Michael Pollan's open letter to Whole Foods

[rancho_gordo]

but only in the interest of spreading the greater gospel according to phaseolus, right?

←

These sacred texts are difficult for the modern dry goods buyer to read and decipher. If I hold the key, I must spread the word!

[BigboyDan]

WF used to be very uncentralzed, in every way but accounting. I know, I managed the Prepared Foods department at the WF on Research Blvd. in Austin for two years, 1992-93. I could, and did, buy from local suppliers across food catagories, it was encouraged to no end. At the size that WF is noe there is simply too much expense involved in not centralizing, in every way. It was fun while it lasted.

[ludja]

From the digest of today's SF Chronicle:

But now Whole Foods, which is big and successful enough to pull the rest of the supermarket industry along with it, is taking a few steps to change that -- including requiring all its stores to buy "out the back-door" from at least four individual farmers. Most produce arrives from a regional distribution center.

The move is one of several the chain is making to bolster its street cred in response to stinging criticism by influential Berkeley author Michael Pollan for not walking its talk when it comes to supporting sustainable food systems.

At the same time, Whole Foods feels the fiery breath of Wal-Mart's big move into the organic market, and needs to keep itself ahead of the pack.

The new initiatives were announced by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey this month in an extraordinary online conversation with Pollan. (Their exchange can be read on both men's blogs, wholefoodsmarket.com/blogs/jm/ and by searching "Mackey" at michaelpollan.com/write.php.)

click

The article also has more details about how different Whole Foods branches source their food, especially in the Bay area.

Some other initiatives proposed by Whole Foods are to provide $10 million per year in low interest loans for small local farmers and producers of humanely raised animals and to also help raise the standards for humane care of animals that eventually provide meat, dairy and eggs for their stores. According to the article they also plan on sponsoring Sunday farmer's markets at some locations in their parking lots.

Edited July 26, 2006 by ludja (log)

[Chris Amirault]

That's fascinating. I had to stop by WF today to get a few things, and I noticed that they'd started tweaking their produce signs a bit. There are usually two categories, "Conventional" and "Organic," but on the "Conventional" corn outside the store the sign read "Regional NE Corn!" Seems like it won't be long before "Regional" or "Local" get incorporated more explicitly into their in-store marketing and labeling, given this announcement.

[Mayhaw Man]

Chris, take a look by the door as you walk into the store. You might see a little stand holding some flyers extolling WF's efforts to buy local and support local products. The interesting thing about it is that, while certainly the products listed will be local, there won't be any perishable items on there (or at least there haven't been in LA (Magazine St) or DC (P Street), where I have seen these flyers.

I mean, that's great that they are buying cheese stuff from John Folse and Tabasco (it's local, but, I mean, really, that would be like calling Coke a local product in Atlanta!), etc.

I am pretty sure that this is part of a larger national effort and I would be interested to know if any of you have seen the same signs.

B

[azurite]

This statement was made in WF's reply to the Pollan letter (link upthread)

I will say, however, that buying only local foods may be good for local farmers, but it can also be devastating to poor farmers all over the world who need to sell their products to the developed world to help lift themselves out of poverty. A strictly local foods philosophy is not a very compassionate philosophy. As Singer and Mason write in their new book, "keep your dollars circulating in your own community is not an ethical principle at all. To adhere to a principle of 'buy locally,' irrespective of the consequences for others, is a kind of community-based selfishness" (Singer and Mason p. 141). Whole Foods Market intends to continue to buy quality natural and organic foods from around the world, because our customers want us to and because doing so helps support some of the poorest economies in the world. You may not have liked those organic asparagus from Argentina very much, but Argentina is not a wealthy country (ranking only #65 in GNI per capita at $3,720 versus $41,400 in the USA-source: The World Bank, 2004) and helping their farmers to sell organic foods is very beneficial to them. Do you not feel any ethical obligation to help poor people around the world? What better way to help them, than to be willing to buy their agricultural products?

I can't say I've ever really heard this argument or given it much thought (I would share the 'typical' reaction to out of season asparagus and tomatoes) so I'm curious to see if anyone has any thoughts...

