Showing posts with label Whole Foods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Whole Foods. Show all posts

08 January 2010

BOOKS/ Jonah Raskin : Michael Pollan's 'Food Rules'


We can decide what we want to eat!
Michael Pollan: America’s new Food Czar

By Jonah Raskin / The Rag Blog / January 8, 2010

[Food Rules: An Eater's Manual, by Michael Pollan. (Penguin, Trade Paperback, December 29, 2009, 112 pp, $11.00.]

A few years ago, Berkeley, California, super chef Alice Waters of Chez Panisse fame suggested that Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser run for president and vice president, respectively. That didn’t happen, of course, and who knows what might have occurred if they had campaigned for public office. Perhaps the American public would know more about industrial farming and about the fast food industry than it does now.

Schlosser, the author of Fast Food Nation, has largely disappeared from view for the moment. But Pollan, who has written half-a-dozen books, is more visible than ever before. In fact, he seems to have taken it upon himself to become America’s new food czar. On The Daily Show the first week of January he was certainly acting like the food czar and repeated his familiar mantra to Jon Stewart. “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants,” he said.

In his latest book, Food Rules, which has just been published in a mass market, paperback edition, he sets out 64 rules about eating and diet. Pollan probably has as much of a right as anyone else in America to tell eaters what to put into their bodies and what to avoid.

In Botany of Desire (2001), he described the fascinating history and evolution of four plants -- apples, marijuana, tulips, and potatoes -- and their integral connections to human wants and needs. In Omnivore’s Dilemma (2006), he exposed the pernicious place of corn in agribusiness, and the noxious dependency on corn syrup. He also poked holes in the halo that Whole Foods, the nation-wide food chain, was trying to wear, as though it was a spiritual institution, not a business for profit.

Then, in In Defense of Food (2008), subtitled “An Eater’s Manifesto,” Pollan took on “nutritionism,” and what he calls “the Western Diet.” At the end of that book, he offered 23 suggestions about eating properly, such as “Avoid Food Products that Make Health Claims,” “Shop the Periphery of the Supermarket and Stay Out of the Middle,” and “Eat Mostly Plants, Especially Leaves.”

For his latest book, Food Rules (2010), he has taken his original two dozen suggestions, and boiled them down to their essence. He has also added 41 additional suggestions, such as “Serve a proper portion and don’t go back for seconds,” and stirred them all together to produce a small stew of a book. Food Rules is largely nifty packaging, or rather repackaging. It doesn’t add much that’s new. Pollan’s publisher, Penguin, has also distilled his 64 rules to 10, and has printed them on bookmarks available in stores.

It’s true that Pollan has a certain healthy sense of humor about his rules. “Food Rules” is after all a playful title, and on the last page the author urges readers and eaters to “Break the Rules Once In a While.” Still, Pollan seems to take himself much too seriously. Do Americans really need 64 rules? Probably not! Who is going to remember all 64 and abide by them? Not many people.

Moreover, Pollan doesn’t see that for nearly every one of his rules there are valid exceptions. Sometimes seconds are very much in order. Sometimes it even feels good to pig out at least once in a while. Granted, leaves -- lettuce leaves and spinach leaves -- are good for us. But so are root vegetables. Yams, carrots, turnips, and parsnips are wonderful, nutritious and tasty.

Rules, even food rules, have always been broken; perhaps they’re made to be broken. Pollan’s 64 rules surely will be broken time and again, and while some eaters no doubt appreciate guidelines, the American diet probably won’t really improve until Americans take charge of their own eating habits and don’t turn to so-called experts for advice. The country doesn’t need drug czars or food czars, whether they're self-appointed or appointed to office by a president.

Pollan can be very astute about the food industry, but at times he can also be blind, as when he suggests that Americans “buy a freezer,” and also “pay more, eat less.” The trouble with those two suggestions is that increasingly Americans can’t afford to buy a freezer or to pay more for food.

More Americans are hungry today than they have been in the last decade. Hunger is afoot in the land. More Americans are also relying on food stamps. In the light of those hard realities, Pollan’s suggestions seem like they're aimed at the middle and upper classes -- and are meant for people who can afford freezers.

He’s certainly not as oblivious to hunger as the 18th-century person who said, “Let them eat cake.” (Historians say it probably wasn’t Marie Antoinette.) But sometimes Pollan’s food rules can seem silly, and oblivious to the needs and wants of hungry Americans dependent on food stamps for their very survival.

