very good, and I wish now that I had personally met with him.

We also cooperated with Peter Singer in his latest book, The Way We Eat: Why our Food Choices Matter. Peter was able to interview me directly because I greatly admire him and am indebted to him for helping to wake me up to the reality of animal suffering (he is probably more responsible than anyone else for my vegan diet). I’ve talked to our PR team about this and we will be open in the future to granting interviews to authors writing about the natural or organic food industries. We will still not be accessible to business book authors, however, for the reasons I mentioned above. In any case, if you had approached Whole Foods Market for an interview with me it would have been given. Why? Because I loved your book The Botany of Desire and would have given you the interview just to meet you and talk about food. This is the same reason I gave Peter Singer the interview. Both you and Peter are aligned with many of my values and I want to support both of you with your work. It is as simple as that.

I confess I am of two minds in deciding how to respond to the substance of your letter: whether I should attempt to cast doubt on your claims that Whole Foods wholeheartedly supports local, artisanal, and grass-based agriculture, or whether to simply applaud and encourage your inclinations in that direction. I take heart in the fact that you feel compelled to defend a commitment to these forms of agriculture, not only because I share it, but because you are in as strong a position as any individual in America today to help rebuild local food chains and build a market for pasture-based livestock farming. I don’t need to tell you how important these two things are – or that the survival of local agriculture is critical to preserving farmland near America’s metropolitan areas; to reducing our consumption of fossil fuel (17 percent of U.S. fossil fuel consumption goes to feeding ourselves); and to making the food system better able to withstand threats, whether from pathogens or terrorists (or both). The decentralization of the food system is not just a matter of sentiment or political correctness but of national security. Further, as we discussed, grass farming represents one of the most encouraging trends in American agriculture today, holding out great promise for improving the health of the animals, of the American land, and of the American consumer.

Yet, to be perfectly candid, I have trouble squaring some of your claims of support for local agriculture with what I see when I shop at Whole Foods. I see more signage about the importance of local produce than I see actual items of local produce. You write that 45 percent of your suppliers are local, i.e. located within 200 miles of the store – an impressive statistic, but perhaps a misleading one. Given the concentration of organic produce in a tiny handful of corporate hands (with Cal-Organic/Grimmway and Earthbound dominating the market nationally), it’s not surprising that you would have a relatively high number of local suppliers among your vendors – since just two of those vendors could supply the great bulk of your produce sales. The more telling statistic would be this: As a percentage of sales (rather than of vendors), how much of the produce sold at Whole Foods is produced locally? My guess is that number is considerably lower than 45 percent, even if you count Cal-Organics and Earthbound as “local farmers” in California, a claim that strikes me (and would probably strike them) as a stretch. Leaving aside food miles, these are not the sorts of corporations most people have in mind when they talk about local agriculture.

Since you’ve already shared that your personal observations are the only basis for assertions about Whole Foods Market’s support of large industrial organic producers, let me restate some of the statistics I provided in my previous letter: “Of our top 150 suppliers/brokers in the produce category, 22% of our purchases are from large corporate farms and 78% are from independent and family farms (some of these smaller farms pool together under one brand name to help improve marketing and distribution). 60% of these 150 suppliers grow organically, and/or represent growers who do so.” In addition, Whole Foods Market is currently doing business with over 2,400 independent farms. My point in reiterating these statistics is to hammer in one very important point about Whole Foods Market: we buy from a variety of organic farms-some are very large such as Grimmway, some are very small, and the great majority is someplace in between. Both your and Fromartz’s books over-emphasize the growth of the larger organic farms and mostly ignore the 2,400+ smaller and middle sized farms that Whole Foods Market does business with. In almost any vibrant distribution system, some of the producers are going to be substantially larger and more successful than most others. This is the normalized pattern we find in every growing business system, but this doesn’t mean that only a few companies monopolize the organic produce industry. They certainly don’t as their relatively small 22% share of Whole Foods Market produce business clearly proves.

Your letter to me, however, does raise some interesting questions about scale that your book never addresses: when is a farm too large to be considered “small?” How far can food be transported before it is no longer considered “local?” How much machinery is a farm allowed to use before it becomes “industrial” (and therefore no longer “good”)? Your book doesn’t hesitate to assign heroes and villains to a very complex story, but unfortunately it never defines its terms so the reader is left wondering when a hero slips over to the “dark side” and actually becomes a villain. In your book and the various interviews I’ve read and heard, Earthbound seems to be “guilty” of successfully growing to become a large “industrialized corporate farm.” At what point in their growth did they cross over? At what point is big too big? In point of fact, however, Earthbound is not quite the large monolithic industrialized organic farm that you portray it as being. Earthbound buys its product from 185 organic farms of varying sizes and consolidates this diverse group of farms together under one brand and one distribution system. This greatly lowers marketing and distribution costs and makes organic greens more affordable for millions of people. Isn’t that a good thing? When exactly does the use of machinery or input substitution cause an organic farm to become an “industrial organic farm?” How many different crops must it grow, and how many different animal species must be integrated into the farm, before it is considered a polyculture farm? Do you also believe that being a corporation is inherently a bad thing? In your book, Joel Salatin is portrayed in heroic terms. How large and successful could he become before he was no longer a hero in your book? If his farm became a corporation, took in investment capital, and successfully grew, would it no longer be ethically good in your opinion?

Speaking of Salatin, while I find many things that he is doing to be very inspirational, there are other practices of his that deserve criticism, especially regarding animal welfare. A Whole Foods Market animal compassion representative has visited his farm and was disturbed by some things that he observed. In addition, Singer and Mason’s new book offers the following criticism of some of Salatin’s practices:

“But is Polyface really such a good place for animals? Rabbits on the farm are kept in small suspended wire cages. Chickens may be on grass, but instead of being free to roam, they are crowded into mobile wire pens. A review of sustainable poultry systems by the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service noted that with Salatin’s pens: ‘The confined space inside the pens makes bird welfare a concern’ and the crowding ‘can lead to pecking problems,’ because the birds lower in the pecking order cannot run away. Out of five sustainable poultry systems investigated, the mobile wire pens were placed last for animal welfare, with a ‘poor to fair’ rating. Herman Beck-Chenoweth, author of Free Range Poultry Production and Marketing and a poultry producer himself, calls Salatin’s way of raising chickens ‘a confinement system with a grass floor,’ adding that although it is a big improvement over the broiler houses used by companies such as Tyson and Perdue… it is a confinement system just the same.” (The Way We Eat: Why our Food Choices Matter—Peter Singer and Jim Mason p. 255-256).

After visiting a great many large organic farms to research my book, many of them your suppliers, it seems to me undeniable that organic agriculture has industrialized over the past few years, and that Whole Foods has played a part in that process-for good and for ill. (Sam Fromartz’s “Organic Inc.” demonstrates as much, as I think does “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” especially in Chapter Nine.) Big supermarket chains will naturally find it easier and therefore more profitable to buy from big farms selling lots of one thing. This is the way of the world, or at least of capitalism. And as I tried to make clear in my account of the organic industry, much is gained when organic gets big; I offer the story of Earthbound Farms as a positive case in point. The water and soil in California are in far better shape because of large-scale organic farms like Earthbound, as you point out in your letter. (The statistics you cite in your letter speak eloquently to this point.) But surely we can recognize all these important gains without turning a blind eye to the costs: the sacrifice of small farmers and of some of the founding principles of organic farming (its commitment to polyculture, for example; to “whole” rather than highly processed foods; to social and economic sustainability, etc.)

We both know other executives in the organic industry who accept these trade-offs as inevitable and necessary. They call themselves realists, and believe that those of us who regret the passing of local organic agriculture and the founding values of the organic movement should just get over it – that the organic Twinkie or organic Coca Cola is good news for the environment, case closed. You obviously don’t feel this way. Your letter and our conversation make clear that you care deeply about the values behind the organic movement, that much more is at stake here than pesticide residues. That’s why I would rather not get into an argument about “how local are you.” What I would much rather do is applaud you for carrying however much local food you carry, and to urge you to make it possible for your stores to carry much more.

If people freely choose to eat Twinkies or drink Coca Cola, then I would prefer that they be organic for the very reason that you listed above–it’s better for the environment. Regarding carrying more local food, thanks for the encouragement. I agree with you. I’ll have much more to say about this at the end of my letter.

As we discussed, the company’s shift a few years ago from “backdoor sales” to a regional distribution system has made it more difficult, if not impossible, for small local farmers to sell directly to individual Whole Foods stores. For some farmers, this may be a boon as you suggest, but for the many Bay Area farmers I have spoken to, it has shut them out – they don’t grow enough to supply a distribution center, or the centers are too far from their farms. You write that all of your stores are in fact free to buy locally, which I was surprised and delighted to hear. I hope you’ll take steps to encourage them in that direction. I have interviewed dozen of organic farmers for whom selling to Whole Foods over the years has been critical to their success; for what it’s worth, they feel much less welcome since you moved to the regional distribution model. Which leads me to my next question: is there anyone, at the regional level, charged with the specific mission of locally sourcing as much food as possible? And do Whole Foods buyers have the authority to pay a premium for local produce, in the same way they now routinely pay a premium for organic? Such a commitment by Whole Foods to local sourcing – not everything, but whatever and whenever possible – could go a long way toward rebuilding local food systems across America.

Michael, let me agree up front with you that Whole Foods Market needs to do a better job of helping more local growers sell directly to our stores without going through our distribution center. This is true for the Bay Area as well. I know that over the years some smaller farmers have stopped selling to us and have been frustrated with our Regional Distribution Centers. We should and will do a better job of this in the future because we are making it a company priority. That being said, neither your book nor your letter is fair to Whole Foods Market on this issue. You can always find frustrated ex-suppliers for just about any company in the world and Whole Foods Market is no exception. I think this is another example of your expectations possibly coloring your observations-you are seeing what you expect (want?) to see. Below is a partial list of small local growers that we work with in the Bay area. Some of them sell through our distribution center and some sell directly to our stores.

There are many more growers than this in the total mix, but products from these small- scale growers can be relied on to be present on the sales floor for most of the summer. With the exception of Coke Farm, all these growers deal directly with the regional buyers and/or store buyers.

• Pinnacle Ranch (Phil Foster/Pinnacle, Hollister CA – row crop, onions)
• Capay Fruits and Vegetables (Capay, CA – heirloom tomatoes)
• Ryan O’Shannon Farm (Mike McDowell, Petaluma, CA – strawberries, tomatoes)
• Swanton Berry Farm (Jim Cochran, Davenport CA – strawberries)
• Blue Moon Organic (Greg Rawlings Aptos CA – strawberries)
• Full Belly Farm, Guinda, CA – heirloom tomatoes, melons)
• Hungry Hollow (Jim Durst, Esparto, CA – heirloom tomatoes, melons)
• Wooley Farm (Brad Johnson, Live Oak, CA – melons, eggplant, squash, tomatoes)
• Goldbud (Ron Mansfield, Placerville, CA – peaches)
• Alterra Organics (Mike Milovina Mendocino County – Mendocino blueberries (awesome!)
• T+D Willey (Madera, CA – summer vegetables, tomatoes, row crop)
• Wilgenburg Greenhouse (Hans Wilgenburg/ Fresno CA – tomatoes, cukes)
• Lone Willow Ranch (John Texiera/ – heirloom tomatoes)
• Lagier Ranch (John Lagier, Escalon – grapes, apricots, paige mandarin, boysenberries)
• G+S Farm, (Glen Stonebarger/Brentwood, CA – corn, pluots)
• Happy Boy (Freedom, CA – specialty veg, heirloom tomatoes)
• Two Dog Farm (Mark and Libby Barytle , Davenport CA – dry farmed tomatoes)
• Sadies Farm (JP McDaniel, Aptos CA – tomatoes)
• Molino Creek (Davenport CA – dry farmed tomatoes)
• Coke Farm (Aromas CA)

Growers who sell primarily to the distribution center:

• Jim Durst – Hungry Hollow
• Brad Johnson – Wooley Farm
• Dinesse Willey – T+D Willey
• Phil Foster – Pinnacle Ranch
• Hans Wilgenberg – Wilgenberg Greenhouse
• Glenn Stonbarger – G+S Farm
• Capay Fruits and Veg
• Ron Mansfield – Goldbud
• John Texiera – Lone Willow Ranch (was store direct last year, but has requested to be through the DC this year.)
• John Lagier – Lagier Ranch
• Coke Farm (via WFP)
• Alterra Organics

Growers who are primarily direct to stores:

• Full Belly
• Swanton Berry Farm
• Ryan O’Shannon
• Happy Boy
• Frog Hollow
• Blue Moon Organics
• Knoll
• 2 Dog Farm
• Sadies Farm
• Molino Creek Collective

Whole Foods Market would like to try working again with any of the Bay Area farmers you know who are unhappy with Whole Foods Market and no longer sell to us. Please encourage them to contact our Northern California and Pacific Northwest Produce Director, Karen Christensen, at 415-307-5337 about selling directly into our stores again. You’ve also got my e-mail address. Please encourage those farmers to contact me directly via e-mail (but don’t give my e-mail address out to anyone else, please) if they don’t want to talk to Karen. I want to talk to them. Thanks.

The issues in pastured meat and milk are similar in some ways, different in others. I was pleased to hear you speak of the importance of grass in both beef and milk production, and applaud your efforts to push the organic dairy industry to make grazing mandatory and reject the organic feedlot model. The story in beef is more complicated. I recognize the economic advantages of sourcing grass-fed beef from overseas; it is a commodity in New Zealand while still an artisanal product here. Yet Whole Foods’ commitment to developing an American grass-fed meat industry would have such a profound impact, both on the environment and the welfare of the animals, that I would urge you to take a broader view of the matter. I am not, contrary to what you might think, an absolutist on local food. I recognize that there are times and cases when supporting local agriculture in other countries is the best way to go; Slow Food calls it “virtuous globalization” when the power of a global market can be used to defend an endangered local food or food culture. But that’s not what’s happening in the case of grass-fed beef.

To build a viable grass-fed beef industry in America would do so much for the land -not just remove the insult of chemicals and ruinous commodity crop production, but also actually restore the land to health. It would also do wonders for the health and happiness of millions of America cattle that now live in misery on feedlots, and encourage farmers to convert cropland back to grassland. I also believe that, by organizing a national supply chain based around regional differences in the season that grass-fed meat should ideally be harvested, Whole Foods could develop a 12-month national supply of fresh, high-quality domestic grass-fed meat. True, the meat would not always be local, but the local effect, as the source of it shifted from one region to another over the course of the year, would be profound. Whole Foods has the power and know-how to do things in this area no one else can do.

Michael, we are in complete agreement here. Whole Foods Market could and should do more to support local animal production. We are going to. More on what we are exactly going to do at the end of the letter.

As you point out several times in your letter, Whole Foods’ freedom of action is constrained by the desires of its consumers, who want asparagus in January, fresh berries all year long, convenience foods, etc. I appreciate that you “don’t try to channel our customers into adopting any particular dietary regime.” And yet your stores – with their extensive information, signage, and well-informed counter help – are clearly in the business of educating people. You are selling information and stories as well as food, which is to say, you have set yourself the mission of leading, not just following, the consumer. Any retailer can treat the consumer as a dumb beast that wants what we wants when we wants it – appealing to the narrowest conception of our self-interest. Such an approach to the consumer has done much to create the debased industrial food chain we now have – the “pile it high and sell it cheap” philosophy that ramifies up and down the food chain, degrading the land, emiserating the animals, and making us fat and sick. But as Whole Foods recognized before many others did, there is another consumer being born out there, one who takes a broader view of his interests, understands that spending more on higher-quality food is worth it on so many levels, and who treats his food purchases as a kind of vote for a better world. You have helped to create that new consumer, educating him about organics and persuading him to spend more for better food-something we will have to do if the food system is ever to be put on a truly sustainable footing.

In the same way we now need (as you pointed out in our meeting) to raise the bar again on American agriculture, we need to raise it on the American eater too, teaching him about the satisfactions (and nutritional benefits) of eating in season, from his locality, and from a food chain based on grass rather than corn. I think we agree that this is where the “reformation” now is headed; you are in a position to lead rather than to follow it there. To do so is also, I daresay, in your company’s self-interest: as competitors like Wal-Mart and Safeway move into selling industrial organic food, Whole Foods can distinguish itself by moving to the next stage, doing things they can’t possibly do. “Local” surely is one of those things: and your buyers already know exactly how to do it. All Wal-Mart knows is how to source industrial organic food from China.

You are absolutely right here, Michael, and your message is very inspirational. Thank you.

After spending time with you and reading your letter, I’ve wondered if perhaps I did, as you imply in your letter, present a unfair caricature of Whole Foods in “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” suggesting a store where organic, local and artisanal food is just window dressing to help sell a much more ordinary industrial product. Indeed, nothing would please me more than to conclude I owe you and the company an apology. I’m not quite there yet. But I sincerely hope you will prove my portrait of Whole Foods wrong, that the company has not thrown its lot in with the industrialization, globalization and dilution of organic agriculture, but rather stands for something better. For my own part, I stand ready to write that apology, and look forward to doing it.

Michael I’m not looking for an apology from you. Who cares about that? That’s just ego stuff. Just as you are trying to “wake me up” to the importance of local food, I’m trying to “wake you up” to the fundamental integrity of Whole Foods Market and our company commitment to our core value of “selling the highest quality natural and organic foods available.” While I don’t share your fear of globalization of the food supply, I do share your commitment toward helping promote local foods. I will say, however, that buying only local foods may be good for local farmers, but it can also be devastating to poor farmers all over the world who need to sell their products to the developed world to help lift themselves out of poverty. A strictly local foods philosophy is not a very compassionate philosophy. As Singer and Mason write in their new book, “keep your dollars circulating in your own community is not an ethical principle at all. To adhere to a principle of ‘buy locally,’ irrespective of the consequences for others, is a kind of community-based selfishness” (Singer and Mason p. 141). Whole Foods Market intends to continue to buy quality natural and organic foods from around the world, because our customers want us to and because doing so helps support some of the poorest economies in the world. You may not have liked those organic asparagus from Argentina very much, but Argentina is not a wealthy country (ranking only #65 in GNI per capita at $3,720 versus $41,400 in the USA-source: The World Bank, 2004) and helping their farmers to sell organic foods is very beneficial to them. Do you not feel any ethical obligation to help poor people around the world? What better way to help them, than to be willing to buy their agricultural products? Argentina isn’t able to sell us automobiles or jet planes or computers, but one thing they can sell us is organic asparagus. If we don’t buy their organic asparagus then how are they going to be able to afford to buy iPods from Apple, computers from Dell, or books from Michael Pollan? (You aren’t just restricting your books for sale only locally in Berkeley are you? Why not? After all, lot’s of fossil fuel gets used distributing books across the U.S. and the world.)

Organic farming is spreading rapidly all over the developing world and it is doing so primarily because there is a huge U.S. market that wasn’t there before Whole Foods Market’s successful growth helped create it. Organic farming is very, very good to the small poor farmer in these countries for several reasons:

• Over-population and the consequential over-working of the small farms have really depleted the soil, and organic farming is beginning to help bring that soil back to health. As we both know, the health of the soil is essential to long-term sustainability of every farm.
• Organic foods pay much better to developing world farmers than conventional farming does, with premiums as great as 100% for growing organically. These higher prices for organic foods are currently helping raise the standard of living for hundreds of thousands of poor farmers around the world. If organic continues to grow and spread, then eventually it will help millions of developing world farmers lift themselves out of poverty.
• Small farmer poisoning due to pesticide applications is a very big problem all over the developing world; the U.S. organic foods demand has saved countless farmers from illness or death due to pesticide poisoning. Sickness and the death of the (mostly male) developing world farmer is a leading cause of poverty.

Michael, I agree that Whole Foods Market could and should do more to promote local agriculture, while simultaneously supporting global organic foods. We have a responsibility to take a leadership role to promote more local agriculture. This has really become clear to me the last couple of years as we’ve been developing our animal compassionate standards. We haven’t found very many of our existing animal food suppliers really willing to convert over to more animal compassionate methods. We’ve come to realize that we are going to have to create an alternative animal compassionate system from the ground up and we’re going to need to do it on a local basis market by market all across the United States.

In my first paragraph of this letter I promised to tell you about some exciting new initiatives that Whole Foods Market is launching. So here goes:

1. We’ve hired our first animal compassionate field buyer, Andrew Gunther, who is going to work exclusively on developing sources of animal products that meet our new strict animal compassionate standards. Andrew is well qualified for this post as he has owned and managed a very successful organic farm in the U.K. and has pioneered animal compassionate methods on his farm for chickens, ducks, turkeys, beef cattle, and pigs. Andrew is a knowledgeable and passionate man concerning animal welfare. We’re lucky to have him working with us. All of Andrew’s initial animal compassionate suppliers will be relatively small in scale. If you check out our animal compassionate standards you will see that the standards have specific provisions requiring access to pasture (going beyond the current organic standards regarding pasture). Pasture is not optional in these standards but is one of the core values. If you know of any animal compassionate farmers (including 100% grass farmers) interested in selling to Whole Foods Market, please have them contact Andrew at Andrew.Gunther@wholefoods.com.
2. Whole Foods Market is changing the job responsibilities of our Regional Buyers to focus more on sourcing local products for their stores.
3. We have set up an annual budget of $10 million to promote local agriculture (especially animal agriculture) wherever we have stores through long-term loans at low rates of interest. Select Regional and Store Buyers will be empowered to extend these loans to help support smaller scale agricultural entrepreneurs. This money will be used to help local producers of grass fed beef, goat milk dairies, organic pasture based eggs, animal compassionate dairy cows, chickens, turkeys, sheep, pigs, etc. Some of the money will also be used to help support local vegetable farmers as well. It is Whole Foods Market’s intention to help finance local agriculture all over the United States. We are going to “walk our talk” with financial support for local, small scale agriculture. We are inspired by the initial success of our Whole Planet Foundation’s work with micro-credit loans in developing world communities that we trade with. We see that these small loans are making a huge difference in the lives of poor people in Guatemala and Costa Rica (with new loan projects being set up in India and Honduras in 2007-and eventually around the “whole planet”). We intend to do a similar thing to support local agriculture wherever we have stores. We believe this financial assistance of $10 million per year can make a very significant difference in helping local agriculture grow and flourish across the United States and in parts of Canada and the U.K. as well. Each year we will make an additional $10 million available for loans. Also as the loans are paid back, we will recycle the returned capital back into additional loans. Over time this will result in a very positive and strong multiplier effect on local agriculture.
4. Whole Foods Market is committed to supporting local farmers markets across the United States (and also in Canada and the U.K.). Beginning soon, many of our markets where we have stand-alone stores (no other retailers sharing our parking lots) will close off major sections of the parking lots on Sunday to provide a place for local farmers to sell their products directly to customers. Whenever possible we will work in cooperation with any existing farmers markets. In most cases, our stores have excellent store locations and heavy customer traffic to help these farmers markets to successfully flourish. This support of local farmers markets is consistent with our stakeholder philosophy since it directly benefits five of our six major stakeholders-customers, team members, suppliers, community, and environment. Also, our shareholders will benefit directly if store traffic increases enough to offset the amount of sales lost to the local farmers, and they will definitely benefit indirectly through increased customer and community goodwill.
5. Our Regional and Store Marketing Teams are now directly responsible for communicating and educating our customers about locally produced products. Some of our Marketers are already doing this, but company-wide we aren’t doing nearly enough to tell the stories of our local producers. This is going to seriously improve over the next 12 to 24 months.

