Michael Pollan's open letter to Whole Foods

[MarketStEl]

Actually, I found the exchange between Mackey and Pollan refreshing in its tone. That was probably due in part to the fact--which both acknowledge--that both correspondents share many of the same larger goals when it comes to reforming the way food is produced in the United States, but I'd like to think that similarly civil exchanges could take place between parties who are not necessarily in agreement on the major points. All it would take to begin is an acknowledgement that in most cases, one's adversary is acting from a genuine desire to improve something, or at least stop it from getting worse. (Granted, this is not always the case.)

This may also explain why -- besides the difference in potential to affect a large audience -- docbrite's complaint about WFM's treatment of the foie gras producer disappeared down a hole.

Regardless what we may think about the delicacy and how it is produced, there is now a large segment of fairly well-informed people who consider those production methods inhumane and needlessly cruel. Whole Foods' management is clearly in this camp, and given that upholding high standards--or at least standards that are better for the environment and the animals that will be killed--is an essential part of the company's identity, it would be IMO a lapse if it were not to insist that its suppliers adhere to its standards. Now, it may well be that what should have happened with the foie producer was that WFM should simply have said "We will no longer purchase this product" rather than require a supplier to abandon its production completely as a condition of further purchases of anything, but frankly, WFM was acting within its rights by so doing, and if such tactics are employed to achieve ends of which we approve (as the School District of Philadelphia did recently in finally getting the local construction trades unions to open up their apprenticeship programs to the heavily-minority graduates of the city's public schools in a meaningful way), we often applaud the "strong-armer." So while I understand docbrite's dismay at the differential treatment he received when raising a legitimate concern with WFM and approve of his means of protesting such treatment--and of publicizing it--I'm not sure it reflects a major failing on WFM's part.

[maxwellh]

After reading both letters back-to-back, I second the notion that this sort of discussion is extremely refreshing. It has both renewed my lapsed faith in Whole Foods, as well as encouraged my continued vigilance. Great post!

[JohnL]

There is something disturbing to me about an exchange between two men who believe they have the answer to how America's food production and delivery should be. I also resent their attitude that we consumers need to be educated to their way of thinking.

I applaud altruism and passion and many of their ideas are good ones. However, I personally do not like "grass fed beef" I also like fois gras and shell fish and I also want to have access to locally grown whatever. I see no reason why smaller competitors and farm stands and farmers markets should not thrive, offering a different option to WF etc.

Unfortunately, WF goal is to offer it all under its one roof squeezing out the little guy!

I will gladly make the argument that for all its altruism, WF provides a level of quality that is far from optimum. It achieves a reasonably decent level above that of local supermarket chains (for the most part). Its presence has helped spur local supes to increase their level of quality--a good thing.

But, again, I am concerned that WF will squeeze out those smaller operations offering much better quality and/or value.

By the way--I also prefer so called factory chicken to over priced free range birds. that's just me.

I also believe I have a much healthier view of the man and animal relationship. I, for one, do not need to be "educated" to these guys way of "food life."

As for supporting local farmers--if they grow good quality items then I want access to them--and not necessarily under WF roof.

I do not want WF or any one entity to "dominate" the food market at the retail or producer level no matter how noble and good WF tells us they are!!

[russ parsons]

this is an interesting exchange. of course, one big difference between john mackey's view of the situation and michael pollan's is that mackey actually has to make his beliefs pencil out for stockholders. one of the nice things about journalism is that we can have very well argued opinions about how other people should run their businesses without any risk involved.

i can see both sides of the argument: i think WF would probably argue that although they are not perfect, they are moving the ball in the right direction. others would argue that they should be moving faster.

personally, i think we've got a pretty sweet set up right now, where the people who choose to eat locally and seasonally can do so while the rest (and the vast majority), can still access food at an affordable price. and i'll tell you, some of the farmers market farmers i talk to are as worried about high-end retail moving in their direction as mainstream retail is about wal-mart, etc.

[TAPrice]

Russ,

Wouldn't Pollan's point be that it's not such a sweet set up if people are getting sick from the arrangement? It's cheap to get calories, but that doesn't mean that Americans are well fed.

Interesting point about the fear of small farmers.

[russ parsons]

that's an interesting point todd. however, i have a hard time believing that american obesity would be cured by people eating strawberries only when they were grown within 20 miles.

personally, i like eating rather locally (does fresno count?) and in season and i feel that it enriches not only my cooking, but my life. but i'm somewhat hesitant to force my beliefs on other people (who may in turn decide that i should stop eating my foie gras). and i'm extremely hesitant to try to address vast societal problems with what seem to me to be rather simplistic solutions.

