Michael Pollan's open letter to Whole Foods

[Jensen]

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.

←

Surely working single mothers aren't the only people feeding Doritos and Taco Bell!

I agree with your comment about preparation time but would argue that it applies to almost all segments of the population. I suspect it's also due to a desire in our society for instant gratification, rather than any true time constraints.

And let's not forget the education issue. How many young people actually know how to cook? Until they learn, they're going to buy the Doritos and Taco Bell because they don't know what to do with the beans and rice.

Back to Whole Foods, perhaps they should take a look at Costco's liquor buying guidelines. The beer and wine sections at every Costco have the large suppliers

represented (WF's larger farmers and dairy producers) but they also have the products of local microbreweries and smaller vineyards available for purchase (WF's back door supply from local farmers).

[Fat Guy]

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.

←

I'm not sure that you can spend food stamps at Taco Bell, and I'm not sure I'm ignoring the time issue -- it's just not the issue here. What I'm saying is that we hear very often in the public discourse on food that "the problem is that food is too cheap." And that's not the problem. Cheap food is a fantastic achievement. The problem is that a lot of people are buying the wrong cheap foods. (Lack of physical activity, however, is probably a much bigger problem.) The point being, the "food is too cheap" argument doesn't hold up. There are all sorts of issues of preference, education, culture, etc., that combine to push some people towards bad food choices, but pure economics isn't really one of those issues. For most any cheap-bad-food scenario, it's possible to demonstrate a cheap-good-food scenario that costs the same, takes the same amount of time and tastes better. Here are some interesting accounts from Iowa State University's program.

I also think the stereotyping of poor people that tends to occur in these discussions is kind of ludicrous. I mean, let's hear some real accounts of eGullet Society members' experiences with poor families and nutrition. It's not so simple. The one seriously poor family that we're friendly with eats better, from a nutrition standpoint, than we do. Thanks to the cheap and abundant American food supply, most meals at their house involve a starch like rice plus some meat and veg either stir-fried or in a curry-type stew (they're Asian immigrants). The mother works all day taking care of someone else's kids, then comes home and cooks for hers -- mostly that involves pulling rice out of the rice cooker and heating something up from the one big day of cooking per week. I don't think they eat any junk food -- they wouldn't spend the money on it. Needless to say, not all poor people are eating that way, but there's nothing in the economics of the situation to prevent it. The causes lie elsewhere. And if the causes lie elsewhere, making food more expensive is just going to be a perverse form of taxing the poor.

[russ parsons]

interesting issues all.

why do people prefer to spend money on potato chips rather than pasta? i don't really buy the time issue argument. instead, i think that for people on really limited incomes, it is a rare opportunity to participate in what they perceive as a "prestige" experience ... something they've seen on tv. and before any gulletteers get too high and mighty about this, i'd say the same rationale prompts an awful lot of so-called fine dining as well.

poor people at farmers markets? i see lots and lots of them. granted, they're not as visible at, say, the wednesday santa monica or saturday ferry plaza markets, where they're pretty well outnumbered by the yuppie hordes (do people still say that?). but in southern california, there are something like 300 markets a week and i'd guess that at least half of them have significant participation by EBT participants (that's a kind of food stamps program for fresh fruits and vegetables). what's more, these markets are NOT composed of farmers dumping second-rate produce. in some cases, it's exactly the same farmers selling exactly the same produce as you'd get at s.m. in many others, its small farmers from within cultural groups (so much nicer than ethnic) who are selling in-group specialty items. this is major.

as for wf dropping local farmers ... i can understand the necessity of concentrating distribution when you reach a certain number of stores. but i do think there must be a way to accomodate some small farmers that produce exceptional produce, then let people know why it's special and charge a premium for it.

[maxwellh]

I'm not sure that you can spend food stamps at Taco Bell, and I'm not sure I'm ignoring the time issue -- it's just not the issue here. What I'm saying is that we hear very often in the public discourse on food that "the problem is that food is too cheap." And that's not the problem. Cheap food is a fantastic achievement. The problem is that a lot of people are buying the wrong cheap foods. (Lack of physical activity, however, is probably a much bigger problem.)