←

It depends. Some poor countries are growing crops to sell (not just food crops, but other crops as well, like cotton) instead of growing traditional food crops in sufficient quantities to feed their own citizens and residents. So they may end up relying on food aid-- they may need the cash to pay off international loans, or pay the interest. on those loans. Or need cash to pay for GM seeds instead of saving their own. So all your buying that food would mean is helping to perpetuate a cycle of poverty. In an article I saw today about, I think it might've been Brazil, soya farmers agreed to stop clearcutting rainforest in order to plant more soya crops (to sell, probably outside of Brazil). So it's possible an imported food you're buying might be encouraging destruction of important environments/ecologies.

Unless it's a fair trade product (certified organic makes no promises regarding worker treatment, fair price being paid or fair wages) it's likely that most of whatever profits are made from sale of the food are going to the middlemen--who may or may not be citizens of the country where the crop is harvested or contribute in any way to the economy of that country, i.e., very little of the price you pay may go to the food producer (that's a problem for quite a few of the dairy farmers in the US I think). Or the food may be grown on a multinationalcorp's plantation where the workers are paid a pittance, deal w/unsafe working conditions, etc.

Unless it's a fair trade product there is no reason to believe any farmer got a reasonable price or a worker was paid a fair wage or treated well or wasn't exposed to dangerous pesticides and herbicides (and was not told of the likely hazards of exposure or provided with protective clothing). So no way of knowing how much 'help', if any, you're giving a poor nation (or its citizens) by buying produce or other foods transported from thousands of miles away.

I do think it's more important to support local farmers and/or orchardists and preserve some 'open' land than paying for the burning of alot of fossil fuel to bring over out of season produce from another country (I'd also much rather see my tax dollars going towards exploring ways of helping poor nations build viable economies than where those tax dollars go now, but that's off topic).

Occasionally, that food producer is someone I know or someone I've gotten to know a bit because I've been buying produce from that grower for the past two years. I think it's great that some people whose families have farmed X number of acres for generations can stay on the land if that's what they want. Or that others can make a living doing so if that's what they want--it's certainly not an easy life--especially if you're growing crops organically or raising free range animals (USDA regs seem to make life pretty difficult for those who have small herds and don't slaughter all at once.). From some of the articles and books I've read--even some of the seed catalogues I've received--'small' farmers make our food lives so much more interesting and rewarding--to stay in business, to try to prosper-- they try growing new (to them) plants (some suggested or requested by customers) or heirloom varieties that might taste better or be easier to grow in their climate or raise a different kind of dairy cow because that type yields a milk with more butter fat . . . (Jersey cows are supposed to have milk w/above average butterfat %) that you're not going to see at the supermarket or imported because the fruit or veg doesn't travel well or is difficult to harvest mechanically. Or just because it takes a long time for a new demand to be responded to in a huge marketplace--if it's considered to be significant enough to respond to in the first place. Small farmers, smaller marketplaces (geographically smaller) may respond more quickly to new interests. And their produce or product doesn't have to travel anywhere near as far to get to my table. Because they're nearby, they may be that much more responsive to local requests. I'm going to support that.

I'd like to know that a friend of a friend who grows about 3 varieties of berries organically is going to get a good price at the local farmers' market and that will help him support his wife (who works outside the home) and himself. And not just because he said it was ok for me to pick as many berries as I wanted when I accompanied a friend who was taking care of his animals while he and his wife were out of town attending the marriage of a family member.

azurite

[barritz]

Singer and Mason have a chapter in their book called "Trade, Fair Trade, and Workers' Rights" that address the points Azurite makes. If you're interested in this issue, I definately recommend you check it out. The book is called The Way We Eat : Why Our Food Choices Matter.

[MarketStEl]

For a slightly different view, I would recommend that everyone pick up a copy of Tim Harford's new book The Undercover Economist (subtitle: Exposing Why the Rich are Rich, the Poor are Poor--and Why You Can Never Buy A Decent Used Car!) The book is not primarily about food, but food figures into his explanations of why not buying locally might be the best thing we can do for poorer countries. Chapters Two ("What Supermarkets Don't Want You to Know") and Nine ("Beer, Fries and Globalization") deal directly with the economics of food production in the course of making larger points, but for some of the purposes of this argument, Chapter Eight ("Why Poor Countries Are Poor") and Ten ("How China Got Rich") are also worth reading.

