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…

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.

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.

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!

Steve Kaye
Millbrook, NY