The Whole Foods debacle
August 17th, 2009 by Cliff Bostock in Food & Life, News, RestaurantsUnless you’ve been living under a rock without a laptop, you already know that Whole Foods has been targeted for boycott. The reason is an op-ed column that the store’s CEO and co-founder, John Mackey, wrote for the Wall Street Journal last week.
The op-ed, which begins with an anti-socialist quote from Margaret Thatcher, is a reiteration of the usual tired talking points against making health care an entitlement — the way it already is for the elderly and veterans.
Whole Foods is, of course, a store whose primary appeal is to progressives interested in sustainable agriculture and community support — precisely the same people who mainly support guaranteed health care for all Americans. So, apart from the fact that it’s surprising Mackey turns out to be so conservative (”libertarian”), it’s also shocking, from a practical perspective, that he would pen something so predictably offensive to his customers. What was he thinking?
The pure stupidity of this is all the more offensive because the column includes an advertisement:
Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.
Translation: Shop at Whole Foods and you won’t need health care.
You can read about the boycott effort on a Facebook page that already has more than 10,000 supporters. It includes links to some point-by-point refutations of Mackey’s argument. You can also check out Whole Foods’ own forum on the topic.
It goes without saying that Mackey has every right to express his opinion. The rest of us likewise now have a good excuse to move to Trader Joe’s or Publix and Kroger. As I’ve written many times before, I have long found Whole Foods’ produce vastly overrated, especially for the inflated costs. There’s nothing that the store supplies that can’t, with some extra effort, be bought elsewhere.
August 17th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I wonder if he really minds swapping his customer base, especially here in Georgia. His op-ed actually got me in his store for my Sunday shopping. I will most likely not be a regular, my Publix loyalty is too high, but I will do my best to make up for any dollars, as if they have any, that the boycotters won’t be spending there. Also, is it possible to be for health care reform and against its current incarnation in the congress? Or does that make you a terrorist?
August 17th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Mackey is also an adamant Libertarian vegan. Are all Democrats, Republicans, omnivores, and ovo-lacto vegetarians also avoid WFM because the CEO doesn’t appear to have exactly the same opinions on politics and dietary choice?
August 17th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Mackey is also an adamant Libertarian vegan. Are all Democrats, Republicans, omnivores, and lacto-ovo vegetarians supposed to cease shopping there because they don’t appear to hold the same personal opinions as the CEO?
August 17th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
This boycott is ridiculous. I read the op-ed the day it came out and agree with it 100%. I’m with Steven. I might shop there more now as a result.
August 17th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Cliff, I always enjoy your posts/articles, but this is a disappointing contribution from you. Fine, disagree with the man. I happily encourage you to do so, if you do in fact disagree. But you seem unwilling to concede the possibility that a person might disagree with the so called public option and still be a compassionate, concerned, giving citizen. How narrow. What I see hear is reactionary and emotional, not a rational basis for boycotting Whole Foods. Honestly, this post of yours is just adding to the noise and isn’t helpful at all.
Also, your interpretation of the ad and its placement is just plain simplistic and silly.
August 17th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Of course that should have been “here” not “hear” in my comment above.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I wonder what those of you who oppose the boycott suggest that people do to send a clear message to Mr. Mackey.
Does it sound better if those of us who are deeply offended by his op-ed say that we’re going to “stop shopping” there for the time being instead of “boycott” the store?
If you’re not offended by his op-ed, then of course continue shopping there. If you’re offended but not enough to discontinue shopping there, then don’t stop. If you share Mr. Mackey’s politics and want to express your approval, double your visits there.
To me this is business as usual among many progressives. Mackey has opposed one of the primary reasons many of us voted for Obama. We regard access to health care by entitlement as the primary domestic issue.
And, as always, there’s the inevitable backlash of other progressives who need to paint themselves as more open-minded and boycotters as overreactive.
August 17th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Cliff,
This is a FOOD blog. I find it incredibly inappropriate the way you constantly bash us over the head with your political views.
Reporting a food-related boycott is one thing. Expressing your personal opinion regarding that boycott is extremely inappropriate.
This is not the forum to express your personal politics.
August 17th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I completely agree with Mari. Having no political opinion on the topic, I still find this annoying in the Omnivore posts.
And, don’t say Mackey … and… “the rest of us” because you do not speak for the rest of us.