<snip>

I also think the stereotyping of poor people that tends to occur in these discussions is kind of ludicrous. I mean, let's hear some real accounts of eGullet Society members' experiences with poor families and nutrition.

<snip>

←

I think your points are valid, and I wasn't necessarily trying to make the point that food being "too cheap" is the problem. I was just saying that I think it's often easier to buy lousy cheap food, and that that's the problem. High-quality, inexpensive convenience foods are few and far between, and that I think is very much a problem.

I wasn't trying to stereotype. I was trying to provide an extreme example. Working in the restaurant industry has presented me with heavy interaction with all levels of society, and I genuinely worry about the way that I see many of the less-well-off eating; and I think a lot of it has to do with price and convenience. But if one side of the "bad for you" coin is Taco Bell, the other side is Ruth's Chris. Both are going to kill you before your time, IMHO. And they hit both sides of the economic spectrum.

Anway, I've veered too far off topic. If I may jump back on the WF discussion, I actually stopped by there to grab dinner ingredients this evening. I was very impressed with the quality and "wildness" of their seafood. I was very un-impressed by the insane amount of California produce, and the almost non-existence of products from my current location (Texas). I'm in a big, semi-agricultural state here, and there was almost nothing in the produce section that came from Texas. It was perhaps 5%. Makes me wonder about that whole 200-400 mile radius thing in the first open letter. Maybe it's just that in the California Whole Foods like 90% of produce comes from within 200 miles of a store's location, and that somehow balances out the rest of us with the 5% local average.

[russ parsons]

maxwell, just out of curiosity, what are you seeing in farmers markets right now? i would have expected most texas ag to get started a little later than it does here.

and, for the record, most produce everywhere comes from california. we grow more than 50% of the nation's vegetables and more than 60% of the nation's fruit. the second-place state is florida (mostly citrus) at 12%.

[maxwellh]

maxwell, just out of curiosity, what are you seeing in farmers markets right now? i would have expected most texas ag to get started a little later than it does here.

and, for the record, most produce everywhere comes from california. we grow more than 50% of the nation's vegetables and more than 60% of the nation's fruit. the second-place state is florida (mostly citrus) at 12%.

←

There's not a lot at the FMs right now. Mostly seeing cucumbers, early tomatoes, onions, garlic, squash, and that's about it. The farmer's market system here is extensive, but very sparse. The one that we go to (which to be fair, is a recent startup) has literally 4 or 5 farmers at it each week.

When we were in Chicago, the FMs were unbelievably great with great selection from all over Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, and Michigan. I think that people from agriculturally diverse areas are extremely spoiled, and it leads me to feel more strongly that WF is a pretty nice thing to have in a lot of places without much depth to their Farmer's Markets.

And yes, the point made about many of us pining for the European-style market is so true. There is just nothing like the markets that I've experienced in Germany and Italy over here. **sniff**

[BigboyDan]

russ,

You might want to re-look a those vegetables production numbers that you offered. Here in Austin, we can buy almost all vegetables, fruits, and nuts grown in-state, except those that require a certain amount of freeze days (apples, plums, chestnuts, etc.)... HEB (a large regional grocer) buys local (all across the product range), because in many cases it's cheaper.

-------------------------------------------------

Whole Foods has too few stores in any one market to make buying local cost effective, and, they only service a small percentage of all grocery goers. In Austin we have three WFs and 25 HEB's.

Edited June 22, 2006 by BigboyDan (log)

[russ parsons]

You might want to re-look a those vegetables production numbers that you offered. Here in Austin, we can buy almost all vegetables, fruits, and nuts grown in-state, except those that require a certain amount of freeze days (apples, plums, chestnuts, etc.)... HEB (a large regional grocer) buys local (all across the product range), because in many cases it's cheaper.

←

i'm not doubting that there are things grown in texas, and probably a good variety, but it's nothing like the scale in california. those are usda statistics as far as where fresh fruits and vegetables come from.