I also look forward to continuing this dialog, and to following Whole Foods progress. Here’s to the “reformation”!

Yours very truly,

Michael Pollan

I’ve enjoyed our dialog Michael. “Viva le Revolution!” Take care.

John Mackey

Leave a Reply

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they relate to the specific topic discussed in the post on which they are made. Off-topic comments, personal attacks (hostile, derogatory or deliberately insulting comments toward a specific individual or group) and flaming (comments intended to induce an angry response) will not be posted. For more information, please see our Comment Posting Guidelines. This blog is intended to discuss only the specific topics that John Mackey writes about. You are welcome to address other topics in our forums.

119 Responses to “Detailed Reply to Pollan Letter”

1. Judi Bikel Says:
   June 28th, 2006 at 6:42 pm

   This discussion would be very interesting if my Los Angeles-area Whole Foods actually seemed to carry organic produce.

   The selection of organics in season in California is really quite poor. There is far, far too many imported “organic” products in season in California and far too little from local producers.

   Finally, the dairy selections often come from the worst of the mega “organic” dairies. They are all ultra-pasturized which is the lowest possible quality. And despite repeated– repeated requests I can’t even a decent brand of cream in the stores.

   I shop at Whole Foods all the same time but not because I think of it as an organic store. I shop at it because it is close. Real, sustainable organics are purchased from my local farmer’s market.

2. Tim Hogan Says:
   June 29th, 2006 at 2:01 pm

   John (& Michael),

   I am grateful to both of you for this dialog – i am learning a great deal about the politics of food, but also about the value of an intelligent and courteous exchange of ideas.

   Thanks …

   … th

3. NYC Says:
   June 29th, 2006 at 4:11 pm

   This series of letters consists of the most intelligent exchange of both dialogue and information about argribusiness and organic/sustainable farming that i’ve read to date.

   While I at times (jokingly) refer to Whole Foods as “whole paycheck” the truth behind the jest remains that my first access and exposure to the store (as Fresh Fields and Bread & Circus in DC while in college) permanently changed my way of eating and thinking about food (I’m a city girl after all).

   I wanted to take a second to applaud that whole foods will be staging a “farmers market” of sorts. I currently shop at the Union Square greenmarket for a lot of seasonable produce- but it is rare that a stop at the greenmarket does not end in a stop at the Union Square Whole Foods for ingredients to supplement a recipe. When out of season, and for my daily supplemental shopping (I shop daily for the most part, a small take away from my time in europe)the new Time Warner store gets my money.

   I try to be as local and seasonable as possible, and I think a lot of others also like the feeling of buying directly from the producer- and I think a lot of those people will stop in the store on those market days when they may not have intended to. (ie, it is good for business too, I don’t see why so many try to harp on the capitalism element.. i’d say it is an honorable way to make money(and we all have to make money) Kudos!

4. CHARLES MUKUKA Says:
   June 29th, 2006 at 7:10 pm

   The strong points put across by John in addressing Micheal’s curiosity could only be summarized like this, “If you can’t beat them, them join.” I have been following John’s interlectual defense of organic food and his advocancy for the localization of the supplies. This will boast not only the local counties but also foster job creation which will have a direct impact on the overall national scale by reducing unemployment.

   Am a true believer of organic foods and what Whole foods market has done over its 25 year of existence is highly commendable and needs the support of people like micheal who argues for the sake of it.

   I wonder what Micheal’s views are on Walmart?

5. MikeB Says:
   June 30th, 2006 at 12:59 pm

   It is encouraging to see this kind of open dialog between two people trying to make a difference.

   I feel very fotunate to have Whole Foods in my area and I applaud their animal welfare efforts.

6. Lily Lu Says:
   June 30th, 2006 at 3:42 pm

   Thank you for being so transparent to the consumer. I have another layer of respect for Whole Foods and am really enrolled in the fact that there are such high ethics and strong green values behind such a large corporation. And I love the new initiatives that are being put in place!! Kudos!

7. sheri mora Says:
   June 30th, 2006 at 10:06 pm

   I know enough about Whole Foods and their mission to know they’ve done and are doing more for the planet and its inhabitants than any store of its size and reach. With that said, it is impossible for an entity of that magnitude to be without some sort of flaw, but Whole Foods makes a commendable effort in their commitment towards ethical trade. The Renewable Choice wind initiative/program let us get involved at an accessible level…it was something we were not even aware we could participate in. Cheers to Whole Foods and thier helpful staff…grocery shopping is no longer a chore, but a positive experience that is also proving educational for our kids. We are thankful for the enlightenment, products and resources they provide.

8. Karen Ginsburg Says:
   July 1st, 2006 at 5:03 pm

   I think that the success of Whole Foods is not surprising given that it does not have a typical business philosophy. It can be summed up by quoting John Mackey: “At Whole Foods, we measure our success by how much value we can create for all six of our most important stakeholders: customers, team members (employees), investors, vendors, communities, and the environment.”. This is the same philosophy where I do customer service work (Verizon Wireless is extremely successful). I have worked hard through diet and exercise to maintain excellent health. I am blessed with a wonderful, loyal circle of supportive personal friends. At work many tease me when they see that I carry my lunch in a Whole Foods plastic bag – I’ve been called a “food snob” and asked how I can afford to shop at “Whole Paycheck”. I ask (myself, I avoid conflict with coworkers) how they can NOT afford to eat wisely and all the hidden “costs” of poor health they choose for themselves by smoking, drinking heavily and eating at McDonalds 3 times a day 7 days a week. They have asked if I am working for WF since I’m always trying to sell people on shopping there. WF should emphasize that healthy eating does not have to be expensive (I rarely buy the prepared deli foods like my lawyer fiance does). For example, I buy Cedarline frozen vegetable lasagna at WF for $1.75 less than it costs at Albertson’s. The Whole Kitchen Ratatouille is delicious (but not as good as my homemade version). Products like the fat-free balsamic vingrette dressing put lightly on cooked vegetables makes sticking to a low fat, low calorie, yet filling diet easy. Like my best friend says “Its the Quality and freshness”. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!

9. Marcus Stephanus Says:
   July 2nd, 2006 at 1:16 am

   Thanks, John Mackey, for putting so much time and thought into this response to Michael Pollan. I hope that your proposals will be effective and widespread; and I hope that you and Mr. Pollan will in time come to reach a fuller agreement over these matters of terrific consequence, to which you have both committed yourselves in your own ways.

   I was particularly happy to see you praise so highly the work of Peter Singer and Jim Mason. I too admire them greatly. Their work deserves a wide readership, and I thank you for helping them reach it.

   Related to animal rights (but not really the same, and needing to be distinguished) is an important biodiversity issue, the plight of many oceanic fish species, especially as adversely affected by fisheries. I am not acquainted with Whole Foods’ practices and policies regarding such endangered fish as swordfish and Patagonian toothfish (“Chilean sea bass”), and so have nothing to say to you on the subject at present. But I agree with Michael Pollan that in order for your actions to remain consistent with your professed values (and you have set yourself an admirably high bar!), including a commitment to educate people toward making thoughtful and responsible environmental choices in the food they buy, you will need to be sure you are doing all you can in discouraging them from making very bad choices.

   Best wishes. And yes, Vive la re’volution! Let us hope we are all soon persuaded of your full engagement.

10. Dennis Phayre Says:
    July 2nd, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    John,

    You’re in a difficult position of trying to convince Michael of a perspective that is beyond his present state of comprehension. He can understand the logic of your argument but he can’t accept your facts or comprehend the system that is producing them. He is simply approaching the issues from his current level of development and that is not the same level you are analyzing the issues from.

    As you have previously stated in one of your “gatherings”, one level of perspective is not neccessarily better than the other. But one level is more integrated and forward thinking than the other, and possibly more accurate.

    Both of your perspectives are valueable and to some degree neccessary. Michael’s perspective will appeal to a world of people who are not only intested in what he has to say, but who are ready to take the next step to his level of thinking. That is a great service. Your perspective will reach a different audience; those who are presently operating at or ready to leap to your level of thinking.

    We can not see (accept as real) what we’re not yet ready to see, we simply block it.

    Michael’s work is a valuable contribution to the development of more critical thinking on these issues but he is vested in his “conclusions” and unwilling or unable to honestly explore the limitations of his work. While I find Michael’s observations interesting and important I do not feel inspired by them. I am, however, deeply interested in and inspired by your’s.

    I look forward to communicating more with you in the near future about these and other issues. I will stay in touch.

    Peace
    Dennis

11. CHARLES MUKUKA Says:
    July 2nd, 2006 at 7:45 pm

    I feel its completely out of ignorance why people call Whole Foods Market as “whole pay check”; a research on all baby food products will reveal that they are actually cheaper than even Winn Dixie and Publix. A careful examination of prices at Walmart will show that actually some of the items they carry are very expensive as compared to Whole Foods line of products like the 365s. WFM is no longer a place where the rich can shop but you could find a wide range of people shopping and enjoying every bite of the tasty foods in their cafeterias. A friend of mine based in Ghana just infomed me that a school down there bears the WFM logo in appreciation to the efforts through the blessing basket project. Am yet to hear if Walmart, Publix, Kroger has ever done such a thing. Eating good food has nothing to do with a perfect market niche, its all about one’s health and the long term benefits good food brings to oneself. Alternately, the choice is purely a personal one, eat at McDonalds and in the end all the savings will go to hospital bills due to unhealth and substandard foods.

12. Bob Waldrop Says:
    July 2nd, 2006 at 10:19 pm

    The animal compassion standards linked in this blog article don’t seem very compassionate to me. Cattle and buffalo could still be feedlotted for 1/3 of their lives and fed an unhealthy feed of grain and corn. There appear to be no standards on crowding of animals, and the pig standards would allow confinement in small areas as long as there was some bedding. If there is a “need” to burn the beaks off of the turkeys, then there is something wrong with the way those turkeys are being raised. I would not buy meats or poultry raised under these standards, and I think they are deceptive in terms of actual compassion.

    Regarding importing produce from poor countries, a couple of years ago I needed a new roof, and the roofing crew were all from the same village in Mexico (I found this out during lunch). They used to be farmers, but then one day the Mexican government came and took away their land and gave it to a big corporation to grow vegetables for export to the United States market. And so it came to pass that they ended up in Oklahoma City working as roofers Thus, I doubt your claim that buying produce from third world countries helps “poor farmers”. Is it really helping poor farmers, or is it simply driving a process of land disposession where corporations are taking over land held traditionally by indigenous peoples and driving them into urban slums? I think that buying food from third world countries is the moral equivalent of stealing food from the mouths of hungry children.

    Regarding the “buy locally” argument as an argument for “local selfishness”, that sounds like the self-serving screed of somebody totally invested in globalization, which could be described as a system of global selfishness for corporations. I spend 80% of my grocery money for local foods which I buy directly from farmers, so I figure that the 20% of my grocery budget which goes to a regular grocery store is my contribution to the larger economy. I don’t begrudge the national market 20%, but I am not going to spend my money for food that tastes like crap just because some shill for a big transnational food corporation bleats “buying local is buying selfishness”.

13. Patrick Timpone Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    My first visit to a Whole Foods was in 1983. I’m always amused by the people that take Whole Foods to task for all the things “they could be doing better” and who relish in criticizing what Mr. Mackey has help build over the twenty five plus years.

    I believe all Souls salivate at the concept of taking an idea and starting, working it, and building, shaping it day in day out and reaping the benefits. Only a handful of people have the courage and determination to do it.

    Those that don’t criticize those who do.

    Patrick Timpone

14. John Mackey Says:
    July 4th, 2006 at 6:39 pm

    I just want to make a brief response to Bob Waldrop:

    Bob, you are complaining about Whole Foods natural standards, not our animal compassion standards which are being set at a much higher level. The animal compassion standards are new and far, far stricter than the existing natural standards. If you carefully read our detailed animal compassion standards on our website (scroll down further on that standards page) you will see the following accusations you make about our animal compassion program are not true:
    1. Feedlots are not permitted for our animal compassionate beef cattle.
    2. We don’t yet have animal compassionate buffalo standards.
    3. We definitely have detailed space requirements for all 4 of the species where the standards are completed–beef cattle, pigs, sheep, and ducks. These space requirements are far greater than the any other standard that we are aware of anywhere including Organic, Certified Humane, or the E.U.
    4. Our animal compassionate standards require continuous access to pasture. They are fundamentally pasture based standards and all the species will spend most of their lives in pasture.
    5. We don’t have animal compassionate turkey standards completed yet. However, beak trimming or other mutilations will not be permitted for turkeys in the animal compassion program.

    Just as Whole Foods sells both conventional produce and organic produce, so we will sell animal products that qualify under both the natural standard and animal products that qualify under the stricter animal compassion standards. The animal compassionate product will be clearly labeled to distinguish it from the natural product–just as organic produce is clearly labeled to distinquish it from conventionally grown produce. Over time we hope to migrate more and more of our sales to the animal compassionate program, just as over time we have migrated our total produce sales to over 60% organic.

    Regarding Whole Foods organic international produce purchases, you are of course entitled to your own opinions about this, but I will say that your opinions are not based on any actual facts or accurate knowledge. Much of our international organic produce is purchased from various cooperatives who pool together produce from their smaller farms in order to have marketing and distribution economies of scale. The exact same thing is true for most of our international coffee purchases–most of it is bought from cooperatives which represent thousands of poorer farmers. Buying organic produce and coffee from the poor countries of the world makes a very significant difference in helping improve the lives of poor farmers. I strongly encourage you to better inform yourself on this issue.

    As my letters to Michael Pollan have indicated: Whole Foods is going to be increasing our locally grown produce and locally produced animal products significantly over the next few years. We know we need to be a better job here and I promise you that we will. However, Whole Foods intends to also maintain its commitment to international organic produce, especially from poorer countries. We know that one of the most helpful and caring things we can do for the developing world is to buy their organic food products. It helps improve their soil and their environment, while also helping them to lift themselves out of poverty. Over the next few years Whole Foods intends to work closely with various certifying organizations such as Fair Trade and the Rainforest Alliance to make sure that eventually all our globally sourced products are 3rd party certified as to minimum price levels, acceptable labor standards, and environmental sustainability.

15. Lana Holmes Says:
    July 5th, 2006 at 12:36 pm

    I commend the efforts that Whole Foods is making in the organic, buying local and animal welfare areas. However, since both Mr. Pollan and whole foods advocate buying local for environmental reasons and avoiding CAFAs partly for environmental reasons, why not more of an emphasis on shifting to a vegan lifestyle, which will have more of an impact on the environment than any other measures? I realize that you cannot dictate to your consumers, but could you not do more in terms of education in that regard? Even addressing it in your exchanges could help. Further, I do not see any reference in the animal compassion standards to the actual killing of these animals – surely, humane standards are desperately needed at that stage as well.

    All the best,
    Lana Holmes

16. CHARLES MUKUKA Says:
    July 6th, 2006 at 8:56 am

    Bob, on June 16, 2006 Whole Foods Market Stopped Selling Live Lobsters and this decision meant sacrificing huge sales in that category because suppliers were not meeting the conditions set forth in the animal compassion standards. My convinction on your complaints is that even if Whole Foods Market had to give everything for free, people like yourself will still complain as to why the company is giving out free stuff or why its treating all Earthly creations humanely. If you are so much concerned about animal welfare, What are you doing about it? What sacrifices are you making to help out the first starter (Whole Foods Market) in regards to animal welfare? You need to walk the talk!

    On globalization, i think you need to understand the fundamentals which promoted this concept, its all about the desire to cut costs and then maximize profits by participating companies and individuals; again, Whole Foods Markets is ready to forgo all that which comes with globalization and its going local by supporting local farmers like the ones you buy from. We need to be proactive and help out in this genuine cause for animal welfare instead of complaining.

17. Lori Z. Says:
    July 6th, 2006 at 11:21 am

    I find it absolutely AMAZING that John Mackey/Whole Foods have been placed in a position where he/they need to defend his/their success! No one cared to complain when Whole Foods was a small Texas company with just a few local stores; however, incorporate and open more than a “few” locations, and suddenly you’re the big bad wolf and the downfall of society as a whole? Why do we not applaud the success of others: because we are jealous that we did not think of it first! Or worse, we are jealous because we DID think of it, but did not get off our lazy, entitled butts and DO something about it!

    If people think that Whole Foods is not “doing it right,” then I challenge those people to get up, get involved, and do it better! It is amazing how easy it is to stand back and judge others, not to mention how it takes the spotlight off your own weaknesses/failings. Besides, if Whole Foods is “not doing it right,” then why did my local Safeway, after being open for less than two years, just remodel their store? … It now looks remarkably like a Whole Foods, with an entire “organic” department!

    Although I do not agree with the Whole Foods philosophy in it is entirely, I certainly applaud them and John Mackey for taking a stand, clearly stating their/his position and mostly for being willing to see the weaknesses/failings of their system and taking action to change. When you have the success they do, change is not easy, nor is it always the most popular thing to do when it comes to pleasing those who have the most to lose: the investors and the employees who must implement the changes.

    As for the “Whole Paycheck” moniker; although I do not shop exclusively at Whole Foods (I have always been a comparison shopper, shopping sales and coupons)I have found that I do find better prices on certain items (yes, cheaper than Wal-Mart!) and I ALWAYS find better quality. There is something to be said for “value,” and the best value is not always the cheapest!

    In closing, I challenge those who claim Whole Foods is just another “monolithic corporation” to investigate this claim. Look into the guts of the corporation, its pay structure, its benefit plan, its dedication to its team members and to its customers. You may just find yourself standing a kiosk applying for a job!

    To John Mackey and the Whole Foods Team: Keep up the good work, and keep striving to improve the lives of those you touch daily.

18. Paul Says:
    July 6th, 2006 at 2:26 pm

    I can’t figure out why Mr. Mackey and Mr. Pollan didn’t address the issue of living conditions for the chickens that supply eggs and meat to WFM. Wasn’t that a major point in the book that has been totally left out of this exchange?
    Though I don’t agree with every move WFM has ever made in history I am enthusiastic about the direction it is taking and hopeful that the problems the company is facing will be solved in a most sustainable way.

19. Kai Isaaccura Says:
    July 6th, 2006 at 8:51 pm

    Great ralley!

    I am uplifted by the information shared in this discussion.

    I know all too well from my own trials that one man, nor one company can do everything “right” except to live into his own personal standards, and I commend John’s personal standards, as well as his patience, foresight, and acceptance.(It takes alot of thoughtful prioritizing, wisdom, and compassion to be a vegan and still take initiative to subsidise meat farming for its betterment!)

    I am also curious about Whole foods aplication and views on the seafood industry. I myself am mostly vegan, but was raised by my parents seafood business. Many fish farms are very ecologicaly destructive, (not all,) yet wild catching is destroying a very sensitive and invaluable eco-system. There are also justified growing concerns about the mercury levels of oceanic fish, (accompanied by terrifying statistics.)

    I am interested to hear Whole Foods, (or anyones,) opinion about what can and is being done to improve the state of our oceanic industries, both by corporate and indevidual initiatives.

    As for great eco imports(John)- check out http://www.yachanagourmet.com All profits go to protect Ecuadors endangered Amazon from and the Quechua people that inhabit it. The operation depends almost entirely on the export of their “jungle chocolate” and the resulting eco-tourism. Also- consider buying from/ openly suporting the MST cooperative food movement in Brasil,(if you don’t already.) You must know if it. http://www.mstbrazil.org
    I Live in Venezuela now, and having been all over the world, I would say that Companies like Whole Foods, in conjunction with grass-roots movements, can do alot to jump-start the global progress economically, moraly and ecologically, and spread awareness of why at least the latter two are so essential. Your International Micro-loans can actualy promote the eventual food sovreignty of otherwise highly exploited nations. By your own standards as an international consciencious corperation, you now have an inescapable obligation and responsibility to serve therin.

    Keep it up,
    With Gratitude and respect all ’round-
    -Kai

20. Cricket Malmar Says:
    July 7th, 2006 at 10:52 am

    Interesting discussion, yes. Food as philosophy. The fact of the matter is that industrial farming is about monoculture. I would imagine it’s mind bending for a large chain (like Whole Foods) to admit that small scale farming (yes, what is small) – let’s call it integrated farming is much better for the environment.

    That aside, Whole Foods is responding to the demands of the market. Don’t want to see live lobster, fine – we’ll get rid of it. It’s hypocritical though on the part of us consumers – we eat dead animals – just don’t let us see them! We want cheap food – we want small pastoral farms. We don’t want to pay the farmers for their work. We don’t want to think about protecting ecosystems when looking for dinner. We’ll just look for the organic seal and everything is all right. And that just isn’t so.