[Jonah Raskin is the author of Field Days: A Year of Farming, Eating, and Drinking Wine in California (University of California Press).]

Find Food Rules: An Eater's Manual, by Michael Pollan on Amazon.com.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

26 August 2009

Whole Foods : Investment Group Calls for John Mackey's Head


Investment group calls for Mackey's head;
Whole Foods tries damage control

CtW Investment Group calls on Whole Foods board to remove Chair and CEO John Mackey; Says damage caused by WSJ op-ed shows Mackey is a 'liability'
See full text of letter, Below.
The CtW Investment Group called on the Whole Foods Market (NYSE:WFMI) board to remove CEO John Mackey as Chairman and to begin the process of naming a new CEO in a letter to Whole Foods’ lead independent director, Dr. John Elstrott, yesterday afternoon [October 24, 2009]. Citing the risk to Whole Foods’ brand reputation caused by Mr. Mackey’s editorial opposing President Obama’s proposed healthcare reform, CtW urged the board to take immediate action to prevent continued damage in the face of a quickly-growing boycott by Whole Foods’ progressive customer base.

“Mr. Mackey attempted to capitalize on the brand reputation of Whole Foods to champion his personal political views, but has instead deeply offended a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base,” said CtW Investment Group Executive Director Bill Patterson. “This is not the first time Mr. Mackey’s unsanctioned communications have damaged Whole Foods’ image with consumers and investors. At a time when shareholders are looking for Whole Foods’ management to focus on improving operations in an uncertain economy, we can not afford the risk to our Company’s brand reputation caused by Mr. Mackey’s indiscretion. He has become a liability and the board should begin the process of identifying a suitable replacement.”

-- CtW Investment Group
Whole Foods attempts to quell boycott cries

By Alex Palmer / August 26, 2009

Protesters and unhappy customers have taken to the streets and to social networking sites to express their displeasure regarding Whole Foods chief executive John Mackey's recent Wall Street Journal op-ed column. Some are threatening to boycott the store altogether.

The column, which appeared on Aug. 12, was critical of President Obama's healthcare plan. It urged the country to embrace a more free-market healthcare system. "A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to healthcare, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This 'right' has never existed in America," Mackey wrote in the piece.

Today, members of the Washington, D.C.-based United Food and Commercial Workers Union demonstrated outside Whole Foods stores in two locations in Ohio and plan to continue disseminating educational materials to shoppers over the next few weeks.

The group has emphasized the incongruity between Mackey's assertions and the brand image that Whole Foods has built. "Whole Foods has attempted to wrap itself in a progressive image, but when you peel back the layers you see that it is run by an executive who repeatedly pushes extreme positions," said Scott Frotman, spokesman for the union. "Frankly, Mackey's ideology seems more in line with the radical tea baggers harassing people at town hall meetings than the men and women waiting in line to buy organic green tea in his stores."

Online, the playwright Mark Rosenthal's "Boycott Whole Foods" Facebook group now has over 26,000 members. Whole Foods' Facebook page has comments from numerous supporters stating their solidarity with Mackey and commitment to their local stores.

"While Whole Foods Market has no official company-wide position on the healthcare reform issue, we would not want our very successful and sustainable healthcare coverage to be jeopardized," said the company in a statement. "We have heard from individuals who both agree and disagree with John's ideas, as there are many opinions and emotions surrounding the ongoing healthcare reform issue, including lots of differing views here inside of Whole Foods Market. We appreciate those diverse perspectives, but it is unfortunate there is misinformation and confusion out there to cloud John's good intentions."

Whole Foods sent out letters to customers apologizing for any offense that may have been created and started a forum on its Web site for discussion of healthcare reform (Currently it has over 17,000 posts, compared to 249 on favorite recipe swaps.)

Still, consumers are likely to lump the CEO's personal opinion together with the brand. Especially considering Whole Foods has a highly engaged customer base, many of whom are deeply concerned about the issues of health and food, said Amy Shea, global director of Brand Keys. "It becomes problematic for a brand when you have the emotional side firing, and that's what [Mackey] did, he tripped that wire. It's never a good idea for a CEO to do an op-ed piece on such a volatile topic. Of all the topics he could have chosen, he chose one that is very, very close to the space in which the brand participates."