[Mayhaw Man]

I too completely understand that once a chain reaches a certain size that it's much easier and more expedient for them to use central warehousing.

BUT, just last night, I was in Whole Food on Magazine St. in New Orleans and there was not a single local tomato in the place. It's kinda crazy, given that Creole tomatoes are just coming into their full and much heralded (rightly) glory. All WF had on the shelf was a big pile of picked over heirlooms of various sorts, some Mexican hothouse tomatoes (though they are neatly marketed in little groups of 3 or 4 still on the vine-it still doesn't make them taste much better than red sponges), and some grape tomatoes-which I bought because they were very tasty. Nevertheless, even though I was sucked into Whole Food's evil marketing scheme and purchased tomatoes that I didn't really want (well, that's not true-I wanted them, but they weren't what I was looking for when I went in there), I still believe that the company as a whole would be better served if they made allowances to serve local farmers who were able to commit to being able to regularly supply certain stores with a minimum supply over a period of time.

I know that in DC, local farmers, particularly organic guys from the Eastern Shore, are having trouble at WF with these same issues, but, unlike in downtrodden New Orleans, at least they have some very vibrant farmer's markets (and lots of them if you take the area as a whole) to sell their products in. Sadly, that is not the case here, though it's not for a lack of trying on the part of the market folks.

You know, I don't think that Whole Food is evil. I don't have alot of shopping options right now, and certainly not any convenient ones and, frankly, in my neighborhood (just google on something like senseless murder or some such and you'll get my NOLA neighborhood), it's probably going to be a while. So, I am glad that I can go to a pretty decent, though entirely overpriced grocery and make a few decent groceries before I go to the Sav-A-Center for the staples and cleaning supplies. Whole Food is clean, has a pretty good selection of interesting things that I would not otherwise be able to acquire, and that's as good as it's going to get right now.

I would like to see them do more for local farmers and I hope that they do-hell, at this point they should make a big deal out of it just for the positive PR that they would receive, but ultimately WF won't make the decision to "buy small, buy local" until it makes business sense for them and I believe that, at least for the short term, it's just too much trouble to deal with on a store by store basis. Right or wrong is not part of the equation for them.

[BigboyDan]

In 2004: total US crop vegetable and fruit output was $279 billion, in California, $23 billion. Here's a good page for raw numbers concerning vegetables: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/specialty/89011/ What's amazing is that with all that production, the US still NEEDS to import many basic food items (of course, the US exports veggies and fruits too)... still, ONE THIRD of all vegetables and fruits consumed in the US are imported.

The killer: total US vegetable and fruit production is down 10% from 1997 to 2004; http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/vgs/Jun04/vgs303.pdf

Sources: www.USDA.gov

[Toliver]

There's local and then there's local. At my local farmer's market there are a lot of booths run by local farmers selling their locally grown produce. And then there's the largest booth (with an equally large line of customers) which is run by a produce broker selling produce that is most likely from other counties around the state.

You could say it doesn't matter where you buy the produce in the farmer's market since you're buying California-grown produce and you're supporting the California agriculture community.

But bypass the produce broker's booth and buy from anyone else in the farmer's market and you know that you're not only supporting California agriculture but your also supporting a neighbor, someone from your county. This has a couple of bonuses attached. The produce the local farmer is selling has less travel miles on it and is likelier to be more fresh. Plus, any money you spend with the local farmer is more likely to stay in the community.

When WF decided to stop allowing local farmers in the "back door" with their locally grown produce, it hurt the local farmer and the local community as well as the customer.

[edsel]

Pollan's defense of why he didn't interview Whole Foods is pretty weak.

It's especially ironic that a professor of journalism and frequent New York Times contributor would rip in to a corporation in this manner (e.g., the numerous comparisons between Whole Foods and Wal-Mart) without even requesting an interview.