[TAPrice]

I agree that simplistic solutions aren't the answer. I also don't think that everyone could (or should) try to live on local diet. I don't, although I do appreciate local products.

While forcing our beliefs on others is not a good idea, I also don't think we should assume that other people are really making choices. Are American consumers truly choosing to consume primarily corn syrup and empty calories? Or, are they being pushed into this eating pattern by the pricing of these processed products? (Does that make sense?)

I haven't read Pollan's book, but in a recent article he made a point that's hard to dispute. Companies have to show growth to investors. If you sell food, the slow population growth won't give you an increase in revenue. The company either has to decrease the production cost (more subsidized corn products!) or increase the size to justify a higher price (Super Size it!).

I don't agree with everything Whole Foods does, but training more consumers to pay higher prices for better goods is a good third alternative. It's not a total solution and WF doesn't always deliver, but so is life. This approach, however, doesn't address those consumers who make purchasing decisions based solely on price.

[russ parsons]

While forcing our beliefs on others is not a good idea, I also don't think we should assume that other people are really making choices. Are American consumers truly choosing to consume primarily corn syrup and empty calories? Or, are they being pushed into this eating pattern by the pricing of these processed products? (Does that make sense?)

←

i really don't see the vast majority of people as being uninformed victims, just because they make different choices than I do--or even choices that i might regard as uninformed.

I haven't read Pollan's book, but in a recent article he made a point that's hard to dispute. Companies have to show growth to investors. If you sell food, the slow population growth won't give you an increase in revenue. The company either has to decrease the production cost (more subsidized corn products!) or increase the size to justify a higher price (Super Size it!).

I'm no economist (I can barely balance my checkbook), but this seems to be a truly silly argument Pollan is making--how is food different than any other product? shouldn't making a better product, or one that more people want (or think they want) increase sales for food just as it does for cars and computers?

I don't agree with everything Whole Foods does, but training more consumers to pay higher prices for better goods is a good third alternative. It's not a total solution and WF doesn't always deliver, but so is life. This approach, however, doesn't address those consumers who make purchasing decisions based solely on price.

←

On this, we agree almost 100%. however, if those consumers who make purchasing decisions based solely on price don't see a benefit in buying food that we think tastes good, why should they spend more for it?

[TAPrice]

i really don't see the vast majority of people as being uninformed victims, just because they make different choices than I do--or even choices that i might regard as uninformed.

It's true that so many campaigns to improve eating habits smack of paternalism. At the same time, I think we can look at how people's choices are constrained without casting them as victims.

Setting aside all the quibbles and complaints about Whole Foods, is a grocery store like that really an option for most people? Are they, in any meaningful way, choosing not to shop there? If you can't afford it, then you really can't choose to shop there.

I'm no economist (I can barely balance my checkbook), but this seems to be a truly silly argument Pollan is making--how is food different than any other product? shouldn't making a better product, or one that more people want (or think they want) increase sales for food just as it does for cars and computers?

Ok, not sure why I found Pollan convincing in the first place. You're right. Food is like any other mature market. You either reduce production cost, or you find new markets (overseas, etc.).

however, if those consumers who make purchasing decisions based solely on price don't see a benefit in buying food that we think tastes good, why should they spend more for it?

I agree that people shouldn't spend more if they don't care about taste. I didn't think we were talking solely about taste. My concern is the health impact. The easy, and inexpensive, choice is normally the unhealthy choice.

I hear frightening things from doctors I know about the rise in childhood obesity. It seems that we might be heading towards a public health crisis.

[russ parsons]

i think we agree on most things. it's just that over the years i've grown wary of "culinary" solutions to societal problems. the last time around it was the importance of the family dinner. now, don't get me wrong, i think it can be an important part of socialization. but i also know people who come from incredibly happy and well-adjusted families who played music together instead of eating together ... that and the fact that some of the people who were the most vocal in espousing the position had some of the sorriest family relationships around.

i think the best thing that any of us can do is to be happy and to try to live ethically and in that way serve as a good example for others who might want to join us.

[MarketStEl]

What Russ just said.

I think it might be worth noting, however, that for some--make that many--Americans, not spending more for food may not be a choice.

If you're feeding four people on food stamps, for instance, you will in all likelihood soon give up on buying local or "whole" foods, as doing so eats up your monthly allotment faster.

So where does that leave you?

Right back in the aisles full of corn-derived products.