Source / Brandweek / Posted Aug. 24, 2009
Letter from the CtW Investment Group to the Whole Foods Market Board of Directors

August 24, 2009

Dr. John B. Elstrott
Lead Independent Director
c/o Director of Internal Audit
Whole Foods Market
550 Bowie Street,
Austin, TX 78703

Dear Dr. Elstrott:

Events of the past week establish yet again that John Mackey’s lack of personal discipline makes him a liability for Whole Foods Market, Inc. Despite past indications that the board needed to exercise independent oversight of Mr. Mackey and supervise his external communications closely – most notably his postings on the Yahoo! Finance bulletin board, which led to an SEC inquiry – you and your fellow directors failed to take meaningful action to prevent Mr. Mackey’s uncompensated brand and reputational risk to our Company.

The board must now recognize that managing reputational risk is central to building shareholder value at Whole Foods and act accordingly. Replacing Mr. Mackey as Chairman and CEO is the critical first step in this process. We first raised questions regarding Mr. Mackey’s leadership in a July 25, 2007 letter to you in which we called on the board to immediately remove him as Chairman and determine what additional steps were warranted in response to Mr. Mackey’s ill-advised Yahoo! Finance postings. As a result of the board’s inaction, Mr. Mackey’s indiscretion has continued to place our Company’s brand reputation at risk. We therefore call on the board to immediately undertake the following:
  • Immediately remove Mr. Mackey as Chairman of the Board.

  • Establish and disclose to shareholders a clear succession plan so that he can be removed expeditiously from his position as CEO as soon as feasible; the plan should detail how the board intends to ensure that CEO succession is a routine topic of discussion by the board, there is an emphasis on development of internal candidates while remaining open to external candidates, all board members are given exposure to internal candidates, and that there is both a long-term perspective to address expected CEO transition periods and a short-term perspective to address crisis management in the event of death, disability, or an untimely departure of the CEO.

  • Quickly implement a board policy and process for supervision of executive communications in order to ensure that Mr. Mackey can cause no further damage to Whole Foods’ brand and reputation in his remaining time with the company.

  • Commit to issuing a thorough and exacting annual review of all political or partisan uses of corporate resources, including a justification of any such expenditure, and make this review publically available.
The CtW Investment Group works with pension funds sponsored by unions affiliated with Change to Win, a federation of unions representing nearly 6 million members, to enhance long-term shareholder returns through active ownership. These funds are substantial long-term Whole Foods shareholders.

Whole Foods’ Unique Strength and Vulnerability

Whole Foods is the leading national provider of natural and organic foods, and as such has benefitted from growing environmental and health consciousness among affluent urban consumers. However, this leading position makes Whole Foods uniquely vulnerable to disaffection from these core customers if they perceive that the company is not managed in a manner consistent with their values. Following the publication of Mr. Mackey’s op-ed piece opposing President Obama’s health care reform proposal on August 16, 2009, Whole Foods customers have reacted with outrage: at least 26,000 have now joined a Whole Foods Boycott page on Facebook. Numerous commentators have noted that a boycott of Whole Foods by politically progressive customers could cause a significant loss of shareholder value. We note with apprehension that the Company’s letter of apology to customers – the necessity of which reinforces our concerns – appears to have done nothing to soften the backlash against Mr. Mackey, and unfortunately, Whole Foods itself.

While we respect Mr. Mackey’s First Amendment right to express his political views, as he did for instance in noting that the Constitution contains no “right” to health care, we hasten to point out that neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution give Mr. Mackey or any other CEO the right to retain their position regardless of behavior or performance. Moreover, Mr. Mackey’s article was not a citizen’s “letter to the editor,” but a lengthy op-ed that explicitly tied him to Whole Foods by identifying him as the CEO. Given Whole Foods’ unique exposure to a key segment of the customer base, Mr. Mackey’s decision to express his views in such a public way, and on an issue of such enormous moment, seems ill-advised at best.

As noted above, we first called on the board to remove Mr. Mackey as chairman and to evaluate his suitability as director and CEO in a letter to you over two years ago. In that letter, we specifically called the board to investigate whether Mr. Mackey’s Yahoo! Finance postings violated Whole Foods’ code of conduct and to establish clear disciplinary policies for unsanctioned executive communications. Unfortunately, you failed to take any meaningful action, and now Whole Foods shareholders again face potentially damaging fallout from unmanaged and uncompensated reputational risk.

Similar inaction now is unacceptable. The board must act immediately to address the burgeoning crisis caused by Mr. Mackey’s undisciplined behavior or shareholders will have little option but to conclude that you and your fellow directors are unable or unwilling to hold management accountable.