[JohnL]

For a slightly different view, I would recommend that everyone pick up a copy of Tim Harford's new book The Undercover Economist (subtitle: Exposing Why the Rich are Rich, the Poor are Poor--and Why You Can Never Buy A Decent Used Car!)  The book is not primarily about food, but food figures into his explanations of why not buying locally might be the best thing we can do for poorer countries.  Chapters Two ("What Supermarkets Don't Want You to Know") and Nine ("Beer, Fries and Globalization") deal directly with the economics of food production in the course of making larger points, but for some of the purposes of this argument, Chapter Eight ("Why Poor Countries Are Poor") and Ten ("How China Got Rich") are also worth reading.

←

I have some trouble digesting this debate.

Seems we have one guy who believes we should go back to the nineteenth century in one corner and a guy who believes that a lobster is equal to a human being, in the other.

Seriously, Pollan is a writer (I will avoid the debate as to his "journalistic" technique) who is contemplating our food supply and delivery and sharing his ruminations with us. Food for thought if you will.

Mackey is certainly ripe for criticism. He is attempting to practice what he preaches. This is where I and he, have very real problems.

My problem with Mackey is that he is not really selling food. He is selling a philosophy. Rather than trying to provide the best quality and tastiest food at good competitive prices, he is selling a moralistic point of view. He is selling production methods and provenance.

It seems that reconciling all the criteria (none of which guarantees quality and flavor) to suit his moral and ethical stance, Mackey faces some real problems. That is stocking his shelves with produce that is ethically correct, from small, organic, local farms. ("Tasty" and "delicious" rarely seem to be used as an important criteria by Mr Mackey).

Seems that all that criteria would be better met by a small, local, food shop or produce stand (read farmer's market) rather than a huge publicly traded operation.

The US is a country of over two hundred (and growing) million people.

We are simply not going to be fed by Whole Foods. We are not going to free range, grass fed, anything. Small local organic farms are wonderful entities but we are just not going to feed everyone this way. Take a drive out into the country--we don't have the land resources.

Pollan takes a decidedly elitist view though his writings can help us think about food and eating and I believe that "industrial" food production can benefit by adapting better methods.

The current rise in small local farms and outlets selling their products is also good--though as I noted --there is a limit to this rise.

As for Whole Foods. They are reaching a point where they can not reconcile their philosophical raison d' etre with their fiscal responsibilities and the resultant volume growth. Something has to give.

My guess is it will be the ethics!

[barritz]

Mackey is certainly ripe for criticism. He is attempting to practice what he preaches. This is where I and he, have very real problems.

My problem with Mackey is that he is not really selling food. He is selling a philosophy. Rather than trying to provide the best quality and tastiest food at good competitive prices, he is selling a moralistic point of view. He is selling production methods and provenance.

←

What's wrong with selling production methods and provenance? A lot of people care how their food is produced. For example, a person might want to buy fair trade coffee, and would like to shop somewhere that supplies it. What's so wrong with that?

[JohnL]

Mackey is certainly ripe for criticism. He is attempting to practice what he preaches. This is where I and he, have very real problems.

My problem with Mackey is that he is not really selling food. He is selling a philosophy. Rather than trying to provide the best quality and tastiest food at good competitive prices, he is selling a moralistic point of view. He is selling production methods and provenance.

←

What's wrong with selling production methods and provenance? A lot of people care how their food is produced. For example, a person might want to buy fair trade coffee, and would like to shop somewhere that supplies it. What's so wrong with that?

←

Nothing really.

Information is a good thing.

However, a lot of the terminology noting provenance and or production methods is vague or mis-used. There is a lot of confusion.

Also terminology often has little or too little or nothing to do with taste and quality.

Even Mouton and Margaux make poor quality wines every now and then.

As for "fair trade" there is even room for confusion here.

Consumers should be aware of food related issues and ask questions and try to

be informed so they can make good decisions for themselves.

I am a bit wary of altruistic labels --really any labels that become selling points.