[Fat Guy]

The "cheap food = bad food" logic doesn't survive even the most casual scrutiny. The cheapest foods in the supermarket are decidedly not the processed foods. The cheapest foods are rice, beans, lentils, potatoes, pasta, cabbage . . . stuff that people the world over live and thrive on, usually supplemented by small amounts of animal protein. Water is free, soda costs a dollar a liter. Potatoes are cheaper than potato chips -- not that there's anything wrong with potato chips. Beans are cheaper than Doritos and donuts.

And there are lots of fat people shopping in Whole Foods. You don't all of a sudden get thin just because you pay more for your food.

[TAPrice]

The "cheap food = bad food" logic doesn't survive even the most casual scrutiny. The cheapest foods in the supermarket are decidedly not the processed foods. The cheapest foods are rice, beans, lentils, potatoes, pasta, cabbage . . . stuff that people the world over live and thrive on, usually supplemented by small amounts of animal protein. Water is free, soda costs a dollar a liter. Potatoes are cheaper than potato chips -- not that there's anything wrong with potato chips. Beans are cheaper than Doritos and donuts.

←

If the answer isn't economic, then why have people stopped eating these inexpensive, non-processed food?

When we talk about prepared foods outside of supermarkets, I think the cheap=bad equation does hold up. Fast food can be incredibly filling for very little money. Maybe it's a general move away from cooking?

[Fat Guy]

I don't know. McDonald's and its ilk have a reputation for being cheap, but they aren't necessarily. I mean, the last time I went to McDonald's it was like eight bucks for lunch. For about four bucks I can get a much better quality meal at any number of ethnic restaurants. And that's not just a New York thing. Once you get to most any population center above a certain size, the cheapest prepared foods tend to come from the ethnic places -- especially Latin and Asian -- not from McDonald's-type establishments. Often the quality in those places is pretty high (well, not at the worst of the Chinese-American places, but a lot of the other types of places do a good job). I mean, they may not be using organic beans (and I'd question the point of that anyway), but they're often serving pretty wholesome stuff or at least a range of items from which you can select decent food.

[ned]

I bought a filling meal for three (delicious I might add) at Taco Bell not so long ago. Eleven bucks.

Edited June 22, 2006 by ned (log)

[TAPrice]

And that's not just a New York thing. Once you get to most any population center above a certain size, the cheapest prepared foods tend to come from the ethnic places -- especially Latin and Asian -- not from McDonald's-type establishments.

←

I think you're talking about a population center of a very large size. In most parts of the country, there is no easy alternative to the chains.

Eight dollars for lunch at McDonald's? My friend, you've got to learn about the Value Menu!

[TAPrice]

i think we agree on most things. it's just that over the years i've grown wary of "culinary" solutions to societal problems.

←

Russ,

I was thinking about your discomfort of "culinary" solutions to societal problems. Don't you think there is a difference between changing eating habits to create a social change and changing eating habits to improve health?

I honestly still don't know where I stand on the issues that Pollan and others raise.

I do think, however, that there isn't enough consideration of why and how people make choices about what they eat.

I also think that often many separate issues become conflated. People are right to be concerned about personal and public health, environmental impact, and good taste. I would be surprised if there is a single solution that can address all these concerns.

[slbunge]

Speaking more on the subject of local, rancho_gordo brings up an interesting point with respect to WF selling organic cherries from Chile and that sort of thing.  This makes me wonder, however, just how much we can really feed this country with strictly local foods.  For someone living in, say, Wyoming or Minnesota, the selection of available local fresh produce is not very good most of the year.  It is, of course, easy for someone living in or around the Central Valley to proclaim that we should all be eating fresh and local year-round, because those things are available most of the year in that area of the country (that said, especially in the Southern part of the valley, much this agriculture is hardly what I'd call "sustainable" considering the effect of all that irrigation).

So... is there really that much difference between someone in Austin buying organic cherries grown in Chile and someone from Chicago buying organic lettuce grown in the Valley?  I'm not sure either way, but it is a question that's been on my mind, especially since I don't think many people are aware of the ecological issues of Central Valley agriculture (and that's where much of the year-round American-grown produce comes from).  Should we all be eating preserves in the off-season?  That's got to be a pretty tough situation for someone who lives in a colder climate.

←

I think this statement/question cuts to the core of this issue.

First off, people have been living off the land in MN for a long time. I know it isn't as sexy to go down to the root cellar and retrieve storage onions and open a jar of home-canned tomatoes to make sauce in the dead of winter, but it is very satisfying to try to be aware of how to eat seasonally. I think that many of us have become lazy in our cooking at home, expecting that we can make an asparagus risotto just about any time of year now. In fact, it is sad to to be devoid of the sheer thrill of getting that first bundle of asparagus from the market in spring.