    Whole Foods isn’t the enemy, we are. Don’t like it – don’t shop at one. I don’t – but watching what they do is endlessly fascinating to me!

    I’m glad Michael Pollen raised these questions, even if he didn’t answer all of them. Would Whole Foods have ponied up the 10 million if it weren’t for the publicity this has generated??

21. Michelle Says:
    July 7th, 2006 at 11:20 am

    First, I am inpsired by the works of Pollan, Singer and the like. I do believe in a reformation of the current, conventional food system.
    Second, I am also inspired by the place where I work and shop: Whole Foods, not only for the new initiatives for supporting local agriculture, but also because this dialogue was so open.

    So, in short: Thank you to John Mackey for constantly updating the way Whole Foods does business and for being so open to customers and employees.

    And thank you to Michael Pollan for bringing up valid questions, concerns and possible solutions to the public eye.

    Thanks,
    Michelle

22. Rex Barney Says:
    July 7th, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    Finally, in Mr. Mackey’s response, do we get to the heart of the matter, though he is much too professional and refined to actually utter the truth. Being neither, I have no such qualms. Mr. Mackey ultimately, and correctly, exposes Mr. Pollan’s true goal; promoting a radical leftist agenda, and attempting to force upon us his vision of some Marxist utopian myth.

    Collective farming…please! I think it’s been tried, Mr. Pollan. Speaking of Stalin, is the irony lost on everyone but me that a “hero” of Mr. Pollan’s Omnivore is “Joel Salatin”. You have got to be kidding me…you can’t make this stuff up. It also seems that Mr. Salatin, with his “caged organic chickens” has the same problem that poor Uncle Joe had in the 30’s. The theory was great but the execution (no pun intended) difficult.

    Mr. Pollan’s arrogance throughout his reply is staggering. “I observed what I observed”. I guess that makes it fact? And if he ultimately is the arbiter of what is “acceptable” (read: local), does that mean folks in the Northeast should be denied citrus? And are folks in Arizona out of luck when it comes to apples? What should the folks in upstate New York eat in the winter? I guess we are all ignorant consumers, needing to be told what we should or shouldn’t eat? It is amazing we are even able to lift food to our mouths without the help of the Mr. Pollans of the world. The ultimate, though, is Mr. Pollan’s torturous dilemma over whether he is “quite there yet” to offer an apology to WFM. Is there really a chance that WFM could be bestowed the honor of an apology from Mr. Pollan? Wow…gee whiz…we sure hope so. His self righteousness is so over the top, it would be humorous if it weren’t that his failed ideas still resonate with some fringes of society.

    Mr. Pollan’s thinking is pedestrian at best, his agenda transparent, his use of fact convenient and his logic arrested. I will give Mr. Pollan credit in the area of creativity, though. Choosing WFM as the foil in his book was marketing genius. Selecting Wal-Mart would have been so cliché, the premise of which wouldn’t have made it past his junior editor at Penguin Press.

    WFM should be championed for all that they have accomplished in creating awareness, providing education and bringing quality food and produce to the mass market in an economically sustainable manner. Sure WFM should try to improve, get better and find ways to further the cause of all of its constituents. It is the proverbial win-win and it is one of the hallmarks of good ol’ fashion capitalism. But to suggest, as some bloggers have, that Mr. Pollan’s goal is to make WFM better by taking them to task is naïve and disingenuous.

23. mr. A . Lim Says:
    July 8th, 2006 at 11:26 pm

    we are dealing with a lot of interest groups here.Some are talking about how they can profit more from organic foods.
    i though johns WFM PHILOSOPHY was about promoting eating healthy,eating organic environment friendly foods.WFM NOT ONLY SELL what its customers want ,it also make sure what its customers want is also good for their health.
    i think WFM PHILOSOPHY will have a major impact on peoples health, and it will also help cut health care cost
    when you sell somthing that is good to your customers ,you are sharing with your customers . that is the value in your products.

24. Herb Dreyer Says:
    July 9th, 2006 at 9:25 pm

    Although I confess to not following John Mackey’s career, the notion of “industrial” in any framework, such as the Pollen/Mackey exchange, has always meant to me a process that serves industry, not those served by industry. In this case the agricultural industry–or better industrialized agriculture–it grows stuff to serve its needs, not the needs of its end users. In this sense it does a spectacular job–the best in history. Problem is, of course the stuff it grows does not grow us: it merely serves industry (remember you cannot achieve a country whose health is in such terrible shape as ours if its people are, at least, eating foods that contribute to their health–for this, as they say, the science is settled). Now there is an international organic foods industry and one must (must) wonder who foods they serve.

    What we need is food that clearly contributes to health, grown by people who commit to serving others. It makes no difference to me who grows my food as long as they grow it for my health and can prove it. Remember the quote, “The purpose of agriculture is not the production of food, but the perfection of human beings”? (Fukuoka, One Straw Revolution) .

25. Dawn Dexter Says:
    July 11th, 2006 at 11:05 pm

    wow. I came to the whole foods website to beg and plead for a whole foods store nearer my home in aspen, colorado and now I’ve been reading John mackey’s blog for the past hour. and what an education I’ve been getting.

    I shopped at the whole foods market while visiting denver last weekend – 3 times. I toyed with the idea of making a monthly pilgramage to do some bulk shopping, but the cost of gasoline is prohibitive.

    on that note, I am eagerly following many debates on globalization. mr mackey makes a valid point about the poor farmer in argentina – or elsewhere. it is valid to want to shop locally to save on transport costs – both to the environment and the pocketbook and to support local merchants, artisans, farms, etc, but we already live in a global economy. we are all typing these responses on computers not made in our local economies, most likely. there is no one that even grows tea within 200 miles of where I live – so should I just stop drinking it? I would be hard pressed to eat only food that was grown within 200 miles of where I live. I would most likely become malnourished within the year. so, even with the lack of a whole foods market in the area, If I have a choice, I buy local (in season) organic, then regional organic, then organic from wherever I can get it from – often, if I can’t get organic, I just go without. If I have a choice, I choose the organic tomatoes from mexico over the “conventionally” grown tomatos from colorado. why? because I want to speak to the farm owners with my food choice dollars — pesticides ultimately end up contaminating the ground water whether its here or in mexico. And I do think about those farm workers in mexico. if I buy the organic tomatos from mexico – yes – there is an environmental cost in fuel spent to get them here – but at least the workers have the choice now to work on a farm where they and their children and their community won’t be poisoned by pesticides.

    the global economy isn’t going to go away. the best we can do is to embrace it in a way that is least harmful. and encourage more innovation and debate in the realm of less environmentally destructive ways to transport goods and people.

    mr mackey – can you comment on the fuel economy standards in the whole foods fleet of vehicles? seems the environmentally correct thing to do would also be good for the company’s bottom line.

    oh yeah — and back to my original reason for visiting your website — can we PLEASE have a whole foods market in Basalt, Colorado – just 20 miles from Aspen, centrally located in the Roaring Fork Valley. We could easily support one.

    Thanks for the enlightening discussion you’ve posted. i’ve bookmarked this blog as regular future reading.

    -Dawn Dexter
    Snowmass, Colorado

26. Jessica Says:
    July 12th, 2006 at 9:16 am

    I agree that this would be a interesting discussion if WFM was actually supporting local produce in Minnesota. The WFM here thinks that local is shipping in from Chicago IL., a state that we don’t even border on! The Produce dept looks beautifull and bountiess but it is all from down south or California. IT”S NOT LOCAL. Amazingly enough the Co Op’s do have local stuff, so it’s out there…

27. Damien Says:
    July 12th, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    I live in Bloomington, IN, so Whole Foods (or what I’d want more, Trader Joe’s) are theoretical to me. But some comments:

    John: your GNI/capita for Argentina really surprised me. I checked the World Bank site and yeah, see numbers like that, but also that their number has fallen by half over the last five years. This while the CIA World Factbook has them at $13,000 GDP/capita, with 9% growth. I think something’s funny going on with exchange rate corrections.

    On local food or not: I get the emotional appeal and environmental logic of locally grown, and I get what I can from my farmer’s market and the local co-op or organicy stores. That said, I remember that most of human history has had purely local food, and that this leaves you hostage to local weather. Large-scale trade in energy and water, or their products, food, lets us average out local variations and is a big win in avoiding famines.

    Also, I really like citrus, dates, and bananas. Hard to grow those locally.

    Back to John: Does “pasture-raised” in the new guidelines mean “they eat grass”? Like “access to pasture”, one can still envision animals which are allowed to roam around but are fed big piles of grain. Have you considered a “100% grass-fed” product line as well, along with the animals which are still finished on grain?

28. Neal McBurnett Says:
    July 12th, 2006 at 9:26 pm

    John, you’ve asked twice now for Pollan to give you more credit for Whole Food’s work on the “organic” front. This demonstrates that you’re missing major aspects of his most excellent book. It’s not about organic, its about perspective and diversity of opinion.

    His goal is to tell the truth about where our food comes from, and to encourage people to make their own informed choices based on that knowledge. He’s generally promoting education and diversity, rather than picking winners. He points out that globalized “industrial organic” is sometimes in conflict with localized markets and bottom-line environmental benefits.

    Yes there are many huge benefits in what you’ve done.
    Congratulations! And Pollan says many good things about Whole Foods. But there are costs to your approach also. So don’t expect everyone else to believe that your way is the only way to a sustainable future! Don’t repeatedly demand that he trumpet the way you’ve grown the
    “organic” approach. Remember not everyone thinks it should be preferred to “local”, and many even think it is actually government regulation headed in the wrong direction.

    And don’t castigate a journalist for doing a great job letting people know about some of the complexity and diversity of the choices out there! For example, you explain the challenges of satifying customers that want to buy asparagus in January and beef in the spring. You are
    of course free to serve that market, and there may be benefits for other countries. But don’t criticize Pollan for informing consumers what a terrible habit that is, and how much more sustainable it is to live off the seasonal bounty of their own bioregion.

    And don’t take rude jabs at “fringe” coop markets that have been struggling to get that particular point across for decades.

    At the same time, thanks for working hard to address many important issues.

    Neal McBurnet

29. Valerie Ross Says:
    July 15th, 2006 at 8:41 am

    I arrived at this blog after reading a snarky column this morning by Joe Nocera in the Business Section of NY Times, in which Nocera maintains that Mackey’s emphasis throughout is on value, because WF’s customers are value-driven — which is to say, we shop at WF because it makes us feel good about ourselves in some fashion (as vegans, or animal rights people, or parents feeding our children good food, or people who care about local or third world farmers, or the environment, or people who like to think they’re eating high quality food).

    Nocera’s is a weird argument, suggestive of the way in which late capitalism has appropriated and sullied ethics itself: so that to have “values” and to act upon them is itself objectionable! Frightening, and insidious (one hears the same argument about community service: “she’s only doing it to make herself feel good”: the implication, unquestioned, being that doing things that make you feel good is a bad thing, or at least is a bad thing if what you are doing is in some way good for others).

    But I digress. What I wanted to say is that this exchange between Mr. Pollan and Mr. Mackey, as well as many of the others who posted here, is inspiriting: the exchange of ideas and information, the opportunity to actually discuss (with civiity) our shared and differing interests and concerns, the possibility of finding a position across differences that we can live with–if not necessarily reach full consensus on–and the possibiity that this exchange might actually mean something — have a real effect — thanks to Mr. Mackey’s willingness to test his own position, respond to rather than spin Mr. Pollan’s work, and lo and behold a person who is in a position to effect change: how often does that happen? Between this and Warren Buffett’s redistribution of wealth (let’s hope Bill Gates doesn’t squander the opportunity: where’s his blog?) well, maybe there’s reason to hope.

    I am by the way a WF shopper, have been for ten years, and for all the reasons Nocera suggests — to which I will now add another: this blog, rich with promise.

30. Shankar Ramaswamy Says:
    July 15th, 2006 at 9:41 am

    Dear John,

    My family and I have been ardent and enthusiastic supporters of the organic foods movement and Whole foods for several years now and have cheerfully paid a premium for our groceries. We have been ridiculed by our extended families and friends for being so foolish as to spend so much more on groceries. However, our belief in the organic farming ideals and our trust in the system have kept us going.

    Of late, our trust in the system has definitely been wearing down. The USDA organic label is definitely not something we trust because we know these standards were influenced by big money. The high margins enjoyed by Organic products are clearly attracting large corporations driven by one thing and one thing only – the bottomline. These guys pretending to truly care about organic farming is all hogwash.

    While we recognize the historic significance of Whole Foods and its role in promoting organic farming, our trust in your brand has seriously eroded – we see you as beholden to Wall Street and not to us the customers. For example, I do not see why you continue to sell Horizon products – in fact, I can no longer find Organic Valley milk at our local Whole foods. All this has caused us to seriously lower the level of shopping we do at Whole foods. We used to regulary spend $1000-$1200 a month at our local Whole foods; lately, we spend maybe $200-$400 there. We now patronize a local co-op and a regional Organic grocer who we trust much more than Whole foods.

    If you are taking steps to address concerns of customers like us, then you are not doing job of communicating what these steps and how they mitigate our concerns.

    Regards,

    shankar

31. Ashley Says:
    July 16th, 2006 at 6:22 am

    John Mackey,
    I could easily write you a pages upon pages of my gratitude to you, but I figure you’re considered one of the top CEOs out there, you may want something more direct and brief. I live in New Orleans, and I work in the bakery at the Arabella Station. Although, our store could not begin to compete with your Austin, Lamar, and Manhatten locations in beauty and perhaps even in consistency at times, we are a major focal point in New Orleans’ uptown community. We were the first grocery store to open post-Katrina in the uptown area, which meant a lot to the locals. A Katrina-victim myself, I wanted to thank you for all that you’ve provided me. I lost my home. I lost a year out of my undergrad college career, but thanks to Terek (our store team leader) and you (the most humble, rich hippie around), you’ve provided me an opportunity to rebuild my life. My friends at Whole Foods and the positive work environment (in comparison to what’s available to college students in the area), as well as feeling like an asset to the rebuilding process of my beloved city, has motivated me and inspired me in ways that have changed me into a stronger person. You may have recieved thanks from us down here before, but it’s been over half a year, and we’re still in the beginning of the aftermath in so many ways… and I felt compelled to let you know how much easier you’re making it for so many us out here. So much of the familiarity of my life before the storm is gone. My one concern when getting home was to return to work to see people I hadn’t see in months, to occupy myself from thinking about my loss, and also to merely know that the only job I’ve ever looked forward to was still there for me when I got back. It followed through. If you ever find your way to New Orleans, you’ll probably recieve quite the overwhelming welcoming.

    Thank you!
    Much love from the Arabella Station, still going strong(er)!

    Ashley

32. Deborah Howard Says:
    July 16th, 2006 at 1:58 pm

    John:

    I have problems with a true vegan making money from the lives of animals. Killing animals, including fish, for consumption is wrong from an ethical standpoint. So, perhaps you are only a vegan for health reasons.

    When your store first opened in Fort Collins, CO, I was disgusted by the live lobsters and shocked that you would even consider selling them. And they were situated near the produce area. I couldn’t even look in the direction of the seafood section. At least, you came to your senses on this issue.

    What I really have a problem with – and I should mention that I travel all over the country and have been to numerous Whole Food stores – is the horrible waste of produce. In an attempt to create a “farmers market,” your stores pile up way too much produce, and most of it is overpriced. I don’t know how many times I have discovered moldy fruit either before or after purchase. In fact, one time, I didn’t see the very small black spots on raspberries and my mouth swelled almost all the way shut (I am allergic to mold). And most people, unless they live in sophisticated culinary cities like L.A., San Francisco or NY, aren’t familiar with unusual items like heirloom tomatoes. It really bothers me to watch these beautiful tomatoes become mushy. I can’t even begin to imagine how many get tossed. So, the truth is: you have too much produce; it is overpriced; it doesn’t turn over quickly enough and therefore has to thrown out. Even if you are composting all this produce, which I doubt your stores are doing, it is a horrible waste of food.

    Sincerely,

    Deborah A Howard
    President
    Companion Animal Protection Society

33. PHM Says:
    July 16th, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    Dear Mr. Mackey,

    I gather from your excellent exchange with Mr. Pollan that WFM is moving towards offering grassfed meat. I am in the middle of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and bought my first grassfed meats recently; however, I’m paying $55 to have a couple pounds of chuck and 2 6 oz. filets fed-ex’d to my house. I just shopped at the St. Louis WFM today and the meat counter clerk that WFM does not carry grassfed meat. Sounds like that may change soon. I hope so! Thanks in advance for making it happen. You, sir, are a credit to the captains of capitalism. Perhaps WFM’s success will cause more corporate chiefs to care as deeply about their companies’ impact on the environment and humanity. All the best.

34. John Mackey Says:
    July 16th, 2006 at 11:10 pm

    Hi Shankar Ramaswamy,

    Some clarifications:

    1. If you want to purchase Organic Valley at our stores, simply buy our private label. Organic Valley is the brand name of CROPP Cooperative. 100% of our organic private label milk for our 365 Organic line comes from CROPP (which is the exact same network of farmers that Organic Valley uses). See the CROPP website for more information: http://www.farmers.coop/

    2. I’m sorry you’ve lost your trust in Whole Foods Market and now prefer shopping at co-ops and other natural food stores. I’m not sure, however, why you no longer trust our company as we continue to fulfill our mission statement and core values as faithfully today as we did 26 years ago when Whole Foods began with our first store in Austin.

    3. Regarding Horizon Organic Dairy products, I want to share with you the report Margaret Wittenberg wrote after our recent visit to Horizon’s large company owned farm in Idaho in May. Margaret, Walter Robb, and myself carefully toured this farm that has been the subject of so much criticism by organic activists. I agree 100% with Margaret’s report:

    Organic Dairy Inspection May 2006
    We’ve all been inundated with passionate emails and “press releases” from The Cornucopia Institute and The Organic Consumer Association, making a variety of negative accusations about Horizon as a large scale, factory feedlot dairy farm and urging the boycott of Horizon dairy products.
    Interestingly enough, none of the accusers have ever actually visited Horizon’s Idaho facility. So, to finally set the record straight, John Mackey, Walter Robb, and I went to Horizon’s Idaho dairy farm, the operation most hotly being criticized, on May 15th to see for ourselves. Here’s what we found:

    Horizon Dairy
    The Horizon dairy includes grazing pasture, milking parlor, loafing sheds with exercise area, maternity/dry cow area (where cows getting ready to give birth are staged and monitored), heifer raising pastures, a large compost site, and cropland where they raise most of their forage crops that uses the compost developed on site.
    All Horizon cows have daily access to pasture. Their heifers graze on pasture all day long and each of their lactating cows is on pasture but only for a couple hours per day. The pasture was of very good quality and their commitment to quality pasture is underscored with their engagement with the “Holistic Grazing Management” program started last fall. This program, based on the innovative work of Allan Savory, is based on the concept that grazing animals and grasses are symbiotic. Using a whole farm/whole system approach, including an intensive pasturing schedule, the grazing system emulates how buffalo used to graze on prairie land in which the animals graze in a small area for a day or two, making sure the plants aren’t taken down to far, and are then moved into the next paddock to allow the grass to recover more quickly. When managed holistically, bio-diversity and soil cover is increased, grazing days and forage are increased, water retention and depth is improved, nutrient cycling is improved, and animals are healthier.

    When the lactating cows are not on pasture or being milked, they are in the loafing shed/exercise area which consists of a an open-air, covered loafing shed lined with fresh bedding that is changed daily, surrounded by an exercise area for the cows to move around or just hang out. Additional exercise includes walking to and fro to the pasture paddock as well as walking to the milking parlor a couple times a day.

    All the cows looked very healthy. It was very evident they were comfortable around people—one of the gauges of quality of care and health— as they all came up to surround us and the vehicles we drove into the pastures when we got out of the truck to look at them and the pasture. All the key workers live on site in company-provided housing to ensure 24/7 care and attentiveness. Another example of excellent care is that they check their calving cows every 40 minutes around the clock, considered one of the most critical times of a cow’s life. Beginning in September all their replacement heifers will be born and raised on site.

    While, overall, we were pleasantly surprised that what we saw at Horizon’s Idaho dairy was very different than what their detractors claimed, there’s no question that their lactating cows should have the opportunity for more access to pasture, extending the couple hours to all day. At this time the National Organic Standards don’t officially require anything other than the non-committal “access to pasture”, but Whole Foods Market has been very public with our support, including our presentation at the USDA’s recent organic dairy symposium, of the National Organic Standards Board’s proposal to create more stringent, explicit standards that specify that organic dairy is truly pasture-based. Ironically, Horizon’s opponents never mention that Horizon, too, has supported the NOSB’s proposals and have had that message on their website for months. In terms of putting verbal and written support into practice, the good news is that Horizon has already purchased and seeded double the land so that all cows will be able to graze simultaneously during the growing season. A completely separate second state-of-the-art dairy is also being constructed so Horizon will have two milking parlors on their Idaho dairy site to accommodate a comfortable walking distance for all their lactating cows. They also intend to use this new dairy as a training facility for their family farmers to visit and get additional ideas.

    Other background important to know: A little publicized fact from those who criticize Horizon is that 80% of their organic milk supply is from 340 family farms, with 200 more family farms they are helping with the transition to organic. They have a dedicated staff that works 1-on-1 with all their organic and transitioning to organic family farms through a program they call HOPE (Horizon Organic Producer Education).
    Related to this program, throughout the last 5 years they have contributed $15-20 million in financial assistance to help with education and greater awareness to their family farmers about organic agriculture, guidance through transition and certification, and assistance with helping improve and develop best practices through the assistance of dairy and land conservations experts.

    All, in all, John, Walter, and I believe the sale of Horizon organic dairy products remains as an acceptable, good option for our stores and regions to consider if it works within the region’s organic dairy set plans.

    End of the report.