I do see a benefit in raising awareness of important issues overall though.

Edited July 28, 2006 by JohnL (log)

[rancho_gordo]

The US is a country of over two hundred (and growing) million people.

We are simply not going to be fed by Whole Foods. We are not going to free range, grass fed, anything. Small local organic farms are wonderful entities but we are just not going to feed everyone this way. Take a drive out into the country--we don't have the land resources.

Pollan takes a decidedly elitist view though his writings can help us think about food and eating and I believe that "industrial" food production can benefit by adapting better methods.

The current rise in small local farms and outlets selling their products is also good--though as I noted --there is a limit to this rise.

←

I think the bigger point is the current system isn't working. It is being propped up artificially. If Whole Foods and Pollan and the rest of the food movement want to have adult conversations, listen, consider a few sides of the issue and really put their best minds to work, I don't see how that's a problem. It may be really easy to criticize but it's not a problem. It's a great thing.

[ludja]

...

The US is a country of over two hundred (and growing) million people.

...

←

I know that the exact number of people in the US is besides the point you were trying to make, but just to mention that the US population has already grown a bit past 200 million. It is nearly 300 million, counted as 281 million in the 2000 census and now estimated to be closer to 290 something million. Just an FYI.

[MarketStEl]

It seems that reconciling all the criteria (none of which guarantees quality and flavor) to suit his moral and ethical stance, Mackey faces some real problems. That is stocking his shelves with produce that is ethically correct, from small, organic, local farms. ("Tasty" and "delicious" rarely seem to be used as an important criteria by Mr Mackey).

Seems that all that criteria would be better met by a small, local, food shop or produce stand (read farmer's market) rather than a huge publicly traded operation.

The US is a country of over two hundred (and growing) million people.

We are simply not going to be fed by Whole Foods. We are not going to free range, grass fed, anything. Small local organic farms are wonderful entities but we are just not going to feed everyone this way. Take a drive out into the country--we don't have the land resources.

Pollan takes a decidedly elitist view though his writings can help us think about food and eating and I believe that "industrial" food production can benefit by adapting better methods.

The current rise in small local farms and outlets selling their products is also good--though as I noted --there is a limit to this rise.

As for Whole Foods. They are reaching a point where they can not reconcile their philosophical raison d' etre with their fiscal responsibilities and the resultant volume growth. Something has to give.

My guess is it will be the ethics!

←

You are absolutely right when you note that it is possible to purchase locally produced crap. Despite the arguments, the relationship between location and flavor is not uniform or linear. But on the whole, locally produced unprocessed or minimally processed foods, like produce, are at minimum fresher and often better tasting (think Jersey vs. Florida tomatoes, John).

Of course, the conundrum for the movement is precisely what you point out with your closing remark about Whole Foods. I also have no problem with WFM marketing morality as much as or more than they sell groceries--as John Mackey himself, whose own politics are decidedly libertarian (rather unusual for someone who embraces the food values he does), would note, in a free marketplace, anyone can choose to follow or ignore certain values when buying merchandise. But one of the underlying premises behind the whole local/organic/slow food movement -- sometimes unspoken but there nonetheless -- is that "small is beautiful," to borrow from that famous treatise on "economics as if people mattered." As some of the comments on the thread about Wal-Mart selling organic products--and the chapter on "Big Organic" in Pollan's book--should make clear, for many, "large-scale organic production" is a contradiction in terms. And yet a company like WFM cannot help but stimulate such a thing if it is to be truly national in scope and reach.

Actually, John, if you believe that any of those goals are worthwhile, you should give two cheers for Whole Foods for trying as much as it can to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. That Mackey responded to Pollan's criticism by instructing his store managers to purchase more items "at the back door" to me signals that even if a lot of what WFM does is (as Pollan put it) "supermarket pastoral," he does try to put his ideals into action. You may not agree that those ideals are worth the effort, but I don't think you can call the man who espouses them a hypocrite.

And yet I realize that by your earlier statement about taste, you hold other values in higher esteem. But wouldn't you agree that oftentimes large-scale industrial production removes the flavor and character from many foodstuffs?

[Mallet]

The US is a country of over two hundred (and growing) million people.

