Comments on: Whole Foods Market, Wild Oats, and The Federal Trade Commission

By: Sally

Sally — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:56:07 +0000

When it comes to shopping and spending our money, we all have a choice.No one forces anyone to spend their money where they don’t want to. Practically every big crocery chain sells organic products.So if you are complaining about prices, shop somewhere else.Whole Foods is a company with high moral values that cares about our entire planet.I have worked at Whole Foods for 10 years. Not only do I get paid well, but am contributing to a better world. Our Whole Planet Foundation gives micro-loans to people living in poverty in underdeveloped countries.That money comes from donations from TM’s and store sales. We have our Animal Compassion Foundation that promotes the compassionate raising of farm animals. We have a Whole Trade Guarantee and sell products from underdeveloped nations in our stores and a percentage goes back to the our foundation for micro loans for people living in poverty. WE ARE NOT JUST A GROCERY STORE. Take a deep look into all that we do for the planet.When you shop at Whole Foods you are not just pleasing your palate. You are doing a whole lot more for our planet. I am proud to work here. Keep up the good work John.
peace and love,
Sally

By: Don

Don — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:03:05 +0000

Maybe with the latest Supreme court ruling allowing minimum pricing agreements this whole low cost argument will be moot. Suppliers will establish base pricing and the consumer will no longer have a low cost shoppers enviorment to explore. In the fresh and organic buying model higher retail prices equal higher farm returns and will benefit the overall market long term. being a partner with the suppliers insures higher quality standards. Walmart’s model is built on beating the supplier (farmer or otherwise) down 3% annually not beneficial to american suppliers but a boon to China. WFM is leading the way supporting local reigonal suppliers and farmers. Long term the consumers investment will reap real benefits, clean water, safer food.

By: Jon Roland

Jon Roland — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:51:51 +0000

What is missing from this discussion are arguments about the constitutionality of what the FTC is attempting to do. This forum does not provide enough space to discuss constitutionality adequately, but I refer you to “Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause” at http://www.constitution.org/col/02729_fed-usurp.htm for an introduction. Briefly, there is no constitutional power for Congress to regulate things like mergers or the securities trading of organizations. The original meaning of “commerce among the states” only included the transfer of ownership and possession of tangible commodities from a vendor outside a state to a buyer within that state. It did not include extraction, manufacturing, transport, local sales, possession, use, or disposal. It did not include anything that might have a “substantial effect” on commerce. It did not include the activities of parties. It did not include services, information, securities, or anything other than tangible commodities themselves, and their attributes, packaging, scheduling, delivery routes, labeling, and other such appurtenances to the commodities. It also did not imply the power to impose criminal penalties.

Now that is not to say that there is not a need to enable intervention to prevent monopolistic combinations. Milton Friedman once said, “I am in favor of the free market but not large organizations.” The constitutional method is to create a jurisdiction for civil action by private parties, with decision by a jury. But it requires a constitutional amendment to delegate power to Congress to legislate intervention by government as a party.

We will not solve this kind of problem unless or until the majority of voters make strict constitutional compliance their main issue when voting, and learn to understand and accept what that involves.

By: Al

Al — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:23:56 +0000

Dear John, Wild oats is the main competitor of whole foods across the united states. There are no other natural food chains that can provide competition and pressure like wild oats. Your merger is bullying and overly aggressive. Your whole foods stores will never provide a price to quality “natural” foods as Wild oats (and sun harvest) does, ever. My parents shopped at your store ever other evening when it was small off 6th street in austin during the 80’s and 90’s. but you lost touch with your original customers. Your excuse that you are providing the highest quality foods is baseless, because some of the exact same suppliers of sun harvest sell for up to 3 times less at sun harvest. I have trouble parking at sun harvest on saturday mornings because it is so popular with the locals. Sun harvest is supported by the very original customers you used to have before you globalized. You cater to a specific customer base which is ok, but why not make more money by providing reasonably priced natural foods. Most of the customers gained from the merger will NOT be greater because there ARE alternatives to your overly priced stores, such as central market and HEB stores that now offer lines of natural foods.
Good luck with your merger, in the end, your stores will only cater to those who can afford it, not those who want it.

By: stacy smith

stacy smith — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:48:24 +0000

How long have you been in business in the U.S. that you’re surprised at the federal government’s actions and the miles and miles of bureaucratic red tape? I also think it’s a bit patronizing to insinuate that the FTC is unrealistically suggesting your move to buy Wild Oats “as very aggressive and seeking to “destroy” Wild Oats and to “dominate” the natural/organic products market. Are you suggesting that the general public believe that Whole Foods does NOT want to dominate the natural/organic products market? Isn’t that what you’re in business to do? Or do you think we’ll believe you are in busines for the public good. I mean, you sell the groceries, right?

By: J Konnor

J Konnor — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:05:03 +0000

Mr. Mackey – Kudos for hitting this head on. I respect you for being candid and making every effort to keep people informed. It is a very wise business move in my opinion.

It is ludicrous for the FTC to state the “standard” grocery store isn’t heavily dipping into the organic market, I see their organic lines everywhere. As a woman who has 9 grocery stores in a 5 mile radius to choose from, I feel like I am a pretty well informed consumer. I think you are on the mark and have a ton of support and loyalty.

By: Steve Battaglia

Steve Battaglia — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:24:40 +0000

Not only do I agree with your assessment of the FTC, but have learned first hand about the FTC’s unresonable and unrational approach with regards to my investment in Rambus (RMBS). The 5 Commissioners “ignored” their own ALJ’s findings of Rambus’ innocence with a thorough 353 page revelation. You are in for a dogfight.

By: Claude Bause

Claude Bause — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:59:23 +0000

One more point. A lot of people have commented that “profit is the only thing WFM values.” (in the words of one poster. This reminds me of my ex-girlfriend who thinks profit is evil. She hates Walmart with a passion equal to the Klan’s hatred of blacks.

One thing I’ve learned from her is no amout of logic or overwhelming economic data can change her mind. I suspect that if I create an alternate universe in which large profits were forbiden & show her how much lower the quality of life would be in such a universe, she still wouldn’t change her ideology that profits are evil.

But let me ask this question to anyone make the claim that WFM seeks only profit.

Wholefoods is run by Mackey; he pretty much responsible for all the decisions the company makes & its strategic vision. Mackey is clearly not personaly motivated by profit alone–in fact I would argue that Mackey is in no way motivated by personal profit anymore, as he has volentarily reduced his salery to $1, and is giving away all his options to charity. Why then would you. Why would John value only profit in the way he runs WF, but do just the opposite in his personal life? This makes no sense. Can any of you “WFM is all about profits, Mannn!” people explain this?

By: res ipsa loquitur

res ipsa loquitur — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:32:16 +0000

Dear Mr. Mackey,

I thought you’d want to be made aware of a book scheduled for publication by Doubleday in in December 2007. It’s called “Liberal Facism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods.”

Surely you must have issues with the Whole Foods brand being defamed by an association with totalitarism. And surely Whole Food’s customers who also happen to be liberals will not appreciate such derogatory associations.

You can find more information about the book here:
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-Totalitarian-Temptation-Hegel/dp/0385511841/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8742945-4111129?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182961626&sr=1-1

By: Leah

Leah — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:03:28 +0000

As a consumer living 4 hours from the nearest Whole Foods Store, I welcome the increase in marketing that the company desires. The closest thing we have to Whole Foods is a very over priced store in the Springfield, Mo. area. As a result I try to shop at farmers markets when I can. Unfortunately, there are times I have no other recourse than to shop at WalMart. I look forward to having a competitive market for organics, in the Mid-West area of our country.