    I want to conclude this post by saying that some of the concern by organic activists regarding factory farm organic dairies is solidly grounded. There are in existence some “organic” factory farm dairies in production today that have no real commitment to either animal welfare or pasture access. They are simply commercial dairies using organic feed. Whole Foods remains passionately opposed to these types of organic factory farms and we do not buy any milk from these farms (although many of our competitors do). Whole Foods has been both vocal and active in lobbying for much stricter standards concerning pasture access for all organic dairy cows. In addition, in 2007 we will create our animal compassion standards for dairy cows and the pasture requirements under this standard will be far, far higher than any organic standards anywhere in the world.

35. Pattie Says:
    July 17th, 2006 at 10:53 am

    Joe Nocera’s column in this past Saturday’s New York Times raised some interesting questions about “the organic cause” and whether or not large retailers, including Whole Foods, are helping or hurting the organic cause. The column includes details about an exchange between Michael Pollan, the author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, and John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods. The issue at hand is that the popularity of organics has caused the proliferation of large-scale commercial farms, albeit organic, plus the increase in importation of organic produce. I’d like to make a couple comments about this issue.

    1. Maintaining “the nature and spirit of organics” is an unfair burden to place on retailers who are responding to market demand for what consumers want–which is increasingly organics. Certified organic is now a legal term that includes certain requirements. Local is not one of them. If you want your organic food to be local (which reduces transport time, increases the ability for diversity, decreases fuel use, and provides a positive impact to the local economy), then you have to demand that. If you want the organic label to include a local or small farm component, then you have to fight for it, or help in the development of a “beyond organics” labeling option.

    2. Whole Foods has done wonders, and I admire John Mackey’s commitment to responding to consumers–it was through an exchange with a determined activist about the treatment of ducks that caused Mackey to launch the now-established Animal Compassion Program at Whole Foods. I believe that if we as consumers demand more local produce at Whole Foods, Mackey will find a way to provide it. Ask. And make it clear that by local, you don’t mean from three states away. You mean local. Within your foodshed.

    Mr. Mackey, if you are reading this, please know that people are pushing you not because you haven’t already done so much good but because they know you are the rare combination of idealist and entrepreneur who can truly make things happen.

    And Mr. Nocera, thank you for raising awareness about the many issues intertwined in the commercialization of organics.

36. CHARLES M Says:
    July 17th, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    This blog is so interesting, one of the revelations by John is actually having a copy cat effect by WFM competition and wonder if Micheal is being used to get WFM marketing strategies: The competitor just revealed its sourcing strategy which is more of what was discussed under this blog:
    http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.asp?ID=5869421&Feed=PR&Date=20060717

37. Josh Says:
    July 17th, 2006 at 9:00 pm

    Mr. Mackey:

    Thanks for this excellent and thought provoking discussion. I’m very impressed with your willingness to respond to criticism, and think it’s a unique asset for your company. While I agree and admire most of what you say, however, I do have a few questions and issues about your reply.

    First, you don’t directly answer Pollan’s questions. He asks you, “As a percentage of sales (rather than of vendors), how much of the produce sold at Whole Foods is produced locally?” Your reply to the section with this question is 814 words long and addresses issues of the size and nature of the farms and is quite interesting, but I don’t think you answered the question. I think it’s a fair one…perhaps I just didn’t see your specific reply. So what’s the number?

    Same for Pollan’s second question, “is there anyone, at the regional level, charged with the specific mission of locally sourcing as much food as possible? And do Whole Foods buyers have the authority to pay a premium for local produce, in the same way they now routinely pay a premium for organic?” This reply is a laundry list of Whole Foods affiliated local farms in the Bay Area, but again, there’s no simple answer to the question. Judging by the fact that these questions aren’t addressed until the “exciting new initiatives” section, presumably the answer is, “at the time of your writing, no there weren’t. But that’s a good point and one that we’re addressing.”

    Finally, you take Pollan to task for not contacting you before criticizing you and write (somewhat condescendingly) about subjectivity and bias. But you use an approach very similar to his in your discussion on Horizon Dairy. I confess to knowing next to nothing about the controversy, but do you think that representatives from Whole Foods are the best people to determine whether or not Horizon Dairy is treating their animals well? Presumably Whole Foods makes a good deal of money from sales of Horizon’s products, and have an interest in seeing healthy, happy cows. From your post on the issue, it seems like you relied on your visit to Horizon, some background information from other sources, and your vast expertise and experience to come up with a view that was unbiased as possible. This seems similar to what you negatively characterize Pollan doing in his book. Did you contact the activists to get their side of the story before writing your post? Given what I know about you from your writing on this blog, I can decide that I can trust your observations despite any biases, and I feel people can make that same choice about Pollan’s characterization of Whole Foods given the context of his book.

    Thanks again for the discussion. I’m a Whole Foods customer and will continue to be. I just think that the issues raised in this post are valid and worth answering in a straightforward manner.

38. Tracy Says:
    July 17th, 2006 at 11:17 pm

    John,

    Wow, what a mouthgasmic exchange! I briefly returned to the philosophical contemplation that plants must experience emotion. The two of you are so passionate about food, agriculture, and the culture of consumption you instantaneously gave all food EGO and a sense of vulnerability that is immeasureable.
    A brief visit to your blog has given me a newfound appreciation of what Whole Foods lives and breaths. Never in 14 years working for the competition have I seen or experienced this type of open and authentic quest for the truth and its impact on our ever EXPANDING corn syrup culture.
    It’s apparent that you completely understand that vulnerability leads to trust. I happened upon this deligthful morsel as I was perusing your job postings (I will continue to peruse). Keep feeding your essence, it’s growing up quite nicely….I trust you a little more because you are willing to expose yourself and I probably won’t be so focused on the displays, # of organics, price, merchandising techniques, fixtures, signage, or occasional body odor. I probably won’t fall back my subjective retail experience as my only reference point. I will simply bring to my SHOPPING EXPERIENCE my expectations, beliefs, biases, world views, and my check card; as these serve as perceptual filters that tremendously influence my purchases and now I just feel like shopping with you!
    You said it yourself – your essence, your leadership, your company has paved the way for organics thus enabling more of us to choose organic. You are in a sense the leader of the reformation and I thank you!!

    Tracy

39. Chris Adams Says:
    July 18th, 2006 at 12:29 am

    As a New Zealander I wanted to offer my comments on the issue of the sustainability, economics and ethics of sourcing produce from overseas countries such as New Zealand.

    Sustainable production, minimal impact on the environment and a global food marketplace are not mutually exclusive. New Zealand agriculture enjoys an ideal, temperate climate where little irrigation is required, there are strong environmental protections, animals are grass fed outdoors year round and cropping is maximized without the need of genetic engineering. The country also has the smallest level of distorting farmer support, subsidies or tariff protections in the developed world. Indeed buying beef or produce from New Zealand may not only offer a better price and quality – but is likely better on the environment that purchasing the same product from just down the road where irrigation is required, animals need to be housed in doors in winter and the farmer is subsidized or protected to stay in business. The difference in shipping the crop across the world is likely to be a relatively insignificant impact relative to these broader production issues. In the regard local farming does not necessarily mean better or sustainable farming.

    Finally and without a hint of bias I can also say that Kiwis are nice people and we need the work !

    Chris Adams.

40. Phil Oppenheim Says:
    July 18th, 2006 at 10:05 pm

    Thank you for posting this…fascinating.

41. John Mackey Says:
    July 19th, 2006 at 4:01 pm

    Hi Josh,

    1. We don’t know the exact percentage of local produce we sell in our stores. Produce that is bought locally doesn’t have the same tracking mechanisms established that nationally sourced produce does. We know how many produce suppliers we have that are local, but we don’t know exactly how much we are selling from each one because that information doesn’t roll up. We don’t have the “categories” currently established to track local versus national or global. This is an Information Systems challenge that we are working to correct.

    2. The answer to your second question is that we are in the process of changing job descriptions and responsibilities to make sure that there are designated team members responsible for sourcing local product. They will be empowered to buy directly from local farmers. They will seek to buy as competitively as possible in order to get the best prices possible for our customers.

    3. Regarding your third point: I have talked to a number of organic activists regarding organic dairy (and other organic issues). I’m well aware of “their side of the story” regarding Horizon. I also heard Horizon’s side of the story. I then went and looked for myself and drew my own conclusions. I honestly don’t know what more I could have done. I have no attachment or bias towards Horizon as a company. If Horizon was actually operating the organic factory farms that it has been criticized for operating then I would say so and Whole Foods would transition away from Horizon. We don’t need to sell Horizon. There are other organic dairy suppliers we buy from. As I have already pointed out, there are organic factory farm dairies in operation that violate the spirit of the organic dairy standards. I’ve seen them. I don’t like them and Whole Foods doesn’t buy from them. Horizon doesn’t fall into this category in my opinion. They are being unfairly attacked in my opinion. I believe the company has a sincere commitment to having their cows on pasture and ensuring animal welfare. I don’t think Horizon is guilty of any crimes simply because they are a large and successful corporation. Neither success nor the corporate form of organization are crimes in my ethics.

    In contrast to my talking to various organic activists, Horizon leadership, and investigating Horizon in person, Pollan didn’t talk to Whole Foods leadership. He didn’t actually seek to understand “our side of the story”. That is a simple fact not really open to dispute or alternative interpretation. I’m sorry if you think I was condescending in criticizing Pollan. That certainly wasn’t my intention. I think my comments on this subject are both fair and accurate.

42. Josh Says:
    July 19th, 2006 at 8:27 pm

    Mr. Mackey:

    I really appreciate you answering my questions and found your responses fair, straightforward, and convincing.

    It seems like you’ve helped to create consumers who demand to know more about the products they buy. I hope that you take it as a measure of success that people are asking tough questions of you and Whole Foods, and I can’t tell you how admirable I think it is that you’re willing to hold yourself up to the scrutiny you’ve helped to foster.

    Best, and thanks again for this discussion,

    Josh

43. Elizabeth McInerney Says:
    July 19th, 2006 at 9:22 pm

    Whole Foods has developed a reputation for excellence by banning artifical colors, flavors, lobster, tacky magazines, etc, from stores. Why not ban animal products from producers who fail to meet YOUR compassionate animal standards as well?

    I fail to buy the comparison to your decision to offer both conventional and organic produce/grains. You do not offer products containing artifical colors side-by-side with those containing natural colors. I can’t imagine a better way to promote pasture-based farms than to give them exclusive access to your customer base. And if doing so creates temporary shortages, certainly a vegan such as John Mackey is in a postion to promote/offer temporary alternatives (there are no alternatives to produce and grains).

    There is no question in my mind that a stand for pasture-based farming is worth the financial risk (real or imagined) to your organization. Only one question remains. Do you have the courage to take it?

44. Chuck Hawks Says:
    July 19th, 2006 at 11:20 pm

    I must say that this has been quite the interesting dialog and I appreciate the authors’ (John and Michael) willingness for open and candid discussion. And one to which my post has gotten just as long as any of yours, John, now that I look at it in “Preview”… LOL

    We do not have a WFM in the Charlotte, NC area (yet – I recently heard there is a possibility now) and aside from the cultural and stereotypical slander on the “Whole Paycheck” theme, I have until now (having spent several hours on this site reading letters and posts) been grossly ignorant to the WFM model, mission and philosophy.

    With that being said John, I formally request that you do come to the Charlotte market (especially the South Charlotte area!) as my wife and I will not only be shoppers/supporters, we will be advocates, actively marketing your store and philosophy to all we can when appropriate. I am very impressed with what I see.

    It is intriguing to me that what we now call “organic farming food supplication” is basically what we as a species came from. The fact that it is now (apparently way) more expensive to produce food products in a ‘natural’ way (vs. a mass produced, chemically and/or genetically engineered way) is quite the ironic travesty that only a society as modern, self-centered and short-sighted as ours could possibly create. Welcome to mass consumerism, big business, and huge populations I suppose, eh?

    The fact that John, WFM, Michael and others like them are creating such integral approaches to solving the woes manifested by such consumerism is beyond promising… it’s quite heartening. I applaud you.
    Especially your integral vision into creating such solutions as the growing WFM model, John.
    Should you read this – if you are not already familiar with the work of Ken Wilber, Integral Institute, and others who play in that realm, I highly suggest you check them out as I think you will like what you find. Ken’s got tons of books, blogs, etc. to his credit or based on his work – just Google him, or contact me and I can point you in the appropriate direction for your interests, should you desire.

    My point is I know of few who look at their industry from such a broad viewpoint or altitude and actually GET INVOLVED at a global level. It is all too easy to recognize the problems at that scope and then pine for a solution or implementation without acting upon that recognition, potentially waiting for someone else to do it instead. You sir, appear to be one of those in action. That gains my respect and loyalty as a consumer, a constituent, and fellow human being.

    The fact that you have been able to take the WFM model this far and thrive as a business is nothing short of amazing. And no, corporations are NOT a bad thing! They are a GREAT thing when led properly, ethically and responsibly.

    From a business standpoint, I would encourage you to welcome competition in your space. Collaborate with what may appear as ‘competition’, for it is only through such collaboration that GLOBAL change will occur. The more grocery chains who actually jump on the proverbial bandwagon that you seem to be so deftly guiding, the better! The more in the model, the more consumers that actually get served and raise the awareness of other consumers, formulating a shift in consumerism as a whole and thereby benefiting ALL and the planet itself. And incidentally, I mean way bigger than providing space for parking lot farmers’ markets (which, by the way IS over-the-top commitment – I almost fell out of my chair when I read that! INCREDIBLE – THANK YOU!!!) I mean fostering a change in the way our food is supplied across the board by inviting others to play in your space.

    I know you think about and stand for changing the way agribusiness gets done. What if your ‘competition’ did too? If just three more major grocery chains implemented the integrity and dedication to local/organic food production and delivery that you/WFM do, what difference would that make in this country’s food production model overall?
    What difference would it make in the health of our citizens?
    What difference would it make on the agriculture industries that supply groceries like yours with products (globally?)

    It’s not my intention to propose to take money out of your coffers – you have a business to run, indeed. Simply to state that change en-mass only occurs when change agents amass. Through collaborative-competition models, you CAN throw out the stale bath water AND keep the clean baby.

    Again, I applaud what you stand for, what you’ve created, where you’re headed, and your willingness to let us all in on your thoughts and conversations with others who are as committed to making a difference in what ever way they see is appropriate.

    With greatest appreciation (and anticipation for your arrival in my area!),
    Chuck Hawks

45. Chuck Hawks Says:
    July 20th, 2006 at 11:12 pm

    OK, I just found your keynote.
    Too funny!
    Integral seemed so familiar because it was…

    Fantastic concept for a keynote! I would love to have seen the look on the faces of your audience before, during and after the delivery of such a presentation. Being a professional speaker myself, I have to admit that seeing that transition from the front of the room is one of the greater joys of my life.

    I am impressed that you view your company as being at a yellow vMEME.

    Wow. That’s about all I can say for now. It is great to see yet another powerful company with integral-aware leadership. A very good thing, indeed.

    If there is any way I can support you in your mission John, please do not hesitate to contact me. It would be an honor to work with you as your Coach (what I do.) This is not intended as an ad, as it’s always an honor to work with someone who understands where I’m coming from. It just came out while I was typing… It’s not my intent to solicit my business but to honor yours.

    Please build a store in the Balantyne area of Charlotte – hint, hint! Now THAT’s a solicitation & a request! LOL

    Cheers & Be Well,
    C

46. hugh schick Says:
    July 23rd, 2006 at 10:24 pm

    As a private chef in Marin County, CA I cater to the a uniquely wealthy clientele that demands gourmet cuisine prepared from the freshest ingredients. As this blog illustrates, there is no shortage of exquisite organic ingredients / farms in the area; in fact, I have never lived anywhere with a more astounding food supply.

    Whole Foods is, without question, my favorite chain in which to shop for these clients. The produce is of consistently high quality. I applaud Mr. Mackey’s effort and vision in providing consumers with a superior if occasionally more expensive option (you get what you pay for).

    I have a few comments to interject in this debate that grow out of my years as a chef and my fascination with all matters related to food sourcing.

    Beyond wasting fuel on long-distance importation and bypassing local asparagus growers, another consideration needs to come into play in choosing suppliers for Whole Foods or for that matter, any grocer regardless of size.

    The primary concern of the consumer that opts to pay a premium for organic food is health. Garbage in, garbage out, or conversely, eat well and prosper. Most devotees of the Whole Foods lifestyle know that eating well makes you feel more energetic, calmer, and healthier. In organic products, they expect more vitality, purity, superior flavor, and freshness that at least rivals if not surpasses that of the non-organic alternatives .

    Before the huge corporate takeover or lack thereof
    that ruined / saved the organics industry (kidding…you guys can argue that one all day ), you might remember that a lot of organic produce available for public consumption was hideous, wooden, and/or deformed in appearance and devoid of flavor. I always assumed that this was because demand had not (yet) reached critical mass ….
    organics were percieved as being for ascetics and weirdos with food “issues.”

    I only eat sushi (sorry vegetarians / vegans, please bear with me) if the place I’m going looks really busy….otherwise I assume the same type of thing. If there’s not sufficient demand for a product, it can’t be purchased fresh enough for me to want to eat it (or serve it).

    Today, thanks to the excellent work of Mr. Mackey and WFM, the volume of organics sold is now sufficient to guarantee that the supply (at least of popular fruits/vegetables like greens and carrots) is of a quality, texture, and flavor that rival the non-organic alternatives.

    Which brings us back to sourcing. Let’s remember the reason people buy organics: to feel good. To be healthy. Because they imply freshness and purity.

    This is why people hire me; I shop an hour or two before a meal , chop up everything at the last second, because I know that eating food prepared that way makes you feel incredible.

    In the Indian tradition, this is known as prana.
    Food contains a vital energy that dissipates rapidly after it is harvested. If you eat everything as fresh as possible, you will be energized. If you eat leftovers or stale foods, your body will be clogged up and polluted by a meal rather than nourished.

    Thus, the debate about food sourcing should, I believe, take into consideration the nutritive value of the organic food that is sold. I can sense the absolute sincerity of Mr.Mackey for his mission (which is why I’m not going to bust his chops about agribusiness), and I believe that this sincerity should extend to providing an organic product that is truly fresh / healthful.

    In essence, I would love to see the freshest, most vibrant organic produce possible, wherever it’s grown. Logic would dictate that WF would most likely fulfill this by increasing reliance on local suppliers. I’d guess the offending asparagus was old, being from abroad, but I imagine it’s possible for a foreign product to be fresher / superior if handled carefully and flown in hastily.

    Mr Mackey, I ask that you consider the following questions in developing your improved approach to sourcing:

    Is an organic product good enough to compete w/ the non-organic alternative? If not, it does little to further the movement / make converts.

    Is the product fresh? Though it’s local in origin, does it take a circuitous route to your store, losing vitality in the process?

    Perhaps WF should directly form its own network of small-farm suppliers to ensure efficiency / freshness.

    Even if a product meets organic standards (related to use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers), is it healthful? What type of water is used to irrigate the crops? Municipal water one wouldn’t drink is routinely used on organic farms……

    Have you ever driven past a top-notch wine country vineyard and seen all the automobile exhaust settling on grapes / vines 10 feet from the road?

    I applaud Whole Foods for giving us an opportunity to discuss these topics….again, without their immense success, the organics movement would still be marginal. I am encouraged by Mr. Mackey’s public commitment to answering his critics in a constructive way. By reacting to the Pollan critique with a list of new policies, Mr. Mackey makes it clear that he’s interested in more than the bottom line.

    By the way, Mr. Mackey, I have been attempting to discuss two ground-breaking ventures with your local management team but have found them a bit overwhelmed: despite initial enthusiasm for my
    ideas they have been very hard to reach. Perhaps due to your rapid expansion they are short on time. I am not at liberty to discuss these projects in a public forum, for obvious reasons.

    I would love to share these ideas with you, as they relate directly to the debate at hand and would go a long way to demonstrate your ccommitment to increasing commerce with local suppliers. I assure you it would be worth your time to hear me out.

    Thank you for the opportunity to express my two cents!

    Sincerely,
    Hugh Schick
    Private Chef
    Mill Valley, CA

47. J Says:
    July 24th, 2006 at 12:44 pm

    This is an interesting discussion. Though clearly not short of words, Mr. Mackey’s failed to provide a specific statistic asked for by Mr. Pollan:

    “The more telling statistic would be this: As a percentage of sales (rather than of vendors), how much of the produce sold at Whole Foods is produced locally?”

    If Mr. Mackey’s interest is in being transparent, this information should be provided, otherwise one assumes there is a reason it is being hidden.

48. brandon Says:
    July 26th, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    Whether Pollan should have contacted Whole Foods management or not (does a restaurant critic always talk to the chef or owners before reviewing what’s on his plate?) I think it has generated a discussion many times more powerful than if he had.

    I find it all very invigorating and I offer kudos to John Mackey for not merely defending his postion but taking the offensive and reforming the way Whole Foods plans to source its food in the future.

    P.S. Don’t turn Whole Foods vegan just yet…the amazing taste and healthfulness of grass fed beef will bring back a lot of converts.

49. Suzanne Says:
    July 26th, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    Excellent discussion. The more people who engage in this debate, the healthier our bodies and our communities become.

    I just want to say thank you, too, to Ashley and others who make shopping at the Arabella Station store in New Orleans my favorite Whole Foods ever. (I’ve been to quite a few.) It isn’t the biggest store, or the one with the biggest selection, but it is the most delightful place I’ve ever bought groceries. Thank you to all of you.

    I posted about this great exchange on my health blog: http://www.honesthuman.com/?p=56

    Mr. Mackey, please keep up your commitment to raising standards, for animals, for produce, for humans. You have some of the most savvy customers in the industry. Keep working to keep us.

    Suzanne

50. Clement Roberts Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 2:47 am

    Dear Mr. Mackey,

    Like many others here, I sincerely appreciate your discussion with Mr. Pollan and your obvious desire to have Whole Foods live its principles.

    I would like you to know that I try very hard to buy compassionately raised animals and very much look forward to seeing labels in your stores identifying animals raised under your new compassion standards (which, to my untrained eye, look quite sincere and reasonable).