For those of you who haven't read Pollan's book, the basic premise is that he "follows" (as much as is humanly possible), several strikingly different meals from the source(s) to the table. The section on Whole Foods is entitled "Big Organic", and the first chapter of the WF section, "Supermarket Pastoral" deals with the way WF presents itself to the customer. It's true that he didn't run his text past the Whole Foods corporate public relations department, but the chapter is focused on the way that Whole Foods presents itself to the consumer. He describes in detail his shopping experience at WF, noting all of the organic and Earth-friendly (seeming) labeling, signage (ugh!), etc. I don't see this as dishonest to any great degree. Pollan has an agenda to be sure, but his approach here is to allow the WF consumer experience to speak for itself. So if he didn't submit his manuscript for review by WF's legal team, maybe he wasn't being "Fair and Balanced".

The more interesting (to me, at least) chapter in the WF saga is the chapter "From People's Park to Petaluma Poultry". Pollan talks about the idealistic Organic movement of the Sixties and Seventies (in the U.S.), and the earlier proponents like J.I. Rodale. If WF wasn't given the opportunity to rebut (or spin), their suppliers are given free reign to articulate their positions. Gene Kahn is especially fascinating to me - an old line back-to-the-Earth hippie, transformed into a General Mills VP. He's utterly unrepentant about his role in establishing Organic produce as a government-sanctioned commodity. Pollan let's him speak for himself, and his company.

So maybe WF didn't get to review Pollan's manuscript, but I wouldn't characterize his depiction of their marketing machine as dishonest. After all, he walked into the WF market from a consumer's prospective. All of the labeling and marketing he describes were exactly what any shopper would encounter in that particular WF market on that particular day. Why should the WF corporate PR machine need to "rebut" that?

[Fat Guy]

"It's true that he didn't run his text past the Whole Foods corporate public relations department"

"So if he didn't submit his manuscript for review by WF's legal team"

"If WF wasn't given the opportunity to rebut (or spin)"

"So maybe WF didn't get to review Pollan's manuscript"

Talk about spin! These loaded phrasings don't change the basic tenets of journalism. For example, if you go to the code of the Society of Professional Journalists, you'll see that the second point is:

"Journalists should: Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing."

There's no "I was just writing from the perspective of the consumer" exception. Pollan should have had much of the conversation he's having now before he published, not after. Failing to do so only hurts his case.

[edsel]

FG, I'm not getting why you're so adamant about Pollan adhering to journalistic standards. Yes, yes, I know that he' a journalism prof.

I think the premise of the book was clear from the outset - Pollan wanted to "follow" several distinctly different meals from their origin to the table. IMO, he did that in a fair manner. I think his biases were evident from the outset (he's on the Slow Foods USA advisory board, after all).

I'll concede you the fact that he would have been better served by actually asking WF for a response to the criticisms. He chose to let their labeling and marketing speak for them, but it would have been a nice gesture to at least *ask* them to justify their position. He did, however, deal extensively with the suppliers who sell to Whole Foods. They spoke for themselves unapologetically.

Also, Pollan gave much freer reign to alternate viewpoints, even allowing for some "rants" from independent farmers (Joel Salatin in particular). So there was an evident bias there. I just don't see how this is dishonest - Pollan never tried to hide his personal biases. He seemed to be reaching for an understanding of why things have evolved the way the have.

[Fat Guy]

Who said it was dishonest? The word dishonest has been used exactly twice on this topic: once in each of your last two posts. I see it as more of a strategic error and journalistic misstep.

[JohnL]

Who said it was dishonest? The word dishonest has been used exactly twice on this topic: once in each of your last two posts. I see it as more of a strategic error and journalistic misstep.

←

I think the correct term is "journalistic integrity."

Dishonesty implies that the writer/journalist intentionally

(and with malice aforethought) leaves out or distorts or fails to.......

yadda yadda yadda! (latin for I am beginning to descend into incoherence).

I don't think that is the case here.

The situation re WF as I see it is one of sheer size and the reconciliation of adhering to

its mission statement in the face of rapid growth.

WF was once a small operation so the altruistic mission statement was easier to follow. WF

could simply deliver on the promise and as long as it made enough profit to cover overhead etc things were fine. (in fact if the owners were really fervent in their beliefs they could have lost money or made very little if they so chose.