August 17th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
no one cares what the CEO of whole foods thinks about health care/health insurance reform.
except maybe the idiots who pay twice as much for groceries at whole foods in the first place…
August 17th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I enjoy the debate raised here by Mr. Bostock and believe this is a correct forum to discuss the boycot of food industry giant. Although I don’t share the view of CB or the CEO of this company, I’m sure I don’t share the same political views with most CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Jo, Mary and Dave,
If you want to read about food and nothing but, buy Gourmet. Since I moved from NYC to Atlanta around ten years ago, Cliff has been my favorite local journalist. Food, culture, more.
If you don’t like what he writes, don’t read it.
Whiners.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
The NY Times “Opinionator” blog has a good roundup of opinions on both sides of the issue”
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/whole-foods-fight/
August 18th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Rico from Tampico,
I don’t have a problem with discussing controversial issues. Notice I never said this wasn’t an appropriate forum for Cliff to express his views. That’s fine. I just wanted him to do so in a more journalistic fashion. If he’s going to make a case for boycotting, then make it. Don’t just cherry pick a passage out of op-ed, call it an “ad” for Whole Foods, when it’s obvious that Mackey’s point there need not include Whole Foods at all. But Cliff interpreted it that way because he was feeling angry (emotional). Nothing wrong with emotion or anger, but back it up with some intelligent discourse, please. I know Cliff’s a smart guy and capable of handling things with greater care. That’s why I was disappointed to not see a more thoughtful treatment of the subject. I couldn’t care less if Cliff shops at Whole Foods. I really don’t give a damn. I like Cliff and his column, but this was a disappointing, narrow contribution (which I said before).
August 18th, 2009 at 10:23 am
This is not a news source. This is a blog. There is a news section of creative loafing and if Cliff’s (essentialy) editorial showed up there then question is journalistic integrety all you want. People older than 35 seem to have a very hard time understanding the difference between the two.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Actually, Jo, there are — what? — two sentences in the last graf of my post that indicate anything like support of the boycott. And that’s in the context of concluding long ago that Whole Foods is vastly overrated.
My excerpted graf from Mackey’s column has nothing to do with my feelings about a boycott. It’s about marketing! I am totally mystified that the man would write an op-ed that offends the values of most of his own demographic. It seems like a very stupid thing to do, marketing-wise. (That’s why I used the word “practical.”)
As to the substance of his op-ed: Mackey’s argument is the usual classism. He wants to retain medical care’s status as a privilege instead of treating it as a right. He wants to make “free” care an act of charity through voluntary contributions at tax time. Meanwhile, this is the growing lot of the poor and middle class in need of health care:
http://tinyurl.com/r2fbxc
And, of course, you have to go to the international press to get a real picture of what’s happening.
It’s an interesting suggestion that a critic, a person whose responsibility is the expression of opinion, shouldn’t express his opinion about the politics of a major food supplier.
How is it that it’s okay for an entrepreneur to insert himself into the debate over the public option but not okay for a critic to express an opinion about the politics of that entrepreneur?
I’m remembering the boycott against Cracker Barrel because of its anti-gay policies. Or the one against Leb’s Deli back in the 60s when its owner refused to serve blacks. Of course, since the latter’s policies didn’t effect white people and the former’s didn’t directly affect straight people, why should members of either group have supported a boycott? I think the 13,000 people who’ve joined the Facebook group provide an answer that was apparently much more evident in the past: solidarity.
In any case, I actually have somewhat mixed feelings about the boycott against Whole Foods. But I think Mackey’s taking aim at his own foot in the WSJ was just stupid.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
I’m wondering what makes you think that the op-ed “offends the values of most of his own demographic”. Has there been a poll conducted of Whole Foods shoppers that concludes most of them are (pick your category): Democrats, Obama supporters, advocates of government-run health care? If so, I must have missed that one. There’s a pretty broad outcry against the so-called “public option” by both Democrats and Republicans alike. If you see someone handing out a survey at Whole Foods in an effort to take a poll of Atlanta shoppers let me know.
I generally love Cliff’s columns, blogs, viewpoints, etc. and won’t stop reading them. Nor will I stop shopping at Whole Foods. Now that’s what I call open-minded!
August 18th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
“We regard access to health care by entitlement as the primary domestic issue.”
Entitlements… ahhh… love em. I want the entitlement to be obese but have my health care covered (including varicose vein surgery, dialysis and scooters). I want to the entitlement to be old but still have a drug that can make me perform like a 25 year old. I want the entitlement to have 3, 4, or 5 opinions because my health insurance pays for it.