    If you don’t mind, I would like to make a suggestion–namely that you consider adding fish to the list of animals for which you are developing new standards. Obviously, fish that are raised in the wild do not need a compassion standard (although perhaps there are some relevant differences in the pain inflicted via various methods of capture). However, there are (as I am sure you know) enormous ecological and social implications to the way fish are caught and/or produced. It seems to me that it would be a worthwhile endeavor to develop a comprehensive set of “environmental standards” for the capture and production of various species — in order to prevent overfishing, by-catch, the destruction of mangrove forests, and to encourage small scale fishermen etc.

    As I noted, I pay a great deal of attention to these issues and try very hard to only buy fish from sustainable fisheries and that are caught using methods that minimize by-catch (I also sometimes buy organically farmed tilapia and farm raised caviar etc). But: (a) I do not possess the necessary expertise or volume of information to consistently know which fish in your case best meets my environmental concerns; (b) the folks behind your counters often do not have sufficiently detailed knowledge to be able to answer my questions and (c) as you have noted, part of your mission is to educate consumers generally.

    In short, I ask you to consider developing a set of environmental guidelines for fish and then (as you are planning to do with the “compassion guidelines” for domestic animals) label fish that conform to these standards in your stores.

    Thank you very kindly for your consideration.

51. Pam M., Milwaukee WI Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 9:42 am

    I’ve read Michael Pollan’s book and I’ve followed this thread over the past month. The book has changed my life, both personally and professionally, and I feel compelled to continue to make better choices for myself and for the business I run – when it comes to local food. You see, I’ve worked the past 25 years in the natural products industry – not for Whole Foods but for one of those “fringe” co-ops Mr. Mackey referred to (“The simple truth is that the organic foods movement was largely a fringe movement with the number of adherents numbering only in the thousands before Whole Foods Market came into existence”.) Financially speaking, I understand Mr. Mackey’s response in that few businesses are even a close second to the volume of organic business Whole Foods conducts. However, with all due respect, I disagree with the organic movement having been “fringe” prior to WF existence.

    Whole Foods in the 1980’s was close to the same sales volume as my store at the time – along with hundreds of other independent stores across the country. After going public, WF excelled quickly by buying up many of those independent stores, who had worked for years to grow their market, contribute to their community, and increase awareness of organic foods. (They went willingly, of course.) Those independent supermarkets, and co-ops, grew the market for organics. Whole Foods was able to quickly grasp their market potential from the sales volume those independent stores and co-ops had already produced in cities across the country. Consider the market potential in my town – where WF will open thanks to the multi-millions of dollars in natural and organic sales that have come from my store and other local independents.

    I believe WF has done a lot for our industry – their exposure alone has really helped to grow the natural and organic market for all the rest of us. And while acquisitions and public stock have contributed to the financial success of the corporation, it seems to me to be quite self-serving to say that we wouldn’t have an organic industry without WF. Consider the fact that today there are markets that WF will never consider, because they don’t make sense to them financially. (Lower population density, lower household income, rural communities.) So instead of a WF, those communities have or are starting up a new a co-op to provide them not only with local and organic products, but real ownership of the business and a sense of community that can’t be replicated. To me, that’s a value that all the millions a publicly-traded company could afford, cannot buy at any price.

52. robert Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 3:18 pm

    off-thread, but related:

    Dear Mr. Mackey:

    So much is at stake as goes the future of capitalism and the role of corporations.

    I am deeply curious to know the semantic and real differences between your views and those of someone like David Korten, and where his views and yours converge in common purpose.

    At a Brian Johnson blog entry at Zaadz, I suggest a pow-wow between you and Dr. Korten, presumptively inviting you both to a sit-down at Ken Wilber’s loft in late October, as Dr. Korten is scheduled to be in Boulder then to discuss his latest book.

    Whether or not such a sit-down is possible, a conversation between you two is one I’d very much love to hear.

    Thank you so much for your stewardship of the organic movement and your contributions to transforming the role of corporations.

    Sincerely,
    Robert Lyons

53. Chuck Learned Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    Mr Mackey,

    I would like to offer an idea that relates to your continued desire to source food from distant shores. I understand your point regarding supporting small poor farmers overseas.
    This as you know carries the embodied energy of transport, which in turn plays a role in increasing the temperature of our earth’s atmosphere. Given that we must all account for our eco-footprint in this matter, I am suggesting that Whole foods become a leader in developing a carbon offset plan for the carbon footprint of food travel. This plan should involve a shared responsibility with the consumer who purchases the product. Perhaps you could offer a consumer carbon offset partnership.

    It is possible to calculate the carbon footprint and in turn bring it to the level of a single item, this items footprint could be available to the consumer who in turn could pay for half of the footprint with Whole Foods matching it, as one possibility. This consumer match could be tallied at the checkout informing the consumer of the amount with an invitation for them to pay this carbon chip with the knowledge it will be matched.
    One final note, to increase both the trust and consumer commitment to the carbon footprint remediation, allow the consumers utilizing the internet, surveys, etc complete authority over the how this pool of money is utilized. Let the consumers bring forth proposals, prioritize and evaluate and give each consumer a vote who participates in the carbon offset chip program.
    Taking this issue on will bring only positives.

    The carbon footprint on a daily “consumable” must be accounted for, if we have any prayer of cooling down the big blue that we all love. As you know we have little time to turn this ship around.
    Chuck Learned
    Happy to help further if you wish.

54. Audie Alcorn Says:
    July 29th, 2006 at 5:55 am

    I spent years studying philosophy/ethics in academic settings that seemed divorced from any earthy groundedness; more years working for a government agency charged with environmental protection; and a couple of years running a small, not-for-profit, natural-foods co-op. And then there was the so-called real world. I used to wonder, “Must these worlds stay so separate? Can’t ethical considerations; informed, passionate debate; and consideration for long-term environmental health be present in a (for-profit) business setting?”

    Thanks, John, for not simply asking yourself that same question, but for having the courage and energy to create the answer.

    I can scarely believe I’m actually reading such great stuff on a CEO’s (full disclosure, *my* CEO’s) blog, not least of all for all the great comments from customers, supporters and detractors, and other team members (and the idea of bringing Mackey and Ken Wilber together is a truly intriguing one — oh, to be a fly on the wall if that meeting ever takes place!).

    Keep up the great work, and the continued willingness to evolve.

55. Aloysius Jones Says:
    July 30th, 2006 at 6:43 am

    It is more than fair not to trust the corporation. There is no reason to expect anything from it, however. We most certainly need people like Michael Pollan to raise these kind of questions, and to seriously scrutinize the actions of businesses. Mackey’s points are more than valid, and it would seem fair to have involved WFM in their defense. I am pleased that they both took the time to have a real discourse; this proves their genuine interest in the matter at hand, even if they differ.
    As an employee of Whole Foods Market, I believe I can give further insight. Most corporations surely started out with noble intentions. “Get better product to more people at an affordable price.” The problem with visionaries is that they often can only extend their vision to those who are in direct contact with them and usually only at the moment of direct contact. The visionary can have the whole room nodding their heads in agreement, and as soon as he takes leave suddenly they are all scratching their heads.
    Even the greatest visionaries of human history have seen their teachings fall prey to this. Look at the major religions of the world. When Jesus or Buddha was here, there was unity among their followers (for the most part), everyone was in agreement united and ready to do what had to be done. As soon as each left this earth, suddenly everything was open to interpretation and the list of those who think they understand the vision best is still growing. Certainly if Jesus and Buddha can have their vision divided like this, certainly we can hardly think of the corporation as an exception.
    A corporation is its own entity; it belongs not, to the visionary. It has but one purpose and that is to make money. It accomplishes this goal best by convincing people to invest. The best means of doing that is record-breaking returns. It doesn’t hurt, however, to also show the potential investor just how humanitarian you (the corporation) are, or to share your vision. However, because of its goal, it will only adhere to the original vision as long as it yields the proper return.
    I truly appreciate John Mackey’s vision, and I have had the pleasure of hearing him speak. It is one of the reasons that I decided to work for WFM. But, I assure you even as high up as Regional Presidents and as low as your Team Member starting out at $8.50/hr there are few that see that vision, therefore they can not properly act upon it. Even after hearing him speak, I was the only one perhaps two if we stretch it, out of a group of seven who went together, who really listened and understood.
    Corporations can be expected to make money, not change the world and in the end not even change how we do business, or the industry for any better. Change is a long process and often what can seem progressive turns out to be nothing more than the same old, just wrapped in new packaging featuring all recycled materials and zero calories.

    We will have to wait and see if Whole Foods Market can rise above that expectation.

56. Kevin Knox Says:
    August 1st, 2006 at 9:33 am

    Thanks for the great forum. Pollan’s book is a life-changing event, and as always Mr. Mackey your passion, honesty and intelligence are an inspiration.

    Missing in much of the discussion, but certainly not in Pollan or his book nor in the preferences of many who shop
    WF, are issues of FLAVOR and FRESHNESS. Industrial organic products may address purity concerns, but for food lovers purity is not the only issue.

    When we look to the culinary traditions of France and Italy, for example, or to to American inspirations from those cultures (Chez Panisse, Slow Food, Chef’s Collaborative, etc.) we see that the shortest possible time and distance transit from farm to table is critical to good flavor. Have a meal at any great restaurant here or in Europe and the vegetables will have been picked within a day or so, the fruit will be what is in season, and other ingredients largely sourced locally and regionally from farmers with a personal relationship to the chef. This is where quality comes from.

    It would be great to define “local” and “artisinal” more precisely. Rather than ducking those issues, WF could ask Slow Food, for example, to help them do so. In the culinary worlds of (to take the leading examples) France, Italy and Spain more than a few cooks mean “grown within my sight,” but at the very least it means within one’s region (and bear in mind these countries are about the size of a large American state). I don’t want to be excessively Euro-centric here, as the same sensitivity to ripeness and freshness exist in every established culinary tradition, from Mexico to India to Thailand.

    So the issues Pollan raises about WF using fossil fuels to fly produce from distant lands are culinary as well as ethical. Eating locally and seasonally is, for most of the world, not even a choice, and the completely unseasonal relationship to food promoted by flying in stuff out of season from all over the planet is based on the same sort of unsustainable petrochemically-fueled addictions as the industrial corn Pollan discusses early in the book.

    The argument that such practices are justified because they help poor farmers in those countries is transparently self-serving. There are lots of ways to help people in the third world besides encouraging them to cultivate crops for wealthy, pesticide-phobic white people in the first world to consume (the latter being a rather obvious instance of cultural and culinary colonialism and imperialism).

    Anyone who’s every tasted corn the day it was picked has had a crash course in the fact that, as M.F.K. Fisher put it, “it’s the difference between fresh and very fresh that makes all the difference.” Beyond the flavor and pleasure, this is also, as was mentioned in a previous post, an issue of nutrients and of vitality (prana in the Ayurvedic system, chi in Chinese medicine). Local fresh foods have this, industrial ones, organic or otherwise, do not.

    As Wal Mart and mainstream supermarkets enter the world of shelf stable industrial organics it seems to me there’s an opportunity as well as quite possibly a business imperative for WF to rediscover freshness and flavor as priorities. In produce this means seasonal, local and fresh first, then (certified) organic. It means not prewrapping cheeses that need to be cut to order, no matter how much labor it saves you. It means roasting your coffee locally and selling it within 7 days, not putting it in vacuum bags and prestaling it in distribution centers. There are of course many other examples, but these are a few obvious places to start.

    Thanks again for your commitment to continual improvement of an already great company!

57. Ian Says:
    August 1st, 2006 at 1:36 pm

    Though I find the intellectual discussion of food interesting and something that I value, what I want to know how this is helping the stakeholders of the whole foods organization? The stock just fell over $6, stock options to rank and file have been eliminated – how is the company going to keep the talent that provides and cares for this food interested and wanting to not want to work at competing stores that do not have the same value sets?

58. Brendan Says:
    August 2nd, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    Mr. Mackey,

    I am in the process of reading Mr. Pollan’s book and have already finished the Supermarket Pastoral section of the book. Let me explain the experience I had recently after starting to read this book.

    After reading about the industrial food chain and how corn has become our staple food without actually being our staple food, my girlfriend and I discussed ways to “avoid the industrial food chain.” And to limit our intake of corn as much as possible to occasionally eating actual corn.

    Not being even close to well off financially, we realized that we could get our produce from a lovely local grocer whose only products were locally grown organic produce at very, very reasonable prices. Lovely, we thought. But what about meat, where might we find grass fed beef? Whole Foods, we thought, was our answer. It would be more expensive, but – in moderation – doable. But my experience at Whole Foods was confusing and disheartening, to say the least. As Mr. Pollan points out, your store does a very good job telling a story… but not the whole story and certainly not enough to satisfy individuals who actually want to know what they are eating. A pamphlet I read in your store indicated that the beef you sold came from cows that were pasture fed for 2/3′s of their life. Well, which 2/3′s? And what were they fed for the remaining 1/3? Did I even want to know? Well, yes… yes, I did.

    It was only after this experience that I got to the Supermarket Pastoral section. It made me laugh, actually.

    I am glad that you felt the need to defend the practices of Whole Foods against the claims made by Mr. Pollan. Personally, I agree with his methods because his experience was my experience. And what is the result? You have posted on this blog – which I would never have even looked at if not for Mr. Pollan’s book – what you are endeavoring to do in order to better Whole Foods relationship with local farmers. But, I never would have known about them by walking into your stores. I never would’ve known it was even a concern. I am not a journalist, I am a customer. I believe that the transparency that Mr. Pollan discusses and that you, in your most recent response to him, have just exhibited are very important steps. Why do I need to read a book that criticizes your company in order to – a couple of steps of research down the line – find out that you recognize the weaknesses in the organic food system and that you are doing what you can to make improvements? Why can’t I go into Whole Foods to find this out? Do your employees know how to deal with customers when it comes to providing answers to what’s in the food sold at your store? Whole Foods is not Wal-Mart… granted. And I am not a Wal-Mart customer. I am doing what I can to educate myself about what I eat and where I get it. The more transparency you can provide, the better I can educate myself. You seem to be interested in doing that, for which you and your company are to be commended.

    I appreciate the dialog. Thank you.

    Your customer,
    Brendan

59. Rob Rushin Says:
    August 3rd, 2006 at 12:49 pm

    Hello All -

    I’ve just recently stumbled across this blog, and I find the exchange here really fascinating and encouraging. So many people sincerely searching for a way to live and be that is conscious and honorable — this inspires hope.

    But I look at this comment by Aloysius Jones above and recognize a persistent problem:
    “But, I assure you even as high up as Regional Presidents and as low as your Team Member starting out at $8.50/hr there are few that see that vision, therefore they can not properly act upon it. Even after hearing him speak, I was the only one perhaps two if we stretch it, out of a group of seven who went together, who really listened and understood.”

    It is this fundamental inability (or lack of will) in most people to stretch themselves to hear ideas that are out of their normal mode of thought. People need to not only gain exposure to new ideas, people need to learn a new way of learning and listening. I find this of deep interest as this is my area of training expertise.

    Our work is based on the idea that our inability to hear others’ viewpoints — and hence to expand our consciousness to incorporate even the possibility of their validity — is connected to ingrained patterns of physical and emotional behavior. Further, these two types of behaviors are in fact intertwined in a way that is largely invisible within ourselves, while often easily seen in others.

    Some of the comments in this thread are notable in their detailed inventory of other people’s motives. But few seem to recognize their own motivations and the way they play out in the exchange. Certainly, Mr Pollan has expended a great deal of time and thought on his book and its underlying idea set. And clearly Mr Mackey has invested his life in the philosophies and executions that have made Whole Foods so successsful. Yet they each approach the debate as though the other has an agenda, while the role of their own motivations are either transparent or trivial. And in this, the dance-around continues.

    I applaud Mr Mackey’s willingness to undertake this blog and engage his critics in public view. But I ask Mr Mackey this: Are you confident that your philosophy and values are in fact well-communicated and understood by the full depth of the WFM team? Is it possible, despite your best efforts to communicate these ideas, that your chain of command might listen-but-not-hear? If there is wavering confidence is answering “Yes” to these questions, what steps can WFM take to enable your employees to bring their listening consciousness to new level of effectiveness?

60. Jessica Says:
    August 5th, 2006 at 9:42 pm

    John,
    Just gotta ask. Why, if “buyers are allowed to buy direct” was your floral buyer in Seattle REQUIRED to buy tulips from California when those tulips actually came from Washington to begin with? Don’t you think this is misleading to the consumer, who will be obviously unaware of the lengths their “local” product has traveled to get to them?

    You see John, you’re stores and your “leaders” are all very concerned with telling you what you want to hear. The reality is, unfortunately, very different from the idea. You yourself stated that at least some of your “leaders” aren’t in the yellow MEME. It’s true and unfortunate as they can’t and don’t lead your company in the way you intend. They can however spend their time chaperoning your visits to their stores to insure you don’t hear from the “team members” what’s really going on…. You might consider traveling unannounced.

61. Renae P Says:
    August 7th, 2006 at 11:52 am

    Rob,

    I would like to answer your questions about the communication and education of WFM team members. I work at the Omaha, Nebraska WFM. (Yes, there really is a WFM in Nebraska – a big one, too!) My title is In Store Educator. My entire focus for all 40 hours of my work week is team member education. We have a very aggressive education curriculum, including everything from OSHA basics to in-depth discussions of our animal compassionate standards. Our store opened in September of last year, and since that time we have continuously offered development courses to our team members. As of today, the total attendance in these courses for our store sits at 1917. That’s a lot of learning! WFM also offers self-paced intranet modules on topics such as our quality standards and organics. In fact, there is an entire team at our headquarters in Austin dedicated to nothing but the design of curriculum for the education of team members.

    Coming from the field of “real” education (I was previously a high school English teacher)I have to say I’ve never seen an entity more passionate about the training and success of its employees. It is truly refreshing to be a part of such a compassionate company!

    In short, Rob, I can assure you first-hand that if there are team members in this company who are not informed about WFM policies or the issues in our industry it is certainly not for a lack of dedication on the part of WFM leadership!

    Cheers!

62. Morton Says:
    August 7th, 2006 at 10:24 pm

    John Mackey is overreacting. The Omnivore’s Dillema is not about Whole Foods, in fact the name “Whole Foods” appears on about 16 pages of the 400+ page book. Pollan’s assesment of “Industrial Organic” food production is ambivalent. It is positive as well as negative, and more revealing than criticial.

    Mackey’s letters are empty rhetoric. Though they are almost unreadably long, he fails to answer Pollan’s central question: what percentage of Whole Foods TOTAL SALES are from products supplied by local, artisinal food producers. Instead Mackey confuses the reader by focusing on the percentage breakdown of their vendors.
    To clarify by a purely speculative example: Whole Foods sells 20 types of nut butter, 19 are from artisinal, family nut butter producers, one is from an industrial organic company. As Mackey is quick to point out: 95% of their nut butter suppliers are artisinal family farms. But if 60% of nut butter sales go to the low priced, industrial organic nut butters than that 95% figure is meaningless.

    Pollan’s primary criticisms of the Industrial Organic are not centered on Whole Foods, but on some of their most important suppliers: Petaluma Poultry, Earthbound Farms and Cascadian Farms. Mackay criticizes Pollan for not contacting Whole Foods, but he had plenty of interaction with these three suppliers, who represent a significant percentage of Whole Food’s sales. Two facts that sum up his argument:
    -Organic “Rosie” Free Range chickens grown by Petaluma Poultry never set foot outside.
    -It takes 60 calories of energy to bring one calorie of Earthbound Farms organic mixed greens to the plate of a diner in Manhattan.

    Pollan’s conclusion regarding industrial organics is mixed. He points out that the growth of organic mega-farms such as Earthbound represent growth in pesticide and herbicide free land (although petroleum consumption is comparable to conventional agriculture). Certainly movements towards more humane animal husbandry are positive. But Pollan’s point is that most consumers believe that the products sold at Whole Foods are far more sustainable, artisinal, healthy and humane than they actually are (Pollan refrains from really delving into the issue of pseudo-healthy, organic junk food such as TVP and processed soy prducts). Whole Foods projects an image that, though not technically false, is certainly misleading. I heard gasps from the audience at my local book store in Berkeley when Pollan spoke of the conditions of the Organic Rosie Chicken (a staple at NorCal Whole Foods markets) and these were from people who consider themselves informed and progressive thinking eaters.

    I am thrilled with the growth of Industrial Organic agriculture. Anything that moves away from the current, highly unsustainable model is a good thing. Wal-Mart is selling organic? Fantastic! But I have no delusions about Industrial Organic food. It is still far removed from an ideal of artisinal, local farmers, ranchers and food processers. Pollan’s intent is to make that distinction clear to the consumer, and Mackey’s intent is to obscure that distinction.

63. John Mackey Says:
    August 13th, 2006 at 9:54 pm

    People keep making the same criticism about my not answering Michael Pollan’s question about the actual percentage of local produce sold in our stores. I answered this question on this board back on July 19. I’ll repeat the answer here again:

    “We don’t know the exact percentage of local produce we sell in our stores. Produce that is bought locally doesn’t have the same tracking mechanisms established that nationally sourced produce does. We know how many produce suppliers we have that are local, but we don’t know exactly how much we are selling from each one because that information doesn’t roll up. We don’t have the “categories” currently established to track local versus national or global. This is an Information Systems challenge that we are working to correct.”

    A few other answers to questions:

    Have I met with Ken Wilber? Yes. Ken and I have had very interesting discussions 4 times now–3 in person and 1 over the phone. One of the discussions was recorded and can be listened to in 2 parts at: http://in.integralinstitute.org/talk.aspx?id=644

    I am a great admirer of Ken Wilber’s thinking and view him as one of the greatest living philosophers in the world. I have recently made a significant financial contribution to the Integral Institute and in July was asked to join their Board of Directors and I accepted this invitation.