We are simply not going to be fed by Whole Foods. We are not going to free range, grass fed, anything. Small local organic farms are wonderful entities but we are just not going to feed everyone this way. Take a drive out into the country--we don't have the land resources.

Pollan takes a decidedly elitist view though his writings can help us think about food and eating and I believe that "industrial" food production can benefit by adapting better methods.

The current rise in small local farms and outlets selling their products is also good--though as I noted --there is a limit to this rise.

←

I think the bigger point is the current system isn't working. It is being propped up artificially. If Whole Foods and Pollan and the rest of the food movement want to have adult conversations, listen, consider a few sides of the issue and really put their best minds to work, I don't see how that's a problem. It may be really easy to criticize but it's not a problem. It's a great thing.

←

What sort of data or feasibility studies exist on this topic? How sustainable is small local and organic (sustainable in terms of sustaining us, and not just the environment)? I've always believed (or been led to believe) that the move towards industrial agriculture was more of a profit issue than a need to meet the needs of an overcrowded country (doesn't the US produce an excess of food?).

[russ parsons]

modern american agricultural policy was established during the Depression, when food shortages were a reality and even famine was a very real possibility. That we don't remember this, or even regard it as unthinkable, is a tribute to how well these policies have worked.

The question now is whether they have worked too well. There are those (including myself) who argue that cheap food has become a problem. But those of us who think this way have a responsibility to remember that our solutions might (almost certainly will have) the same unintended consequences as the policies that were designed to eliminate hunger. we must take care that our fixes don't create even more disastrous problems.

I've said it before, but I really do think we are living in a golden age of food, where those of us who love flavor can find almost anything we want and, if we are willing to pay attention and follow the rules, can find it in very high quality. At the same time, the majority of folks who simply want to fuel efficiently can do so as well.

And, also repeating myself, but this is an important point, it's really important to remember that when we talk about "industrial agriculture" or "corporate agriculture" that we are really oversimplifying a very complex problem. Consider that california produces most of the fruits and vegetables that we eat, yet more than 70% of the farms in the state are smaller than 100 acres and more than 80% are family owned (and that doesn't include family-owned corporations).

The problem is really systemic--it affects every level of the food chain from the growers to the middlemen to the retailers and even (and perhaps most importantly) the consumers, many of whom insist that taste and ethical questions are most important and then shop where they can save a dime a pound.

Edited July 31, 2006 by russ parsons (log)

[Mallet]

Thanks for the reply. I'd love to read a good book on the rise of modern agricultural practice...

As for the current state of affairs, the fact that discussions such as the one between Pollan and WF are occuring is certainly encouraging.If they were happening in the national/international spotlight, I'd be much happier, although one can't help but feel that we're standing on the cusp of some sort of profound change.

[russ parsons]

change is usually hard to see when you're in the middle of it. one of the advantages to being an old guy is that it gives you a little perspective. to me, the discussions we're having about produce today are very much the same as the ones that were occurring in england in the '70s about real beer, and to the ones that were happening here in the '80s about bread and cheese. In none of those cases has good triumphed over crap, but in all of them it has demonstrated that it can be an economically viable alternative.

[JohnL]

It seems that reconciling all the criteria (none of which guarantees quality and flavor) to suit his moral and ethical stance, Mackey faces some real problems. That is stocking his shelves with produce that is ethically correct, from small, organic, local farms. ("Tasty" and "delicious" rarely seem to be used as an important criteria by Mr Mackey).

Seems that all that criteria would be better met by a small, local, food shop or produce stand (read farmer's market) rather than a huge publicly traded operation.

The US is a country of over two hundred (and growing) million people.

We are simply not going to be fed by Whole Foods. We are not going to free range, grass fed, anything. Small local organic farms are wonderful entities but we are just not going to feed everyone this way. Take a drive out into the country--we don't have the land resources.

Pollan takes a decidedly elitist view though his writings can help us think about food and eating and I believe that "industrial" food production can benefit by adapting better methods.

The current rise in small local farms and outlets selling their products is also good--though as I noted --there is a limit to this rise.