As a public company there is an obligation to make and increase profits that over rides any other mission statement. There has to be compromise somewhere.

Higher prices, less quality, lower overhead, somewhere, somehow.....

Same on the supplier side. Artisanal producers also have to make sacrifices somewhere in the face of growth. It is easier to produce ,say, a hundred free range organic yadda yadda chickens than it is to produce a thousand (land costs--a bigger "range" for eg).

The key question is--at what point in the production of anything does size of production compromise quality? And at what cost to the consumer?

IMOP, Whole Foods has a mission statement that is impossible to maintain in the face of such massive and rapid growth.

They need to turn to massive producers of "organic" items (Earthbound Farms) who have, ion turn, had to make compromises to produce so much.

WF is a chain, they are not a small local operation that can sell items produced locally by small producers. On top of this, small local markets can sell Earthbound produce and small local produced items--they are smaller and can run leaner and make faster decisions.

WF, IMOP will have a much more difficult time adhering to their promise/mission than will Wal Mart. Wal Mart has a simple basic mission statement. They are far more flexible than WF. In fact they probably can outsell WF in terms of organic, natural or whatever products by offering operations like Earthbound, a better deal than WF.

I have always wondered why--with their lofty mission statement WF sells both "organic" and non "organic" produce and then place signs up convincing the consumer that organic is so much better (and expensive).

Perhaps the answer to this will reveal much about WF and where they are going and how they operate to get there.

trouble in paradise?

As I noted before--I am visiting the WF nextdoor much less. When they opened, there was a real wow factor. What I have come to realize is:

WF is really more like a supermarket than a gourmet food market.

The quality of their produce is good overall but for eg. the produce from the Korean market is often equally good and sometimes better I can get Earthbound Farms stuff at the local DAG. fairway has as good or better a range of items.

The fish at Citarella and other fish mongers is equally good and often much better.

The meat at WF is good but often many of the same brands--Murray's chicken, Niman Ranch are available at the local DAG and there is much better meat and poultry at other markets.

The prepared stuff? IMOP quite mediocre. (maybe this is one of the first areas where compromise reflected).

As for the service?

WF is fine--everyone is polite. But overall the knowledge and expertise is no better than that of the local DAG. If I want a special cut of meat or help with seafood the guys at Citarella or Fairway or Lobel brothers or ....

What is the biggest benefit?

I believe WF has raised the level of mediocrity. The local DAG has made an attempt to compete with WF.

I also believe that WF can be beneficial to areas where there are few (or no) Citarella's, Fairways, Balducci's, Ottomanelli's or smaller more focused operations like Di Palo or....

I do wish that WF would lose a lot of the altruism and focus on what they can be.

Their current mission statement is strangling them as they grow rapidly.

What is good for consumers are choices. people shop for good quality at reasonable prices.

There should be more outlets at retail for artisanal farmers and cheese makers and bakers and fishermen etc.

The religious fervor over organic and macro or micro biotic or whatever is fine as long as the producers and sellers keep their religion and their crusades to save the world to themselves!

(or put a donation jar on the counter by the register).

I would just like to see the best quality food items available at fair and reasonable prices.

Simple. How the producers and sellers get their us up to them. I will decide where to shop and how much I want to pay. just give me the choices!!!!

[russ parsons]

In 2004: total US crop vegetable and fruit output was $279 billion, in California, $23 billion.

←

bigboy, as one who has spent way too much time burrowing deep into the nass databases, i understand how easy it is to get crossed up, but i'm afraid you're comparing apples and ag. that $279 billion in 2004 is total farm income, which includes cattle, dairy, soybeans, field corn, etc. i was talking just about fresh fruits and vegetables.

now, if you want something REALLY disturbing (and that tells you basically everything you need to know about american ag), check this out:

price spreads

[russ parsons]

i have to admit that i'm not a huge fan of pollan's, though he is a good writer (and i like him MUCH more than eric schlosser). the idea of even presenting "your experience" of a market without at least talking to the market seems pretty shaky to me.

and if you want a really good, balanced examination of the issues of organics and agrarian idealism, you really ought to read julie guthman's "Agrarian Dreams?", which is a book-length version of her doctoral dissertation.

she's a santa cruz prof who was active in the organic movement way back and examines why it hasn't been realized in the way it was intended. Short answer: money. the early organic movement was based on a set of ideals, only one of which was getting away from pesticides and fertilizers. unfortunately, organic farmers found that competing in the commercial marketplace (and being able to make the payments on their land, etc), forced them to make many compromises along the way.