The cost of health insurance (not healthcare) is going up for three reasons. We are a nation of obese people (2/3 overweight), old people (the baby boomers are crushing medicare), and doctors willing to order/prescribe anything because that is what drives their revenue.
Personal responsibility is the key and without the citizens of the US exercising any, entitlements should not be a term thrown around.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Cliff, should we really be comparing someone’s personal views on national healthcare to racism and gay bashing though?
August 19th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Gabrielle: Yes, I think classism, a “let them eat tofu” attitude toward the poor, is every bit as reprehensible as racism, sexism and homophobia. Did you check the link I supplied here earlier?:
http://tinyurl.com/r2fbxc
As you probably know, we are living in a time when disparity between the haves and have-nots is the greatest it’s been since the 1920s. This plutocratic reorganization of American culture is so pervasive that people don’t seem to notice until they wake up one morning and discover they’ve fallen from the “middle class” into the multitude of the poor.
People don’t even seem to realize that the way “health care/insurance reform” is shaping up, the primary beneficiaries will be the insurance companies and Big Pharma. Bob Herbert wrote about this a few days ago:
http://tinyurl.com/pv3dah
Intended or not, Mr. Mackey’s op-ed reveals a significant “shadow” side to the movement his store represents. I do not think this eclipses every positive aspect of Whole Foods’”mission.” The point of a boycott is not to put someone out of business but to compel them to consider another perspective. (And, in any case, most consumer boycotts are ineffective.)
Generally, it seems to me that examining the way our food and dining culture reflects the plutocratic reorganization of America is a worthy effort –not that most readers are interested in such an effort. Outside academia, the magazine “Gastronomica” and some of Michael Pollan’s work, that doesn’t seem to be happening much.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Ummmm…I don’t care about his political views. Glad to see the socialistas up in arms over nothing again.
Food is excellent (if expensive) and I will continue to give them my business.
Thanks for boycotting!
August 20th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I find it irritating when Cliff hijacks this blog for political grandstanding. I’d prefer him to set up a different blog for posts not specifically related to food, so I could more conveniently ignore it.
“I am totally mystified that the man would write an op-ed that offends the values of most of his own demographic. It seems like a very stupid thing to do, marketing-wise.”
Maybe, the reason is if the government drives him out of business, how he markets his defunct venture is a moot point. Collectivists are so cute. They can’t imagine John Mackey is in business to make money.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:10 am
“I’d prefer him to set up a different blog for posts not specifically related to food”…
So JM, what does Whole Foods sell? And yes this is a BLOG people!
When did foodies get so sensitive? Oh, sorry, you don’t like being called foodies anymore, what is it these days “palate specialists”?
August 20th, 2009 at 9:12 am
“They can’t imagine John Mackey is in business to make money.”
And the author of this blog is in business of writing about food and food industry.
If WSJ provided a forum for a food peddler to express his political views, why shouldn’t a food blog at CL provide a forum for a food critic to respond to it?
August 20th, 2009 at 9:55 am
SM: “I’m wondering what makes you think that the op-ed “offends the values of most of his own demographic.”
Well it’s obvious – Whole Foods likes for you to pay WAY more for something than the value of what you get, and very often they don’t have the products that you NEED. Much like the currently proposed healthcare plan.
BTW, and no offense intended to Cliff, but if anyone is using Mr. Bostock for their bellweather on politics, well …. there you go.
August 20th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Wow, the Whole Foods boycott page now has 20,000 fans — almost 20 percent of the number who are fans of the store
That’s a lot of socialistas and collectivists.
Actually, Malcolm, insofar as health care is concerned, I’m pretty mainstream in my viewpoint. It appears about half the country is now socialistas and collectivists for supporting a public option. (That’s down from 76 percent before the Town Hall meetings turned into screaming contests. The polls are inconsistent too, depending on how questions are phrased.)
As for the boycott, I’ve already been clear that I have mixed feelings about it and urged people who don’t support it to ignore it. Clearly, that’s inadequate. The ONLY appropriate decision is to ignore it, apparently. If you join it, well, you’re a “socialista.”
August 20th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I’m going to pipe up very quickly and say that I think that the intersection of food and politics is an area that is way under-reported in the food writing world, and I’m thrilled that Cliff uses this space to explore it. We’ve always hoped that Omnivore would be a place where we go beyond the usual “is it good?” standard of food coverage. There’s a lot of that, yes, but food is about so much more than just taste – it’s about class, politics, love, life. I’d like to see all of those things covered here.