    To Clement Roberts. Thanks for your suggestion about developing animal compassionate standards for farmed fish. I agree with you and we plan on doing this. However, dairy cows and broiler chickens are ahead of them in the queue.

    To all the various defenders of consumer co-ops on this blog–I have nothing against consumer co-ops. I used to belong to 2 co-ops in Austin before I began Whole Foods. I wish consumer food co-ops nothing but the best and hope they flourish. I will say, however, that I don’t believe consumer food co-ops are ethically superior to corporations simply because they are owned by their customers or preach a philosophy of “food for people, not for profit”. Whatever the organizational form of a business–whether it is owned by customers, employees, investors, suppliers or the government–all businesses ultimately must create value for their various constituencies to flourish over the long run. These constituencies include their customers, employees, investors, suppliers, community, and the environment. In my opinion, food co-ops have never realized their great potential in the world because they’ve long believed that profits were somehow or another “evil” or simply based on “greed”. This philosophy prevented the hundreds of food co-ops across the country from accumulating the necessary capital required to grow and expand their businesses to meet the rising demand for their products. Investor co-ops such as Whole Foods (yes we are also a form of co-operative as well–one owned and controlled by the financial investors) have flourished because we recognized the absolute necessity of profits which we have used to benefit all of our various stakeholders.

    To Chuck Learned: Excellent suggestion about the “carbon footprint”. We’ll see if we can work towards such a goal over the next several years.

    Regarding local food: As I’ve stated in my blog, Whole Foods has begun a number of initiatives to increase the amount of local food sold in our stores. However, I find the petro-chemical argument not very convincing. We live in an increasingly integrated world economy. A huge number of things in our lives come from around the world–our clothing, many of our automobiles do and all of our automobiles have parts sourced from other countries, most of our electronics such as iPods, cell phones, and computers (including most of the computers (or most of their parts) used by participants to complain about imported foods. When Michael Pollan was promoting his book around the country he wasn’t walking or riding a bicycle to go to New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago, Austin, and dozens of other locations. No, Michael was using plenty of fossil fuel to jet around the country to make the argument that we shouldn’t use so much fossil fuel in food production. I find that a bit ironic, even if no one else does.
    The bottom-line is that Whole Foods is going to give strong support to local foods because they will be fresher, more nutritious, will likely taste better, and because hundreds of thousands of our customers want us to. We will also continue to import foods from all over the world because millions of our customers want us to. It is also a simple fact that buying agricultural products from the developing world helps the developing world economically. If we don’t buy from what the developing world has to sell, which is primarily agricultural products, then we aren’t going to be helping those billions of poor people in the world to lift themselves out of poverty. Peter Singer’s argument about “community based selfishness” is a valid argument in my opinion.

    To Brendan–sorry that you feel like Whole Foods isn’t transparent enough or doing enough to educate customers. Thanks for the feedback. We’ll try to do better in the future.

    To Kevin Knox (are you the Kevin Knox who was once our brilliantly talented Coffee Buyer/Roaster at Allegro? Hope you are doing well, Kevin.): I agree with several of your suggestions, Kevin. I agree with the Slow Food Movement and the importance of artisanal fresh foods in terms of quality, freshness and nutritional value. Whole Foods is already doing quite a bit to maximize freshness whenever possible and we are rapidly evolving to do even more in this regard. Many of our stores roast green coffee beans every day to maximize their freshness and many of our stores do cut cheeses to order (and all of them will do this if you request a special cut). It is important to realize, however, that other customers prefer the convenience of pre-cut cheeses, pre-bagged coffee, and already cooked foods. Not everyone who shops at our stores is a “foodie” or is necessarily passionate about food. We have millions of customers and their needs and desires are infinitely diverse.

    To Morton: Whole Foods is hard at work developing alternative suppliers that will produce animal compassionate products for our stores. Pollan’s criticisms regarding the way chickens are treated even on organic farms is substantially correct. It is appalling! I am personally a (near) vegan (I eat eggs from my own 30 chickens). Much of the $10 million in annual loans we are going to make to local producers will be to produce local animal products which will meet our rigorous animal compassionate standards. We are working on this as fast as we are able to right now. It is important to understand, however, that Whole Foods Market is just a retailer–we don’t grow the foods or raise the animals. We sell the highest quality natural and organic foods available–that is Core Value #1. I think it is more than a little unfair to blame Whole Foods for the practices of an entire animal factory farm food production system which we didn’t create and certainly don’t endorse. It is only very recently that Whole Foods has grown large enough and wealthy enough to begin to change this horrible system. However, it will take us a few years to find and fund the entrepreneurs to lead this revolution across the nation and to get animal compassionate product into our stores in quantity.

    One final question to Morton and the many other critics of Whole Foods out there: who is doing more than we are to raise the quality of food in our society? No, we aren’t perfect. We have made many mistakes. However, we are learning and we are evolving very rapidly. Our stores continue to rapidly improve and our Team Members remain committed to our larger mission. Watch what we do over the next few years. We have barely gotten started.

64. Alicia Says:
    August 15th, 2006 at 8:48 am

    Excellent dialog. I hope more and more people “wake up” and join in the discussion.

    Thank you Thank you Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

65. Rob Rushin Says:
    August 15th, 2006 at 11:22 am

    To Renae P -

    Thanks so much for your thoughtful response to my post. I do not question for a moment that WFM is committed to transmitting its core values and mission to its team members. The very existence of this blog and the efforts Mr. Mackey takes to communicate and refine his message is clear indication of the value placed on this aspect of the WFM performance. And my several friends who work at WFM are effusive in their praise for the training and overall work environment.

    My point is this…oft-times the message is communicated, then re-imparted, then emphasized, then told again. Yet, if the people on the receiving end do not know how to hear, it really is irrelevant how often or well the message is sent. So, to my question again…what does WFM do to empower its team members to really hear and internalize the message? My company is not the only one to focus on this fundamental issue, but it is certainly something that is close to my heart.

    I don’t intend to discount your and your peers work in the training realm. Rather, I simply ask whether the fine training you offer is as effective as it could be.

    Very best wishes,

66. Renae P Says:
    August 22nd, 2006 at 10:42 am

    Rob,

    Your question is one that strikes at the very core of effective education. It is one skill to convey information, but another beast entirely to teach people how to learn. It’s the education equivalent of sucessfully nailing Jell-o to a tree – pretty freakin hard! As a company-wide team of trainers, I think we do well.

    There are several things working in our favor. First, every trainer I’ve met here is extremely intelligent and passionate about Whole Foods Market and its mission. What’s more, we are provided with the tools and funds necessary to be excellent instructors and to entice Team Members to attend classes. This makes us much more effective, as well as attracts and retains excellent trainers. As excellent trainers are wont to do, we vary the instructional modalities to capture all learning styles, we do as much instruction in person as we can to convey enthusiasm, we offer courses on communication and listening skills, and sometimes we even entice Team Members with free food!

    As educators, we also have a very good set of circumstances in place to encourage our Team Members to internalize our message. No employee is going to embrace a company he or she feels is taking advantage of its position of power. Whole Foods makes a deliberate effort to value Team Members. We offer the highest pay, excellent benefits (that we all choose by democratic vote), generous paid time off, and we develop most leadership from within the company. The other side of this is that we also tend to attract Team Members who already share values with Whole Foods. Many of our Team Members cared passionately about natural foods or the environment before they came to work here, so they are predisposed to learning more.

    Do we have a success rate of 100 percent? Will every Team Member in every store care enough to learn about animal compassion or wind energy? No. The thing I love most about Whole Foods is the diversity of the Team Member base, which means there is a spectrum of knowledge and engagement. But do you know what? The person who punches in, does his job and punches out still has a job that pays well, benefits that he may not have had before and a company that cares about him. Maybe he will become interested after a while, and maybe not. But by doing right by him, Whole Foods has increased the quality of life for one more family.

    I think as a company and educator group, we do absolutely everything in our power to enable our team members to internalize the mission and values of the company. We can’t make everyone care, but we have set up a culture to encourage it. The knowledge and customer service levels displayed in all 186 of our stores tells me that while our sucess rate is not 100 percent, it’s pretty darn high!

    Cheers!

    Renae

67. Milo Popovich Says:
    August 22nd, 2006 at 7:55 pm

    I just finished reading this whole blog. It’s so educational and informative…Thank you all for your input.
    In 1976 I had a wonderful Natural Food Store “Stoney Oak Farm” in Julian CA for several years (in the San Diego back country mountains). There I met many interesting people both local and tourist. I remember their praise and controversy about “organic, natural, raw, etc.).
    I appreciate WFM and the rest of you for keeping on. Our children and their children will benefit.

68. Dan Deans Says:
    August 27th, 2006 at 3:46 pm

    The real “bottom line” is that Mackey and WFM have created a working business model that brings organic food, in quantity, to large urban populations. I’ve been eating organic since 1987, and back then it was extremely hard to feed one’s family by shopping at small co-ops, health food stores, or local farmers. Everyone, except perhaps the financially very well-off, had to integrate non-organics into their diets.
    Because of WFM that has changed. I shop at WFM once or twice a week: I find the staff happy and helpful (b/c they love working for WFM), and also committed to a healthy alternative lifestyle. And don’t think WFM hasn’t had a huge impact on the grocery industry today. I started reading “Progressive Grocer,” a trade magazine, last year–to decide if WFM stock was a good investment–and the mainstream grocery retailers (grudgingly) admit that Mackey has created a business model that the rest of them can’t beat. Not that Wal-Mart isn’t trying. Look at how these big players are trying to weaken organic standards so that they can undercut WFM by offering quasi-organic foods under the “organic” label, and you’ll understand why Mackey is protective of WFM’s business strategy. Can you imagine WFM trying to get the laws changed so they can sell synthetic pesticide laden food as organic? Hardly. Instead of complaining about WFM, Pollan needs to help combat this real assault on organics!
    Thanks to WFM my family is able to eat organic produce every day, and at affordable prices. And for those who think WFM’s organic is expensive, try paying for medical bills caused by pesticides. Take the money you’re saving and invest in WFM stock…I already have. Keep up the great work Mackey.

69. Tony M Says:
    August 28th, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    We have been shopping at WF for years supplementing the meat, eggs, fruit, goats milk and poultry we grow ourselves. I have nothing to sell but will alert my farming and ranching friends of the policy changes at WF.
    I have volunteered to speak about Organics at my local WF store, many times, and took the opportunity to also speak with the employees. As a retired HR professional with 35 yrs experience in a Fortune 100 company, I know when I see good management practices and satisfied employees.
    I believe that the major force behind the success of WF is their management philosophy and practices. Anyone can pick apart a single event. I look at the bigger picture of what WF has done as well as what they are trying to do and I measure them by that standard.
    Years ago, we learned of a Japanese phrase called “Kaisan”, which means continuous improvement. If you don’t think that WF, especially after reading JM’s responses, is not committed to continuous improvement, I must wonder.
    I appreciate John’s responses and wish I had the chance during my career to support a manager like him.

    Tony M

70. Kelly M. McDaniel Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 8:40 am

    “I believe that individual freedom in free markets when combined with property rights through rule of law and ethical democratic government results in societies that maximize prosperity and establish conditions that promote human happiness and well being.”

    “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Nicely put, John, very nicely put…Kelly.

71. Simon Billenness Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 12:36 pm

    I was pleased to read John Mackey’s commitment to working with third-party certification agencies.

    As John Mackey said on this blog: “Over the next few years Whole Foods intends to work closely with various certifying organizations such as Fair Trade and the Rainforest Alliance to make sure that eventually all our globally sourced products are 3rd party certified as to minimum price levels, acceptable labor standards, and environmental sustainability.”

    I know that Whole Foods has in the past been very skeptical of Fair Trade certification. However, I’m sure your good experience with organic certification has demonstrated its value in terms of greater scrutiny of production conditions and greater confidence by your customers.

    As a first step will you seek Fair Trade Certification for your own Allegro coffees?

72. John M Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    Hey John, Renae P.

    What an excellent way to exchange idea’s and communicate! John, I commend you on this! How many other CEO’s are doing this? I love what YOU and WHOLE FOODS MARKET stand for! I too have a PASSION for Organic’s and all things as Natural as can be! I LOVE your stores and I have thoroughly researched your company – what a great environment to work in, especially for someone whom is dedicated to health and organics. Well, I would jump at the chance to work at one of your stores – Austin or San Antonio are the closest. I have awesome customer service skills and work great on teams, and as I mentioned earlier, I have a strong passion for Organics and staying Healthy – would you guys have a place for me there?? I know this is not the proper arena for looking for a career with Whole Foods, but I was so IMPRESSED after reading this blog(especially with what Renae P. wrote), I thought why not, sometimes you have to be Different and Think Outside the BOX!! And what Tony P. wrote about the practice of Kaizen and continous improvement, he is right on the money with WFM!!

    Smilezzz

    John M.

73. Elise Brewin Says:
    August 31st, 2006 at 3:49 am

    Mr.Mackey, Thank you for Whole Foods, for providing this forum, and for your work to improve things. I am in the midst of reading “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and am somewhat amazed at the degree of defensiveness with which you read the part concerning Whole Foods. I am not finding heroes and villains, rather i am finally finding someone who isn’t afraid to discuss the complexity of the situation, and the unusual position that Whole Foods finds itself in. I veiw the position of Whole Foods and similar “green market” enterprises as the tricky one of changing a system by taking part in it. In the continuum that is a paradigm shift (i know that seems contradictory, but we’re living it), it is necessary to have many degrees of the change taking place. We need visionary extremists like Mr. Salatin as much as we need visionary extremists like Mr. Mackey, people demonstrating something new and different while others build a bridge for the rest of us from where we are (industrial conventional) through where we need to pass (industrial organic) to where we are going (hopefully somewhere w/ food…). To balance all of these visionaries, we need people like Mr. Pollan who can eloquently describe the scene as it looks from here, and present possible ways to push it in a positive direction. I am delighted that Mr. Pollan did not talk to you first Mr. Mackey, because people w/ a vision like yours are very infectious, and you need to hear how it looks to the thinking shopper in your store, not how it looks to the person who fully realizes your vision. I found the part about Whole Foods quite accurate – I love to shop there, but do so knowing that not all is as sustainable as you and I both want it to be. Part of the reason I spend some of my food dollars there is that it is apparent that Whole Foods is one of the few places that is grappling with these contradictions. All of this us/them and the idea that anyone could present a perfect picture in the current system is ridiculous, and that is precisely why it takes Mr. Pollan so many pages to describe attaining that perfection, even for one meal. I hardly think Mr. Pollan would have his “hero” suggest that NY city has to go, or that he loves to shop w/ his “villain”
    Finally, the whole globalization argument changes drastically when one addresses the diminishing petroleum problem. It’s a lovely, but silly, idea to want to help people in poor countries by importing their fresh food/ flowers. Transporting non-perishable items (clothes, grains, coffee, chocolate, etc) makes sense, and helping them build local healthy food economies there makes sense. A man of your intelligence must see the difference between using petroleum to transport a person/book with life changing ideas and using petroleum to tranport perishable food? and even the difference between transporting a durable good like clothing vs an orange? anyhow, as the petroleum diminishes we’ll be forced to reshape our ideas of globalism, and travel, and even our definition of local. (a days drive vs a days walk? that walk in nikes vs that walk in non-petroleum based shoes? etc.)
    Thank you for all of your good work, and especially for your open heart and mind.
    viva la revolucion!

74. Susanne Scott Says:
    September 2nd, 2006 at 7:38 am

    My impression of Whole Foods thus far is that the local store has supreme authority for addressing consumer concerns. All consumer issues get rerouted directly back to the store – there is a complete hands off approach at the regional and national level. This is fine, except when a store manager aays that if you don’t like things as they are, then you can shop elsewhere. The possibility for meaningful and intelligent dialog effectively ends with that type of response.

    This is what I am experiencing with my local Whole Foods regarding my concerns about the profound scarcity of grass-based products, 100% organic and pasture-raised beef, pork, and poultry, lack of fresh fish, and lack of transparency of explicit labeling definitions & criteria at my store (eg. please define natural, organic, 100% organic, fair-trade, etc… so the average consumer can make a truly educated decision on which product to purchase). The consumer can only drive true demand if they understand the often “subtle” differences.

    I agree that Whole Foods is well-positioned to fully educate the average American consumer and that the organization as a whole should take that honor and responsibility very seriously, especially if we hope to see consumer grocery habits and demand change.

75. Daniel Helfman Says:
    September 14th, 2006 at 7:40 am

    Dear Mr. Mackey,

    Pollan’s book helps readers learn more about where food is from, but it does not necessarily help us to shop better. The following is an idea that should benefit Whole Foods and its customers:

    Perhaps a food sourcing scorecard should be created by Whole Foods or a third-party supplier for your web site, stores and customers? This scorecard would allow a customer in Austin, Texas, for example, to see what percentage of vendors/producers are local, what percentage of the coffee sold is organic or Fair Trade, percentage of products that are GMO-free, percentage of meats sold with animal compassion principles, etc. Of course, such a scorecard might need constant explanations. Unlike, say Starbucks, Whole Foods is not selling primarily one or two products (coffee and tea); y’all probably sell 50,000 to a 100,000 different SKUs. But in the name of greater accountability, transparency and yes, Mr. Pollan’s book, perhaps this would help end the debate once and for all.

    Keep up the good work, Mr. Mackey, and please let me know if you would like more information on such a scorecard. As a former director of marketing for one of Ben & Jerry’s major vendors, I’ve developed such scorecards before.

76. Molly Mackey Says:
    September 15th, 2006 at 8:46 am

    Hello John Mackey,

    My name is Molly Mackey. I live in London and my dad shares your name!

    I look forward to the opening of your Kensington High Street Store.

    Molly

77. Gordon Says:
    September 15th, 2006 at 1:09 pm

    Mr. Mackey,

    I want to add my appreciation for all that Whole Foods has done. I’ve shopped at your stores (and its predecesors) for 10 years and I believe you have truly elevated the awareness of foods — at the industry and consumer levels — in this country.

    I am now in the exact middle of Mr. Pollan’s book but I don’t believe he recognizes the logistical/practical challenges relating to distribution that WF has overcome. Further, he doesn’t give your store enough credit for positive social change – competitors like Wal-Mart are surely getting into the organics market due to your success.

    Whole Foods is also changing society by making organics within the financial reach of more people (still not the average joe but the best you can). I live in Washington DC and often start the week’s grocery shopping at some of the excellent producer-only farmers’ markets run by freshfarmmarket.org. My family is fortunate to have the financial resources to buy direct from farmers but products are often 2x the price of WF and 3x the price of a conventional grocery market. As an example, yesterday (9/14) I purchased a dozen grass-fed eggs from Cibola Farms for $5.50/dozen. Cibola also sells free-range, grass-fed chicken breast for $10/pound. A dairy (I believe Blue Highland Dairy) sells milk from local, grass-fed cows for approx $6 per half gallon. I don’t blame the farmers for the high prices but it is far out of reach for the ordinary consumer, college students, etc. Instead, WF is actually using its size and efficiencies to improve, and lower the prices in, the organics market.

    In terms of globalization, people must realize that their palates/demands are the primary reason produce is flown in. Staples in our household include bananas, grapes, and pineapples, which are impossible to grow in Washington DC. The globalization of food (like most of our other commodities) is a necessary and positive force for consumers and suppliers.

    Whole Foods has moved the grocery industry and consumer thinking an immeasurable amount. Bravo to Mr. Mackey and all the wonderful WF employees!

78. Linda Y Says:
    September 19th, 2006 at 9:27 pm

    What a GREAT dialog! I was very intrigued to read that WF hired an “animal compassionate” field buyer. It is equally intriguing that Mr. Mackey is vegan yet WF is embarking on this ‘new’ venture of compassion when selecting slaughtered animals for sale in his stores. When I ‘Vegan-ized’ my lifestyle over 10 years ago, I did so to prevent contribution to any animal killing for human use or consumption. More recently I’ve committed to the larger picture of an environmentally sustainable lifestyle. I have a long way to go and it can be very difficult and expensive at times but it is worth it to me knowing my hard-earned dollars support companies who share my same values. I hope one day to shop at a large specialty store void of any slaughtered animals or animal byproducts. As an Austin-born gal, this may seem odd to some but even a native Texan, raised on grass-fed beef, can dream to ‘shop large’ in a truly compassionate way, absent of dead animals!

79. John Mackey Says:
    September 20th, 2006 at 4:38 pm

    Hi Everyone,

    Several people (including Michael Pollan) have asked what is the exact percentage of local produce we sell. I previously answered this question by saying that we didn’t have this information available yet, but we were working to get it. Now we’ve got it.

    In 2005, 12.95% of the produce bought in our stores was locally sourced. So far in 2006 the percentage has increased to 14.85%. Translated into retail sales, we will sell more than $100 million worth of local produce in 2006.

    With our greater focus on local produce going forward, I expect the percentage of locally sourced produce to continue to go up. It will probably be close to 20% in 2007, with total local produce sales approximately equal to $200 million of $1 billion in total produce sales.

    John

80. Obie Pressman Says:
    September 20th, 2006 at 8:37 pm

    Mr. Mackey,

    First, let me say how impressed I am by this blog and your willingness to leave it relatively open and uncensored. It speaks volumes about your ultimate intentions and desires.

    Second, I read “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and was utterly engaged and moved by it, in fact it changed how I eat (not radically though, as I already did a lot of my shopping at farmer’s markets and the like). A couple of years ago I mostly stopped shopping at Whole Foods because I couldn’t help but wonder how “good” could it really be if it’s a publicly traded corporation and beholden to its stock holders. Pollan’s book more or less reconfirmed my suspicions. However, your public dialogue with Pollan and your stated intentions in this blog have reaffirmed my faith in Whole Foods, and I have begun occasionally shopping there again with a watchful eye. Kudos.