This is an absurdly simplistic rendering of what is a very well researched and argued book. Find it and buy it if you care about these issues.

i'm not sure how to render an eg-friendly amazon link, but here it is:

Agrarian Dreams

[Pontormo]

i have to admit that i'm not a huge fan of pollan's, though he is a good writer (and i like him MUCH more than eric schlosser). the idea of even presenting "your experience" of a market without at least talking to the market seems pretty shaky to me.

Perhaps I am not understanding the point of reference here, but Michael Pollan not only spoke to participants in his clear preference, the farmers's market, he worked on an organic farm in Virginia which serves as a vehicle for addressing pasture-fed livestock. During his book tour in Washington, D.C., he spoke together with his host Joel Salatin of Polyface Farm; the chef demonstration featured braised short ribs, perhaps from cows he met during his research.

Yes, Pollan had an agenda going into the project, but I find it most engaging when the myth of objectivity is cast aside by writers who are motived by passion, curiosity, vision, and ultimately, something substantive that they wish to convey. If the argument and reader are both intelligent, better yet. The latter can always go elsewhere for a different perspective, approach, or set of data.

In addition to Agrarian Dreams, recent, related books include Organic, Inc. and What to Eat, packaged together with Pollan's book at Amazon. N.B. These are not eG-friendly links either.

The Abraham for many of the folk who write from Pollan's perspective is the poet, farmer and Luddite, Wendell Berry.

[russ parsons]

i should have been clearer (and more accurate). i should have said that i have my disagreements with pollan, which is quite another thing altogether. and i found his first book inspiring. i also should have made clear that the market i was referring to was whole foods. there, is that enough mistakes for one morning?

i also should have pointed out that while i find it curious that he didn't talk to them in writing about them, accepted journalistic practice is never to show pre-published work to the subjects of stories. i'm not sure why this is so, but it's a pretty firm rule. i've broken it a couple of times for my next book, forwarding technical sections to experts for comment, and i've found it to be very helpful (albeit somewhat awkward--some folks didn't agree with my characterizations of their fruits).

[Fat Guy]

In my opinion, one of the best pieces of work on the subject of organics lately has been William Alexander's The $64 Tomato: How One Man Nearly Lost His Sanity, Spent a Fortune, and Endured an Existential Crisis in the Quest for the Perfect Garden.

He had a good opinion piece in the New York Times, essentially a summary of the book,

here. I'm not sure how long the link will stay live, but the general idea is:

It's not that I didn't try. Maybe Whole Foods can sell organic apples, but I sure can't grow 'em. I labored mightily for several years to cultivate, first, organic apples; then minimally sprayed apples (spraying only in response to a pest invasion); and finally in desperation for home-grown fruit, I surrendered the high moral ground to the apple maggots, codling moths and fungi that were destroying my trees, and resorted to prophylactic application of a chemical wide-spectrum orchard spray.

[russ parsons]

organic growing certainly isn't for sissys (to paraphrase my dad's comment on getting old). best estimates are that depending on the crop you can count on 10% to 30% lighter harvests (which, of course, means a corresponding price increase). And that's in ideally suited areas (one of the reasons the apple industry moved from New York to Washington State is because the dry climate discourages all those nasties).

[Pontormo]

Whole Foods is preparing a new letter which Michael Pollan plans to answer.

Edited June 26, 2006 by Pontormo (log)

[TAPrice]

Pontormo,

Just curious, how do you know that WF and Pollan are gearing up for another exchange?

[Pontormo]

One of the sources was direct.

Edited June 26, 2006 by Pontormo (log)