That’s all. Please continue with your scintillating discussion.
August 20th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
“the intersection of food and politics is an area that is way under-reported in the food writing world.” Again, no offense Besha but, WTF does that mean?
Admittedly, people who are involved, passionate, whatever, about politics have to eat, but beyond that?
If my decision to eat my burger with or without chili, or my choice to make a beurre noisette with expensive, imported WF butter vs. what I buy at Kroger EVER becomes a political issue, I’m moving to Pitcairn Island. Fletcher’s family knows how to put the beat down on oppressive leaders…. (Yeah, obtuse and way off the rails – I think I’m hungry…)
August 20th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Let’s see…food and politics…the Farm Bill and its effects on what we eat, immigration and its effect on our ethnic restaurant scene and our labor force in the entire restaurant industry, health care and the strain obesity and diabetes are putting on the system, the idea that a person is qualified to write op-eds in a major newspaper based on his ownership of a major food supplier…for instance? I could go on and on.
I know some people may like to think about food as simply a matter of taste and aesthetics, and I hold no grudge if that’s your main attraction to the topic. I love food and writing about food because it gives pleasure as much as any other reason. But I’m also attracted to the subject because it is so tied to every aspect of life, including political topics.
August 20th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Besha is talking about the way politics influence the food and dining industry and vice versa. What is so difficult about that?
Certain government incentives, for example, influenced farmers to grow corn to make corn syrup. This in turn has had an impact on the health of the population. (This was detailed by Michael Pollan in “The Omnivore’s Dilemma.”)
People in the food industry managed to silence critics of trans fats for almost 20 years after it was discovered how poisonous they are. That too had an enormous impact on the coronary health of Americans.
I’ve already mentioned the political impact of Leb’s and Cracker Barrel when they respectively practiced racist and homophobic policies that brought about boycotts.
There was also Cesar Chavez’s lengthy battle against the grape growers.
Then there’s the matter of China and its lower standards in food safety, raising questions about import policy. There’s the business of animal welfare. Are you aware Whole Foods supports humane livestock practices? Or do you just not care about that either? Do you object to being beaten over the head by the leaflets every time you go to the Whole Foods meat counter?
The problem is that we relate eating to pleasure and we don’t want to be burdened with any unpleasant information. It’s like stopping in the middle of sex to read about STDs. But John Mackey is certainly right that our ignorance about diet costs us our health. How we eat also poses moral and ethical considerations.
It’s just silly to suggest that I have written much about this sort of thing at all. The real objection, I suspect, is to the content of my views, not the frequency of their expression. Those in that camp regard ANY expression as excessive.
Food — its politics, its psychology, its role in cultural rituals — is all grist for the mill. Unfortunately, it is treated like most everything else in America — something for consumption without much reflection beyond its literal taste.
August 20th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Besha: Thanks for actually answering – that’s rare these days in political discussions.
I am definitely of the camp that discussions of politics and religion should only take place when you’re drunk and I like to keep my politics (and excessive marketing – “organic”, “free-range”, “Angus”, don’t get me started) away from my food.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Uh, oh, the latest poll shows that 76 percent of Americans have become socialistas and collectivists again. That’s how many support having the choice of a public option:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html
August 21st, 2009 at 9:45 am
“Read a description of the president’s health care plan, 51 percent of Survey USA respondents said they “favored” the approach, while 43 percent opposed it”
I support Health care reform, but I do not support the currently proposed plan. I would have answered yes to the poll question, but if I had been asked if the current plan was the best way to achieve sensible reform I would have said no.
Do you see the difference and how dishonest it is to suggest that the 77% number means 77% of the repsondents favor the current proposal?
August 21st, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Which current proposed plan, Steven?
August 27th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
The thing I don’t get is that while this guy doesn’t think the government should be doing health care, his own company has done responsible things to provide people in jobs that at a lot of businesses would not have access to a health care plan with that access.
As a milbrat, I’ve *had* the pleasure of government healthcare and I’d rather not ever again, thankyewverymuch.
I’m not so much a huge fan of the Whole Paycheck market myself, but knowing that they make an effort to provide health care for their employees certainly makes me think better of them. It almost makes up for the abomination of poultry disguised as sausage and soy products masquerading as food.
August 31st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Steven Freeman says: “Also, is it possible to be for health care reform and against its current incarnation in the congress? Or does that make you a terrorist?”
Answer: It makes you foolish if you are not for some kind of public option. It’s the only way to bring down the costs. And it must be mandatory, period.