    However, there’s an issue in this blog that I still feel you are dodging, by giving answers based literally on what your customers are asking, rather than providing them with slightly different information that Whole Foods must have on hand. I’ll quote your last exchange in regards to this question:

    “People keep making the same criticism about my not answering Michael Pollan’s question about the actual percentage of local produce sold in our stores. I answered this question on this board back on July 19. I’ll repeat the answer here again:

    “We don’t know the exact percentage of local produce we sell in our stores. Produce that is bought locally doesn’t have the same tracking mechanisms established that nationally sourced produce does. We know how many produce suppliers we have that are local, but we don’t know exactly how much we are selling from each one because that information doesn’t roll up. We don’t have the “categories” currently established to track local versus national or global. This is an Information Systems challenge that we are working to correct.””

    I’m going to word the question a little differently. What percentage of Whole Food’s payments, as a total dollar amount, goes to local produce suppliers and what percentage of Whole Food’s payments, as a total dollar amount, goes to national or global produce supplies?

    If you really want to blow my mind and give me full faith in Whole Foods, give a straight answer to that question.

81. Obie Pressman Says:
    September 21st, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    Well,

    It seems you answered the overall question right when I was making my post, making my reworded question moot. Thank you. I salute your honesty and integrity Mr. Mackey and you have indeed given me faith in Whole Foods, which is how you’ve gotten my business. Keep it up and I’ll keep coming back.

82. Ian Says:
    September 22nd, 2006 at 2:03 am

    Hi John,

    I recently finished reading the Omnivore’s Dilemma, and since then have been ruminating on his assertion that “grass-fed beef” is the best way to repair ruined farmland in the US. As you know, Michael Pollan explains that a system of agriculture based upon “grass-fed beef” mimics the original “grass-fed bison” ecosystem that covered much of the US until the introduction of European agriculture, which in turn transformed after WWII into the fossil-fuel based cereal (and particularly corn) monocultures we have today. Mr. Pollan refers to this latter system as “industrial agriculture”. As all participants in this forum are aware, these intensive monocultures of cereal grains (which are descendants of annual grasses) require enormous inputs of fuel, pesticides/herbicides/fungicides, and fertilizers. However, perennial grasses when grazed by herbivores (and fertilized by their dung) need virtually none of these (ultimately) fossil-fuel based inputs.

    My concern is that Mr. Pollan, despite his experiences slaughtering chickens at Polyface Farm and later on shooting a pig, remains a committed omnivore. (Perhaps he was persuaded by Joel Salatin’s assertion that it’s OK to slaughter chickens because they don’t have souls?) Therefore for him it’s no problem to be a strong advocate of perennial grass-based farming. However, I note that you are, like myself and many of the contributors to this forum, a vegetarian. I wonder therefore what your vision of sustainable agriculture in the US is? I know that you are a businessman, and you have to deliver what the market wants, but just suppose for a moment that more people in the US (as has been happening in the UK for many years now) start to switch to less meat-intense diets? And not for health reasons but for ethical reasons? In your experience is it possible to farm grains, pulses, beans, vegetables etc. (and, what the heck, a few chickens!) sustainably on a large scale in the US without mining the soil? Before the Europeans arrived in the Americas, for example, were the Indians able to farm corn and beans sustainably on a large scale? If not, it seems that this country is doomed to continue with a system of agriculture that slaughters vast numbers of animals, whether it is based on “grass-fed beef” or “fossil-fuel fed corn”.

    Best wishes,

    Ian

83. Ian Says:
    September 22nd, 2006 at 1:36 pm

    One other thing. In the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan compares Whole Foods with Walmart, implying that the former is a giant corporation like the latter. Whole Foods is indeed a US Fortune 500 company, but is still tiny in comparison to Walmart.

    If you look at the Fortune web site, you’ll see that in terms of revenues, profits or assets, Walmart is 60 to 80 times bigger than Whole Foods.

    Walmart: #2 on the Fortune GLOBAL 500 list of companies

    Figures for fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2006, USD

    Revenues: 315,654,000,000
    Profits: 11,231,000,000
    Assets: 138,187,000,000

    Whole Foods: #449 on the Fortune 500 (US only) list of companies:

    Figures for fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2005, USD

    Revenues: 4,701,300,000
    Profits: 136,400,000
    Assets: 1,889,300,000

84. Smari Says:
    September 29th, 2006 at 8:53 am

    I commend both Mr. Mackey and Mr. Pollan for this discussion and keeping it public. I think something truly revolutionary could come as a result and we need that right now.

    Smari

85. James McArthur Says:
    October 2nd, 2006 at 9:43 am

    I’ve been a regular Whole Foods customer since you opened your first Toronto store a few years ago.

    In very many respects, I think John and his team have helped create the best ‘convenient’ way to buy organic or natural foods; and I thank them, as there are few if any comparable choices in the Canadian (or at least Toronto) market place.

    There is only 1 independent organic supermarket in Toronto. It has more limited hours and selection than Whole Foods, and is therefore not always the easiest choice to make.

    If not for Whole Foods, I would be stuck shopping at big chains, whose focus is far from the Organic and Natural, even as they do stock more of these types of products (most likely to defend market share against Whole Foods)

    I do, however, have two concerns about Whole Foods, which tie to this discussion.

    One is the ‘affordability’ of organics. I certainly support, and am lucky to be able to afford to buy organics. Though not everyone is so lucky. As such, I very much appreciate Whole Foods committment to value-based, organics being on offer, in the form of the 365 product line.

    Good luck finding most of those products in Ontario stores though. Where I am told by store staff that Whole Foods, five years on, can’t get bilinugal labels (English and French), allowing these products to be easily sold, north of the border.

    If Whole Foods is really committed to making organics affordable for the everyday consumer (while protecting values), I think this should be remedied.

    Also, much has been discussed here about ‘local production’…; but in Ontario there is no ’365 Organic Butter’ because Whole Foods so far hasn’t been willing or able to source this product locally (which is a legal requirement in Canada for dairy).

    Overall, I think Whole Foods has been a boon for the consciencious consumer, but I am very much looking forward to seeing it strengthen that committment further.

    James McArthur

    Toronto, Canada

86. Dennis Boatright Says:
    October 4th, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    Kudos to all. Such a great exchange of ideas.

    I shop at Wholefoods because I like the “energy” there. Is this too “new-agey”? I hope so. Frequently, in my distressed life, I find it supportive to spend my dime at a place that works for the enhancement of all concerned AND the planet. It is a kind of refuge for me and I physically and psychically “feel” the change when I enter a store. They’re doing many things right. You can’t fake this stuff.

    DB
    Dallas

87. Mark Says:
    October 8th, 2006 at 5:14 pm

    Great discussion!

88. Grant DiCianni Says:
    October 11th, 2006 at 6:00 am

    John,

    Like many others I stumbled on this section of the site while looking to see if I could find any info on if a store was coming to my area. After reading the majority of the posts I would like to offer something that takes the discussion from the world of theory and high ideals down to a more everyday level of reality.

    As someone who’s diet is 80-90% organic (sorry I love a good pizza) I have to strongly commend WF for making a great line of organic products available. Truthfully, I do not really concern myself with “carbon footprints” or “assisting developing world farmers”. While those are lofty goals, I am more concerned with the ability to buy quality organic products at a reasonable price (by the way, WF needs to work a little bit on that last part).

    Without question your comment in a past response is accurate, who is doing more then WF to make the above goals a reality? Clearly WF is at the forefront of the effort and is to be lauded for its progress and success. However, I would like to encourage WF in 3 areas:

    1. Continuity of product offering. As a frequent traveler one of the first things I do when I check into my hotel is to try to find if there is a Whole Foods nearby so I don’t completely derail my diet while traveling. What I have found is that there is a surprising lack of consistency between the offerings of stores (sometimes that’s true even of stores that are in the same general market, like Southern California). As an example, I normally shop at the San Diego Store (even though I live 65 miles away). During my recent trip to San Jose, the store there had almost no raw milk cheeses, almost entirely different diary selections, about 75% fewer brands of bottled water, a bakery section about 2 times as big as normal, entirely different hot lunch selections and completely different chips, pretzels etc.) I understand that variance is driven by demographics and is a very crucial component to a diverse marketing strategy but one of the benefits of nationwide brands is that, within limits, the same services/core product line should be available in all stores. Now, I am not using one instance as a definitive example. These observations have been repeated, at differing levels, at stores in IL, NM, CA and elsewhere. I understand there are variances in availability and store space but I would encourage WF to create/enforce a “core” product line that the customer can be assured is always available across the country. (and no, I am not referring to the 365 brand… I have strong reservations about “house” brands in general and yours in specific, since the tendency at many of WF’s I have been to seems to be to discontinue smaller brands in favor of the 365)

    2. I have to strongly echo the comments of another poster earlier in this board in regard to the availability of produce within California. I am very frustrated at the lack of Organic produce (particularly fruits) that are available (or more often then not, “not” available) in California stores. I routinely find that at the beginning and end of a produce items “season” the CA stores do not have access to it with the rationale that it is “not available”. Yet when I travel to the WF store in Albuquerque I see the exact strawberries or mushrooms or peaches that I was looking for and the sticker says “grown in California”. If it was grown in California, how come WF customers in NM can get it but customers in CA can not? Doesn’t that defeat the entire concept of local growers and minimizing the travel distance for perishable produce?

    3. I would like to see a bit more discernment in the brands that are allowed into the WF stores. In southern CA there is another chain of organic themed grocery stores. In the past when I have shopped there it is very obvious that they have aggressively screened their products for quality (even the organic ones). I remember several times when I would ask for a particular item (i.e. Cream of chicken soup) and then the clerk would go in back to ask and then the store manager would come out and explain that the chain had made the decision not to carry that item, brand, etc b/c of… Repeated experiences of that with clear, rational explanations made me very confident that I could shop with an increased level of safety regardless of how familiar I was with the particular brand on the shelf. I do not find that same experience to be true at WF. There are several brands/items which I see on the shelf even though they do not come anywhere near being a high quality product (organic or otherwise). Some examples can be found in the baked goods and frozen sections. (and no, I am not “anti-Horizon” or anything like that) It would just be great to see WF impose a more strict quality standard on the brands and items that it allows into its stores. While I do not claim to be an expert on the entire WF offerings, we spend about 6-7 hours a month shopping at your stores over the last 5-6 years so I am fairly confident I have seen a lot of what you have to offer .

    4. Last but not least please do not ever decrease the offering of gourmet products! WF is about the only place that you can get a Raw Smoked Swiss cheese or an all natural Pumpkin Tartlet! Even us organic people need a treat now and again!

    Please don’t take this post as being negative against WF. It’s a rare occasion when a customer has the opportunity to direct a communication to the head of a company with any expectation that it will actually be read, let alone in a forum where it is very clear that you are most actively and honestly addressing these posts. I am genuinely thankful for having such a committed and excellent grocer to shop at. I just would hate to see WF stop at 80% of what it should be. Rather than a list of criticism I see the above as specific opportunities for WF to refine its model to truly offer the customer the best shopping experience possible, thus benefiting itself and the customer.

    Now for the really important part… what would it take to get a WF in the Inland Empire of Ca (Temecula, Murrietta, etc)? We have a great demographic for your brand and we have stores 65 miles to the south and 90 miles to the north. Need to put one between those two please!

    -grant dicianni

89. Tatjana Says:
    October 20th, 2006 at 7:21 am

    Mr.Mackey, I find one statement of yours crucial in this blog, and it is about “we have grown rich enough to be able to change these horrible practices”. Congratulations, Mr.Mackey on not having lost sight of the vision that you founded your business on, on keeping focus on the larger good amidst the everyday meetings, statistcs, numbers, etc. I have every confidence about the bright future for your business.

    I am not from the US, but have spent some time in the US, and I also like your statement about acquiring the produce globally (unlike most people on this blog, which I can understand, in part). Here in Eastern Europe, most of our organic produce is shipped to the Western markets. Without Western markets there would be no (or very little) organic farming in my country, so I have to thank you for supporting our farmers and the environment. What happens in “poorer” countries which generally do not have enough money to spend on environment, you also plant an idea that enviromentally-friendly programs are profitable, so you introduce a revolutionary idea, before the country as a whole is even ready for it. Thank you and my respect!

90. Mikeal Palulis Says:
    October 26th, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    John et al,
    I found this blog completely by accident, while reading an article on
    Motley Fool. This points out one of the major issues that I have.

    I have learned more in the last 2 days as I read this discussion about the variety of Beef and it’s sources than I have in the 2+ years I’ve been a meat team member or the 9 years I’ve been employed by WFMI. There has been a breakdown in education and communication since the adoption of EVA as a core business practice.

    We, the rank and file TM’s, are the first line of interaction with those who are most likely to criticize you and the company. Yet, we very often don’t have the information available to us in any easy way.

    Those things said, I applaud our intent to increase our local product, and quite often choose to buy it. The definition of local does need some clarification, but closer is better for fresh foods. I would like to see more animal products labeled with their origins, but I can see where that could be difficult.

    And a short comment to the poster who said WF had stopped giving stock options to the rank and file… Not true! The way they are granted changed, but we all still get them.

    Thanks for having this discourse availible. If you would like to speak with me more, feel free to contact me, or stop by the Prospect St Store. I’m there quite often!

    Mikeal

91. Susannah Says:
    November 16th, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    I have been working on a research project on exactly this subject and have come across a number of publications with similar concerns as Mr. Pollans.
    I find Mr. Mackeys comments on helping the poor farmers in poor countries by buying their produce condescending and uninformed. Free trade agreements imposed on developing nations by the WTO and others are incredibly crippling to local economies and small farmers. First thing they are instructed to do is to devote their land to growing gigantic monocrops for export markets which leaves the majority poor and without suitable food to feed their families.
    These countries are sought after by large transnational corporations because they provide low cost labour and often have minimum environmental and governmental interference in big business dealings.
    Because we all seem to like numbers so much here’s an interesting figure, 70% of the world’s hungriest live in rural areas. If these farmers were really making money off their trade I doubt this number would be so high.
    As Mr Mackey pointed out, farmers are in fact being poisoned by pesticides in these countries but it’s because they drink it in utter despair for being unable to provide for their families. What these people should be growing is food for their families and local communities and not depending on minute returns for crops that they have been instructed to grow. Then heavily subsidized international imports are dumped on their markets either under the guise of food aid or surpluses, which makes it increasingly difficult for the farmers that are trying to make a living within their local communities.
    I strongly believe that a food system designed to make a profit has no interest in feeding the world, only a handful of rich. This is why co-ops are established and this is why as Mr.Mackey stated they have not succeeded to the level of his chain, many have no desire to.
    I strongly urge you all to seek out documentaries such as “Life in Debt” and “Darwin’s Nightmare”. These two films clearly illustrate the destruction that free markets can wreak on a country.

    I find it interesting also that the subject has come up about the lack of local produce to be found in California. That is because it all comes here to Canada where I am! 85 to 90% of organic produce sold in Canada comes from the US.(and I now a lot of local organic growers struggling to make a living). So Imagine now that this is the same story for most of the developing world and they do not have the bounty of $$ to fall back on.
    Some references:
    Laura Carlsen “The world needs its small farmers”www.americaspolicy.org
    Vijay Cuddeford “When Organic goes Mainstream” http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/rcbtoa/services/organics-mainstream.html
    (this website offers links to many more intersting articles etc)

    I do appreciate the popularity and spread of organic products and support and encourage it,
    I just hope we don’t lose scope and let a number of corporations use it as another trend to cash in on. I do not suggest this is the intention of WF.
    I feel that we as consumers have a responsibility to look at the true cost at every level of our purchasing choices.
    Mr. Mackey, keep up the open dialogue!

    Susannah Murphy, Nova Scotia Canada

92. Dan Deans Says:
    November 18th, 2006 at 10:30 am

    On August 27 I warned that the threat to the organic industry was not WFM, but the big corporate players like Wal Mart. This week, the Cornucopia Institute, an activist group representing small farmers, filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture that accuses Wal-Mart of incorrectly labeling or otherwise misrepresenting various products as organic in some stores. Visiting a dozen stores in four Midwestern states, the group found several troubling misrepresentations. In one case, “all-natural” yogurt was labeled organic; in several stores, non-organic products were residing in an organic-designated cooler. “We live and die by the reputation of the organic label,” says Cornucopia cofounder and organic farmer Mark Kastel. “If Wal-Mart cheapens it, we all lose.” Wal-Mart pooh-poohed the accusations and defended its organic offerings. Nevertheless, the USDA has opened an investigation into the retailer’s organic-labeling practices; violations of labeling standards can carry a fine of $10,000 per instance.
    Enough said.

93. Indira Pradhan Says:
    November 29th, 2006 at 11:43 am

    Regarding Horizon Dairy products and milk I read this morning morning an exchange between NewsTarget.com’s Mike Adams and Ronnie Cummings, National Director of the Organic Consumers Association. Here’s what Ronnie has to
    say apart from other many other notable things about Horizon Organics and it’s parent company Dean.Below is a small excerpt of their exchange:

    Mike(Adams): Is it fair to say, Ronnie, that the organic-labeled Horizon Milk on the shelves in Wal-Mart right now comes, at least in part, from cows that were at one point in their lives fed blood, manure, chicken litter and some other things you mentioned? Is that accurate?

    Ronnie: Yes, half of Horizon Organic’s milk today comes from these factory dairy feedlots. One hundred percent of Aurora Organic’s milk comes from these factory dairy feedlots. It is cheaper to not buy organic calves that have been raised from birth on an organic farm, but to buy conventional calves that have been raised as cheaply as possible on a conventional farm. The routine practice today on a conventional farm is feeding the animals blood plasma as a milk replacer. You feed them genetically engineered grains, slaughterhouse waste, and chicken manure. That is industry standard. Why? You can make more money doing it that way.
    For the full exchange on this topic you can go to
    http://www.newstarget.com/021186.html

    As for Horizon products and Dean Foods, the conglomerate that bought it out, if you read what is said about them in the above url, it might make you change your mind regarding using Horizon as your suppier for dairy products.
    You also said in an earlier blog: “Interestingly enough, none of the accusers have ever actually visited Horizon’s Idaho facility…” but I think visiting one Horizon farm in Idaho is perhaps not sufficient to give the company a clean slate.Apparently, The Cornucopia did visit some of these Horizon and other organic farms: Below from the same conversation between Mike Adam and Ronnie.
    Ronnie: “It was called to our attention by a watchdog organization called The Cornucopia Institute, which actually visited some of these factory-style dairy farms that Horizon and Aurora call organic. They witnessed firsthand things like a farm where there are 4,000 animals, but only a few hundred acres of pasture. You cannot possibly pasture animals on that little pasture, especially when they are in semi-arid parts of Idaho, Colorado and West Texas.”
    I am an avid and a serious shopper at Wholefoods and do all my grocery shopping at your Columbus, Ohio store. Most of my friends also shop here.
    I do hope you will diligently address the Horizon Dairy problem in the interest of consumers like me and millions of others who have put so much of trust in your company.
    Incidently, there seems to be some negative reports also on SILK, the organic soy milk also bought up by the giant conglomerate DEAN.
    Thanks,
    Sincerely,
    Indira Pradhan

94. Eric Brown Says:
    December 12th, 2006 at 12:31 pm

    I have to share Mr. Pollan’s skepticism of Mr. Mackey’s commitment to local agriculture and to diversified family farms. I say this as a current small farmer and a former Whole Foods employee of about three years.

    One thing I can definitely say in favor of Whole Foods is that the corporate structure is, especially by comparison to other corporations, truly egalitarian. I can only offer very high praise for that structure and the open communication between employees that it allows.

    Unfortunately, that corporate openness opened my eyes to some of the ugly realities of Whole Food’s compromises to the capitalist system. I think Pollan’s most important criticism is of Whole Food’s weak leadership, especially in the recent past.

    I imagine, for instance, that Whole Foods would like to avoid being open and honest with its customers about its model of shipping local North Carolina produce (whatever local produce it sells in the first place) to its distribution center in Georgia and back. Is this a winning strategy for providing the “fresh” and “local” produce that many customers want? Clearly this distribution model is serving other objectives.

    I had the honor of speaking to Mr. Mackey once as an employee. I appreciate his willingness to talk to me as an employee tremendously, but I was less than impressed with his answers to my questions. I asked him what Whole Food’s commitment was to local agriculture. (This was in North Carolina.) He cited the new Artisan Food Crafters program, and gave me as an example a pasta producer in Tuscany. I replied, what about the local community, what about green spaces, local farms, etc. He said local farms often just couldn’t “deliver value” or some such euphamism for generating corporate profit. If Whole Foods is going to be a leader, it’s going to have to lead people to the value of local farms instead of following corporate profit wherever that leads.

    I suspect Whole Foods hasn’t gotten too big and too corporate for the kinds of significant, positive things I’d like to see, though.

95. Mike Says:
    December 20th, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    John,

    Your transparency is impressive. Thanks for posting the numbers on local produce as a percent of total sales revenue. You are, however, guilty of the same thing you accused Pollan of. Define your terms. Is local 50 miles? 100 miles? 250 miles?

96. Sally Allen Says:
    January 2nd, 2007 at 10:07 pm

    I sure hope that everyone that has something to say is at least growing tomatoes for themselves…you know what I mean? God Bless the farmer.
    Peace,Sally

97. Sara in Fairfax VA Says:
    January 19th, 2007 at 10:43 am

    I am new to the organic and ethical food revolution (thanks to Jane Goodall and Michael Pollin) and am very encouraged to see this kind of dialog transpiring, quite literally, all over the place. I encourage Whole Foods to
    a) continue to develop their local food markets and continue their ethically treated farm animal program (why is Horizon dairy still on your shelves though…?) and
    b) try to resist the lure of capitalist greed in the name of corporate success; I encourage authors and journalists to follow this revolution and keep the progress transparent, and I encourage all of you who are reading this or taking the time to post to continue consumer advocacy in our respective locals markets to advance the age of environmental, sustainable and ethical relationships to our food and our planet.

98. Taylor A. Says:
    January 24th, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    Hi,

    There are many whole foods I have seen open their doors in the West Los Angeles area since the early 90′s when I was a young boy and Ms Gooch’s disappeared. I am satisfied overall with the direction of this company, my only suggestions would be;

    *to open smaller stores specializing in produce in low income areas (near distribution centers)

    *more local, small scale organic / bio-dynamic

    * to encourage less packaging, and biodegradable when possible.