As for Whole Foods. They are reaching a point where they can not reconcile their philosophical raison d' etre with their fiscal responsibilities and the resultant volume growth. Something has to give.

My guess is it will be the ethics!

←

You are absolutely right when you note that it is possible to purchase locally produced crap. Despite the arguments, the relationship between location and flavor is not uniform or linear. But on the whole, locally produced unprocessed or minimally processed foods, like produce, are at minimum fresher and often better tasting (think Jersey vs. Florida tomatoes, John).

Of course, the conundrum for the movement is precisely what you point out with your closing remark about Whole Foods. I also have no problem with WFM marketing morality as much as or more than they sell groceries--as John Mackey himself, whose own politics are decidedly libertarian (rather unusual for someone who embraces the food values he does), would note, in a free marketplace, anyone can choose to follow or ignore certain values when buying merchandise. But one of the underlying premises behind the whole local/organic/slow food movement -- sometimes unspoken but there nonetheless -- is that "small is beautiful," to borrow from that famous treatise on "economics as if people mattered." As some of the comments on the thread about Wal-Mart selling organic products--and the chapter on "Big Organic" in Pollan's book--should make clear, for many, "large-scale organic production" is a contradiction in terms. And yet a company like WFM cannot help but stimulate such a thing if it is to be truly national in scope and reach.

Actually, John, if you believe that any of those goals are worthwhile, you should give two cheers for Whole Foods for trying as much as it can to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. That Mackey responded to Pollan's criticism by instructing his store managers to purchase more items "at the back door" to me signals that even if a lot of what WFM does is (as Pollan put it) "supermarket pastoral," he does try to put his ideals into action. You may not agree that those ideals are worth the effort, but I don't think you can call the man who espouses them a hypocrite.

And yet I realize that by your earlier statement about taste, you hold other values in higher esteem. But wouldn't you agree that oftentimes large-scale industrial production removes the flavor and character from many foodstuffs?

←

Good points Sandy.

I believe that large scale "industrial" production can co-exist with small artisanal produced items.

Each can (and do) improve as methods--large scale and small improve.

Maybe I long for retailer/entrepreneurs who are simply concerned with finding and offering the best quality items as opposed to folks like Mr Mackey who is attempting to find quality items that are produced to moral and ethical standards that are at best a bit vague.

Just google "organic" and "health food" and "natural"--there is an ongoing debate as to what these terms mean between absolutists and pragmatists and everyone in between.

I happen to believe that all pesticides are not evil. I also do not believe that animals are equivalent to humans on the food chain. While I am cautious about animals pumped full of antibiotics as a preemptive measure I am also not so worried about cows that get antibiotics when they get sick. I am reasonable. (at least I try to be).

I am all for consumer awareness and education about food production, as long as the hysteria and scare mongering are absent.

I happen to believe that mass produced chickens are often better tasting than many free range (or so called because there's plenty of debate as to just what free range denotes) birds.

I also prefer corn fed beef to grass fed beef.

The same folks who revere fresh made bread often also wax nostalgic over a PB and J on Wonder Bread. I do have a real problem with those who make a case for moral and ethical superiority for some products vs others.

But I really believe that it is good that there are many choices. These choices are due in no small part to people like Pollan and Mackey --so I credit them.

To get back to the Pollan, Mackey debate. Mackey is attempting to sell based upon strict criteria that go well beyond just quality. He is putting himself and WF into the debate over how these criteria are defined (and who will define them). He is bound to be tripped up and to stumble (he may even fall).

Pollan is simply calling Mackey to account.

[Pontormo]

Before I read the book and had little more than the long comparative book review in The New Yorker as a basis for knowledge, I spoke to someone at Whole Foods and asked him if he had heard about Pollan's critique. This was even before any of the three open letters.

He responded with skepticism. A week ago while I was shopping, he looked for me and told me he read and liked the book a lot. He didn't see what the big deal was and felt that Pollan wasn't giving his company too much of a hard time.

Ever since reading the book, he started to buy milk from pasture-grazed cows. "Did you see we're carrying it now?, he asked. "Only 10-20 cents more than the regular organic milk."

He also has made more of a concerted effort to go down to the farmer's market once a week and likes the change a lot.