But, alas, a home-cook like me does have a different relationship with food than my forebearers on the plains and in lush central Missouri. So, while I do focus on buying locally and putting up all sorts of the fresh foods of summer (corn, beans, tomatoes, etc) there are things that I want from very far afield. I want outstanding olive oils and vinegars from high-quality producers. I want superb bean varieties that are not available here.

Somewhere in there is a balance. We each need to find it.

As for Whole Foods taking the lead on this issue, I believe that even if they jump in feet first they are taking the lead only in the 'big grocery' arena. I think the movement toward local food has already taken hold. The popularity of farmers' markets everywhere is soaring. The food coop movement is also very strong. So there is already a surge upward. I think that WF will only be able to ignore that for so long.

[maxwellh]

The "cheap food = bad food" logic doesn't survive even the most casual scrutiny. The cheapest foods in the supermarket are decidedly not the processed foods. The cheapest foods are rice, beans, lentils, potatoes, pasta, cabbage . . . stuff that people the world over live and thrive on, usually supplemented by small amounts of animal protein. Water is free, soda costs a dollar a liter. Potatoes are cheaper than potato chips -- not that there's anything wrong with potato chips. Beans are cheaper than Doritos and donuts.

And there are lots of fat people shopping in Whole Foods. You don't all of a sudden get thin just because you pay more for your food.

←

FG,

You're ignoring a very important fact here: unprocessed rice, beans, lentils, potatoes, pasta and cabbage differ from Ruffles and soda in one very important way: they take time to prepare. A working single mother shopping for groceries on food stamps may not have the time to boil water and cook pasta for eight minutes. She certainly doesn't have the time to bake a potato or braise cabbage. That's why she buys Doritos and Taco Bell. It's cheap, filling, and takes no time to prepare.

[Marlene]

Eight dollars for lunch at McDonald's? My friend, you've got to learn about the Value Menu!

←

We eat at McDonalds about once a year. Such was the case last night. For 1 big Mac, 2 quarter pounders and three regular fries, no drinks, it was $18.00. I don't consider that cheap for fast food not to mention it was cold fast food. Not nearly as bad as Marineland though where three hotdogs, two beers and coke will cost you $40.00!

Why go there then? As maxwellh says, it's filling, and takes no time to prepare and last night was one of those nights I didn't have time to cook. It ain't cheap though.

[TAPrice]

  It ain't cheap though.

←

$6 per person with tax isn't cheap? (Or, 119 calories per dollar, if you can believe the McDonald's website.)

[Marlene]

  It ain't cheap though.

←

$6 per person with tax isn't cheap? (Or, 119 calories per dollar, if you can believe the McDonald's website.)

←

Not to a single mom on food stamps or welfare.

[TAPrice]

Not to a single mom on food stamps or welfare.

←

Fair enough, but surely there are some consumers between the single mom on welfare and the eGullet participants who directs all disposable income to eating.

[Pontormo]

I'd like to return to one of the fundamental reasons both Michael Pollan and John Mackay addressed open letters to one another: the fact that Whole Foods no longer subscribes to a "back-door" policy of permitting individual stores from accepting foods from local farmers to sell uniquely to their stores--or stores in the area. Instead, for the most part, the company ships in food from equally large farms, dairies, etc. to fill its produce section in particular, but also other departments, such as Meat.

How much of this stems from business decisions on the part of Whole Foods (logistics of a large corporation vs. small operation, centralization, profit, etc.) and how much is determined by the nature of farming these days?* In an ideal situation at the height of the growing season, were there still a back-door policy, how much--and in how many regions throughout the United States--is available from the types of farms that Michael Pollan admires the most? Just how many farms are there, where are they, and how many consumers are they able to accommodate?

* * *

I agree with Russ Parsons about the fact that farmers's markets offer something to farmers that Whole Foods would not: a higher profit. I happen to enjoy personal interactions with the farmers, too, especially when they lead to purchases of items I thought were unavailable in the city where I live. What I find sad is the fact that they are, as one eGullet member has put it, primarily a place for yuppies. This is a reason so many of us romanticize European and Asian marketplaces.

*I am speaking about a matter that Whole Foods had no control over when it was growing. Michael Pollan might say that the growth of large Organic agribusiness is related to the growth of WF and the latter now has some control over farming; there's a symbiotic relationship at least. The United States is my exclusive subject at this point, though I am a little freaked out by the company's move to an international market.

Edited June 22, 2006 by Pontormo (log)

[TAPrice]

Good question. I hope that someone has some answers.

Here is another questions: Did the increase in farmers markets (assuming that there has been an increase) mean that there were fewer farmers willing to supply WF? Was WF's end to the "back-door" policy in some ways a result of farmers finding more attractive places to sell their goods?