    Thank You for your time

99. tamara Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 11:02 am

    i am so grateful to have come across this forum. i find it extremely encouraging that this dialog can take place without ego, in the interest of WFM customers, the soil in this country and the welfare of the animals we consume.

    i don’t know anymore what is seasonal and what is not. these are things my parents know, and i only have a very small grasp of. i read one comment that food should be labeled where it comes from, and i agree one hundred percent. unfortunately, due to larger supermarkets (even though my mom and i shopped at the co-op when i was growing up) i have become accustomed to getting whatever food i want no matter what the season. i would be happy to shop strictly according to season, but to be honest, i don’t even know what that means anymore. (i’m not a complete idiot, i know not to buy strawberries in winter, etc)

    i think whole foods can indeed (whilst still supporting farmers in argentina) lead the way in how we buy our food. in fact, wfm is the only avenue i can think of that has any hope of doing so.

    thank you for your continued commitment to making this world a better place.

    and ps, i also agree, lets try to use less packaging. i live in europe, and we have plastic that is biodegradable. and the food origin is also labeled, which has helped me immensely with my decisions.

100. Shirley C. Says:
     February 6th, 2007 at 2:45 pm

     I almost don’t understand why it’s a big deal that Whole Foods feels like its been villified in Pollan’s book. I think, while what Pollan coins “industrial organic” is only logical because any agricultural business needs to supply the demand, most people DO vision their organic produce as products of the pastoral green farm and the small business farmer. I never liked Cascadian farms, but I’d buy it if that was the only label offered. I don’t think Whole Foods’ reputation was damaged in any direct way. Pollan wrote a good book and he’s an acclaimed writer. Whole Foods is a chain with a good, solid reputation. Should’nt that be all that matters?

101. luis mendez Says:
     February 9th, 2007 at 8:45 pm

     yes mr mackey iam very concern on capitalism, it would very dearly affect us, even though i am no longer with your company, i admire your work very much, your interest for better healthy eating, your interest in processing anything that comes to our table humanely. mr mackey i think that what ever action you decide to take on, would be the best way to go.

102. cricket Says:
     February 13th, 2007 at 2:18 am

     I’ve really enjoyed reading your back-and-forth with Michael Pollan. I’m having a hard time accepting one of your points, though, and would love to hear you elaborate on it or provide some data. Specifically, it is what you say here:

     “I will say, however, that buying only local foods may be good for local farmers, but it can also be devastating to poor farmers all over the world who need to sell their products to the developed world to help lift themselves out of poverty. A strictly local foods philosophy is not a very compassionate philosophy.”

     While this seems like a win-win situation on the surface, I wonder about a few things:

     1. Are we potentially creating monocultures and dangerous dependencies on fickle western tastes by actively encouraging the growing of organic crops in poor countries for the purpose of shipping them to rich countries? There is a long history of poor countries rapidly shifting production to a very narrow range of crops to supply the needs of rich countries, only to get burned when tastes change or another country comes on the scene that can provide the same crop more cheaply. Are you concerned about this and if so, do you have any ideas on how to address it? As mentioned in Pollan’s book, there are many farms in the corn belt in the U.S. that don’t produce a mix of edible foods for the family living on the land to survive. Couldn’t the same situation arise down the road in poor countries? Seems that it would be better for a poor country to always be able to feed itself first and foremost, regardless of the whims of the rich citizens of the world.

     2. If you factor in the cost to the global environment of shipping these organic goods across the world, is it really a net gain? While it would help lift people out of poverty, how does that compare to the negative environmental impact and the potential for dependency I mentioned above. Given that oil is subsidized heavily (both by corporate welfare to oil companies and the cost of military actions to defend oil interests), I would argue that the true cost of an organic product shipped across the world is not accurately reflected in the price charged by the local Whole Foods.

     Cheers,

     - cricket

103. STEVENLEEQUARLES Says:
     February 14th, 2007 at 11:23 am

     I was worried I would need to verbalize my concerns, but cricket’s words are perfect. If there’s not a problem don’t fix it. Thank you Mr. Mackey for your renewed commitment to fixing the problem. I APPLAUD the work of you and everyone involved in helping people get better food, including everyone that has ever worked at your stores, activists, farmers and consumers. Thank you Mr. Pollan for inspiring action on an issue small organic producers like myself need help with.

104. Beth Ebbing Says:
     February 24th, 2007 at 11:20 am

     Greetings,
     I just wanted to throw in a quick “two cent”. I’ve worked for Whole Foods in the past in Arizona. In regards to educating customers to buy seasonal items…this is something I believe in and I’m educated in the Slow Food movement. With that being said, after informing a customer and giving them the knowledge to make an informed decision about why they should buy seasonal, if a customer wants strawberry shortcake in December…they will get it.
     We are still Americans. And although a great majority of the customers that shop Whole Foods are educated and more conscience of their buying choices, they still want what they want, when they want it. I also believe that now organics has become “trendy”. This has it’s pros and cons. I’ve worked with many customers that could care less about any educational information of the product or the company they are supporting. If it says “organic” that’s all they need to know. In several of my experiences with the customers, what corporation owns which sour cream item is not important to them.(Although I support Organic Valley.) There is a balance, as in everything in life. You just have to learn that some are not as passionate about knowledge as you are. Thanks for letting me express my experiences. Have a beautiful day. Sincerely, Beth A. Ebbing/ Chandler, Arizona.

105. lisa Says:
     February 27th, 2007 at 8:45 am

     Thanks so much to everyone for all the great ideas discussed here! I read The Omnivore’s Dilemma when it first came out and was deeply impressed by it. Since then I have been working toward improving my personal commitment to local food, to the extent that right now I’m in the midst of an experimental attempt to eat only (or at least mostly) local food until Easter. I have been surprised so far to discover that there’s actually MORE local food available right now at Whole Foods (and it’s clearly labeled as local) than at my local food co-op (where, even if something is local, there’s no way for me to find out unless I can find an employee who happens to know). Of course, 200 miles isn’t quite as local as, say, the farmer right outside of the city who is probably the source for the local co-op food. But on the other hand, there are sellers at the farmer’s market who come from 100 miles away, and I wouldn’t dream of considering them anything other than local.

     However, I would love to see WF continue to work toward educating consumers about local and seasonal food. For me personally, it’s been eye-opening to attempt a local food experiment in February–in just a week, I’ve already eaten countless foods I never would have dreamed of trying, from rutabagas to bok choi. As a city girl who two years ago ate mostly processed foods and didn’t even know how to cook, I think I can speak for many WF consumers who want organic because it’s trendy when I say that many would probably appreciate being educated, and even challenged, about the joys of local, seasonal food.

     That said, I do agree with Beth in that many people will not care…but WF could do a lot to push people forward who are close to the edge. Even if only by labeling some produce as “in-season,” as they already do with local; as another comment said earlier, many consumers have no idea what is grown when.

106. John Bliss Says:
     February 27th, 2007 at 8:10 pm

     I have questions regarding the comment that organic pays farmers more for their products. That assertion is made in the discussion about supporting growers in developing nations. As a US organic grower I’ve observed that though a higher price is paid to organic growers, rarely does that mean a higher earning for the farmer. The higher prices are simply due to greater costs associated with growing organic- more labor, greater loss of product, often more intensive production, etc. When this reality confronts the relative ignorance of your average consumer who does not generally know what goes into the organic growing process and has a hard time accepting the higher price tag, the result is often a lower net revenue than would be earned growing conventionally. Case in point is our organic eggs. If I were to raise hens without organic feed (over twice the price of conventional feed) and market my eggs as simply “local, fresh, and free range” (only three of the dozens of egg terminology!) I know I could charge close to what I charge now and make a tidier profit. I can’t speak for the organic farmer in the developing world selling wholesale to a global corporate buyer… but if this is our reality in the States, I have my doubts about Mackey’s claims.

107. Zanmeera Says:
     February 28th, 2007 at 2:42 pm

     WTF’s response to Pollan sounds defensive to me, and I become suspicious of where things are going with the company, especially in light of the purchase of Wild Oats. I am seeing “Whole Mart” or “Wal-Foods” as a likely outcome here. Is it WTF or the American public or both? All I know is that I faithfully shop at my local food coop, which I am happy to say is walking distance to my home. I shop seasonally, and do my best to buy locally. Living in Oregon with its
     abundance of small farms makes that not as difficult as it may be in other parts of the country. I do hope WTF will take Pollan’s criticisms to heart, but am not optimistic, knowing the corporate trend toward always bigger…small is beautiful, and one day we will all be forced to acknowledge it, though probably against our will…

108. Alice Alexander Says:
     March 5th, 2007 at 4:41 pm

     I am reading Pollan’s wonderful book “Omnivore’s Dilemma” and learning lots of great stuff. I am also very excited about the propsect of WHole Foods selling compassionately raised meat. I plan to buy some, and, for the first time in about 20 years of being a vegan, EAT it! I can’t wait.

109. Steve Kaye Says:
     March 10th, 2007 at 6:04 pm

     As a grower and former supplier to a Whole Foods predecessor (Freshfields) I am on Michael’s side that Whole Foods is part of idustrial organic. Their bigness simply dwarfs the ability of small farms to supply a region and that’s how their supply chain now works. Whole foods wants organic grass fed beef because they love the word “organic” as a label whereas grass fed signifies a qualitative regime of a different order. The new organic beef protocol is also label driven – they care more about the label than the quality of the product. Consumers will soon realize that local farm products are only available at farmers markets and small local stores and will head in that direction. If Whole Foods is serious about buying local, they will authorize store managers to buy direct from farmers.

     Steve Kaye
     Millbrook, NY

110. Kendall Oei Says:
     March 13th, 2007 at 3:53 pm

     The Ominivore’s Dilemma is a great book, in that it makes you look at food differently, or gives more food for thought if you are already thinking about it. That being said, Michael Pollan takes an over-arching definition of organic and is very focused on an idealized set of practices. As a result, he is quite critical of individual methods, even when they represent significant improvement over the norm.

     The term “organic” has meant different things at different times, and many meanings and practices were brought together in the “organic movement”. Mr. Pollan considers this synthesis to define “organic”. Omni’s Dilemma acknowledges the variability as well as the synthesis of organic meaning, and gives some credit, followed by much, more intensive criticism, to any company that doesn’t include every aspect he wants covered under the O-word. This is how Whole Foods was represented.

     In my opinion, to require the term “organic” to cover non-chemical agriculture, transportation methods, humane treatment of animals, polyculture, corn exclusion AND “opting out” all at the same time would make organic food inaccessible to the general public. And if organic required all these practices, we would not have made as many improvements in agricultural & marketing niches as we have.

     We need to acknowledge progress… of which Whole Foods plays a large part. Perhaps, we also need to legislate certification to further differentiate between organic, humane, local, non-industrial, polycultural etc.. If we break these terms up, legislate and certify foods with them, consumers can make informed decisions and understand the impact they are having with their choices. Also, people who aren’t willing to read through 464 pages of text could take part in this food revolution.

     This is a great book that may have done some bad PR for a very good company. Happily, the dialog seems to be leading to even more improvements. Hurray for Michael Pollan for his contribution! Hurray for Whole Foods for their innovation!

111. ChrissyD Says:
     March 15th, 2007 at 8:00 pm

     I’ve been reading the “Omnivore’s Dilemma” which is changing the way I view our food industry. Thank you for your input, Mr. Mackey…it’s a real benefit to hear your intelligent and informed response to some of Mr. Pollan’s criticisms of your company. I feel I have so much to learn about being a responsible consumer and making healthy, ethical and economical food choices. You both have given me much to think about.

112. David Norman Says:
     April 26th, 2007 at 12:16 pm

     The subject matter covered in Michael Pollan’s book is obviously multilayered. I couldn’t help falling into a state of ambivalence. One thing is clear though: Whole Foods are doing their part and more in pushing things in a new and more responsible direction.

     There is a phenomena in America that is accelerating at an exponential rate. I call it the Bigger Shinier Phenomena. Goods, and the environments in which these goods are sold, are becoming bigger and shinier every day, which in itself is a testament to over-consumption and excess. When I walk in to Whole Foods, I am assaulted by the glitz and glamour that adorns the walls and shelves, and I find it quite offensive. While I applaud the efforts of Whole Foods to bring conscious choices to the consumer, I am chagrinned by this aspect of the business model. I also can not help noticing that the Whole Foods parking lot is slathered is huge, chrome covered SUVs and shiny gas-guzzling sports cars. There is something inherently contradictory in the whole affair, and it seriously interferes in my willingness to do business with Whole Foods. I do however, shop there for my meats, and sincerely thank them for bringing more responsibly produced meat to the mainstream.

     On the flipside of the coin, when I visit by local employee-owned Winco, I see people of all creeds, colours and classes shopping together in a no-frills store that puts it’s focus on bringing value to the consumer, without the glitz. The big downside though, is that one must be willing to purchase the bulk of their food from the conventional, industrial food chain, something that leaves me uncomfortable to say the least.

     It all leaves me exasperated. I have a choice of buying a thoroughly unsustainable tomato for $1.00/lb in a shopping environment that in many way supports more sustainable, minimalist living practices and access for all levels of income in the community, or I can go to Whole Foods and buy a sustainable tomato for $3.99/lb, knowing full well that a solid percentage of that dollar amount is going to fund excessive multi-million dollar infrastructure, with chromed adornments and polished wooden floors; solid signs of unsustainable living and mass consumption in their own right. I realize that the material adornments of a Whole Foods store are quite insignificant in terms of the big picture, both financially and environmentally, but the philosophical implications are not in the least bit, insignificant.

     I am absolutely blown away that this philosophical conundrum appears to have escaped the attention of John Mackey, Michael Pollan and the list of writers that have involved themselves in this discussion. It makes me wonder whether I am just too extreme, or whether others are just blind to the obvious contradiction I see?

     When the day comes that a merging of these two business models appears; a no-frills, bare bones (but clean) supermarket that brings sustainable products and methods to market, I will shop there with satisfaction and total loyalty, but for now, it is only meat that I buy from Whole Foods, because I can’t find it anywhere else with any level of convenience.

     One must balance so many factors when making choices for sustainable living, and although they do well on so many levels, Whole Foods is failing me in a big way. I believe there is an underlying message they send to consumers via the opulence of their shopping experience that contributes to excess and unsustainable living in a deep, philosophical sense. It is this factor that leaves me feeling sick when I enter a Whole Foods establishment and relieved as I walk out the doors.

     I leave you with this thought, in response to the comment made by Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey:

     “If we don’t buy their (Argentina’s) organic asparagus then how are they going to be able to afford to buy iPods from Apple, computers from Dell, or books from Michael Pollan?”

     Well John, just like Joel Salatin responded to Michael Pollan when he asked if Joel would Fed-Ex him a steak and a chicken … “No, I don’t think you understand. I don’t believe it is sustainable-or ‘organic’ if you will …”

     Perhaps we need to take the iPods out of our ears and open our eyes a bit wider and think about what sustainable living means in the broad sense of the phrase, not just whether our food is organic or local or humanely raised.

     Thanks for all of your hard work, both of you guys, John and Michael. I’ve learned a lot.

113. Dave Taylor Says:
     May 17th, 2007 at 4:57 pm

     Mr. Mackey,

     I’m not sure if you’re still reading this message-board, as it’s been a year since it began, and understandably you are a very busy person. I’ve been extremely impressed thus far at your obvious interest in this issue. Most CEOs that have a “blog” will just post once and ignore all the comments, so that they appear to have an ear to their stakeholders. I believe that you honestly do.

     I have one observation, and one question for you.

     I’ve noticed in your language a hint of the Hypocrite Fallacy. You note that Pollan criticizes the distances that foods are shipped while globetrotting on his own book tour, as if to say, “See, Michael is a hypocrite. Therefore his argument is nullified.” You also argue that if Americans already import computers, Ipods, and cars from all over the world, we should also import food in this way, in order to be “consistent” (my quotes). This argument could be rephrased like this: “Globalization is happening, folks — get with the program.” But this ignores that many aspects of American life are still national, city-focused, and neighborhood-focused. We like to think of ourselves as living in a “global village,” but we humans literally live in counties, cities, and in neighborhoods. We live with LOCAL people, we send children to local schools, we hire our electricians and plumbers locally, we eat in local restaurants and cafes. So, inevitably, in 21st century America, we will live with our feet planted in two worlds — the global and the local. This doesn’t make us hypocrites. I can eat lunch at a local Greek cafe, catch a beer at a local bar, drink coffee at my neighborhood coffee shop, AND drive a Subaru, watch DVDs on my Panasonic, and surf the Internet. I try to keep my life balanced — what’s hypocritical about that? Right now, my balance is pretty heavily weighed on the multinational side, so if I shift my agricultural consumption from Cascadian Farms to my local farmer, then this seems perfectly consistent. “Pastoral,” “Provincial,” “Hypocritical,” “Luddite,”etc, are the type of terms that Wall Street perenially uses to demonize a locally-based economy, but I’m prone to ignore these criticisms because they are so self-serving. It seems obvious to me that large corporate interests rarely coincide with the interests of the communities where people actually live.

     Or am I wrong? This would be my question to you, Mr. Mackey. You say in an earlier post that, “Neither success nor the corporate form of organization are crimes in my ethics.” Many of your posts seem to buttress this concept that the public corporation, with its access to large sums of capital, pressure to innovate, and accountability to shareholders is our best hope for significant social and environmental good.

     I’d love to hear you elaborate on your corporate ethic. Here’s my concern: Yes, locally-run private natural food stores, food co-ops, and farmer’s markets do not make as large a dent in Industrial Agriculture as Whole Foods does. As many people have noted in prior posts, chains like Safeway and Walmart are aping Whole Foods, which brings even more land into organic production. This sounds great on paper, but for those of us who have worked in the environmental movement for many years, it all has the uncanny appearance of “greenwashing.” Can we really believe that Walmart’s ag products, shipped from untransparent China, are truly organic? Dan Dean’s post above gives us some reason to distrust Walmart’s committment to the environment.
     Susanna Murphy’s post also gives reason to be skeptical of the notion that “investor co-ops,” as you’ve called public corporations, care about anything other than their personal profit. These “co-ops” will happily greenwash their products, if it leads to higher profits. And of course, they have. According to a March 2006 Business Week article,

     “And large companies have tried to use their muscle in Washington to their advantage. Last fall, the Organic Trade Assn., which represents corporations like Kraft, Dole, and Dean Foods, lobbied to attach a rider to the 2006 Agricultural Appropriations Bill that would weaken the nation’s organic food standards by allowing certain synthetic food substances in the preparation, processing, and packaging of organic foods. That sparked outrage from organic activists. Nevertheless, the bill passed into law in November, and the new standards will go into effect later this year.” (“Wal-Mart’s Organic Offensive,” March 26, 2006)

     If powerful corporations simply redefine the term “organic” so that more conventional acreage qualifies for it, how is the environment and human health bettered? If BP, Walmart, Shell, and GE are all now peddling an environmental image without the substance, won’t their cynicism eventually push more people away from environmentalism than draw them in? I can forsee a major crash of confidence in ethical folks who, like David Norman in his post, get disgusted by the dishonesty and just go to Winco. If the organic apple isn’t really organic, why pay more for it? At least the small-scale natural food stores and co-ops are actually run by environmentalists.

114. Michael Says:
     May 18th, 2007 at 3:52 pm

     This is a great dialog as it tackles the thorny issue of the globalization of the food chain. As someone who works in the poorest countries in Africa I can say quite simply that if Americans and Europeans stop buying bulk produce from poor countries the effects will be devastating. The idea of starting new agriculture projects in the Northeast of the US rather than buying from poor farmers in the developing world is absurd and perhaps immoral. Everyone complains about how much ‘foreign aid’ is wasted….The fact is that poor people want jobs not hand-outs and one job they can do is to farm. If we refuse to buy what they produce then we are just being selfish and self-defeating in our efforts to eradicate poverty. Give me a vegetable produced by a humble farmer in Nicaragua over one produced by a Yankee organic elitist anytime.

115. Michelle Selvans Says:
     May 22nd, 2008 at 5:43 pm

     this series of letters has been inspiring for its cordiality! for the most part. however, i have to take exception to something you say above: “A strictly local foods philosophy is not a very compassionate philosophy…Do you not feel any ethical obligation to help poor people around the world? What better way to help them, than to be willing to buy their agricultural products?”

     taking this statement to its logical conclusion, are you saying that gardeners who prefer the organic asparagus they’ve grown in their backyard are responsible for poverty in Argentina? and can’t one act in other ways than through food purchases to affect poverty? the statement above is too sweeping and simplistic of an ethical stance to be convincing (in my opinion).

     for the most part, i see the different perspectives in this discussion as stemming from a difference of opinion over which is a higher priority, seasonality (and locality) or the organic farming method. Pollan places the former above the latter, WF does the opposite. is there even a same ‘right answer’ for everyone? while WF certainly can claim the moral high ground with respect to other large grocery chains, i don’t think it can do so in this discussion…

116. Amy Weis Says:
     September 29th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

     I thought it was productive how both sides continued to exchange contact with each other even though they were simply arguing back and forth. It could have been much easier for either Pollan or Mackey to just give in by not writing back, thus, ending their argument. I also found it respectable and admirable that the two opinions continued to insert quotations such as, “With all due respect, I appreciate the fact that you wrote…” through the whole argument. Even though I think it seems a little bit forced and faked, this shows professionalism by both members of this argument.

117. Isobel Jones Says:
     November 5th, 2009 at 10:03 am

     What a facinating blog. I’ve bookmarked it and added your feed to my RSS Reader

118. Tomas Rau Says:
     February 12th, 2010 at 2:03 pm

     OK I’ll admit it, I’m addicted to this website… just one on the initial items I do inside morning is head in this article and check out the new posts!

119. women's surf camps Says:
     October 27th, 2010 at 7:05 pm

     It becomes apparent that there is a lot to know about this. I think you have made a lot of very good points in your article.