Sincerely,

William Patterson
Director

CC: Whole Foods Market Board of Directors

Source / CTW Investment Group
Thanks to Roger Baker / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

25 August 2009

Backlash : Whole Foods Rep Takes Serious Dip

Whole Foods Buzz

As the Whole Foods Boycott grows on Facebook, brand perception is dropping

By Jennifer Van Grove / August 25, 2009

As the Whole Foods Boycott on Facebook continues to swell -- the group now has over 27,000 members -- we’re finding out that CEO John Mackey’s statements in The Wall Street Journal are affecting more than just angry Facebookers, but consumers in general.

According to YouGov’s BrandIndex, which tracks the daily consumer perception of brands, consumer opinion towards Whole Foods has been falling fast on the Web since the editorial appeared.

YouGov scores brands from 100 to -100, with zero being neutral, based on daily interviews from respondents, and they track the change in the score to show a rise or decline in overall brand perception.

Their buzz chart is a reflection of how buzz perception changes over time. They ask consumers, “If you’ve heard anything about the brand in the last two weeks, was it positive or negative?” Their results indicate that Whole Foods had a buzz score of 22.8 on August 12th, and that score fell to 13.6 by August 20th. That’s almost a 10 point drop in just over a week.

Whole Foods Rep
The reputation chart is scored in the same manner, but asks respondents, “Would you be proud or embarrassed to work for this brand?” According to their research, the reputation score is suffering even more. On August 12th Whole Foods had a 33.3 score, but by the 20th they were down to 20.3.

Can the results be trusted? Well, according to the firm, “YouGov’s BrandIndex interviews 5,000 people each weekday from a representative US population sample, more than 1.2 million interviews per year. Respondents are drawn from an online panel of more than 1MM individuals. Margin of error is a very accurate +/- 2%.”

While we take no sides on the issue, it’s hard not to attribute at least some of the drop in consumer perception to the vocal Facebook group that has emerged in the aftermath of the CEO’s Wall Street Journal op-ed. Should YouGov’s research be as accurate as it claims to be, then Whole Foods definitely needs to be concerned about this social media backlash that’s negatively impacting consumer opinion.

Source / Mashable

For previous Rag Blog articles on Whole Foods and founder John Mackey, go here.

Thanks to David P. Hamilton / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

12 August 2009

Whole Foods Founder John Mackey : Reactionary on Health Care Reform


Whole Foods founder John Mackey speaks out against health care reform in Wall Street Journal

...we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction -- toward less government control and more individual empowerment -- Whole Foods founder John Mackey.
By Aptoklas / August 12, 2009

The typical Whole Foods customer tends to be educated, liberal and urbane and I would venture to guess supportive of President Obama and his attempt to reform health care so the richest country on earth no longer has a health care system ranked 37 in terms of coverage and efficiency. It is cruel that we are the only industrialized country on earth that does not mandate universal healthcare coverage for our citizens.

Whole Foods advertises their values as including:
Caring about our communities & our environment
Whole Foods does not care about the members of its communities who need true health care reform. It comes as a shock that John Mackey, Co-Founder and CEO of Whole Foods has an OpEd in todays Wall Street Journal titled: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare

He offers talking points straight out of the GOP and Health Insurance lobby play book such as:
the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction -- toward less government control and more individual empowerment.
He in essence recommends high deductible policies i.e. $2,500-5,000 with HSA's. He also advocates the end of consumers having the rights to file lawsuits.

He also states that state laws should be curtailed that mandate the type of coverage Insurance Companies should be required to offer. Pray tell what mandates is he referring to? Cancer treatments, mammograms?

Whole Foods is known to be anti-union. Their founder has now thrown down the gauntlet and shown them to be anti-progressive and frankly a threat to the health and well being of millions who do not have health insurance and those who could barely afford it. So much for being a "Holistic Caring Company."

It’s up to you to decide whether to frequent this store but remember, their superficial catering to liberal sensibilities is enriching those opposed to all you hold sacred.

Up to you if you want to be taken for a sucker.

Feel free to contact them:
U.S. National Offices
World Headquarters
Whole Foods Market, Inc.
550 Bowie Street
Austin, TX 78703-4644
512.477.4455
512.477.5566 voicemail
512.482.7000 fax
Source / Daily Kos

For previous Rag Blog articles on Whole Foods Market, the increasingly reactionary politics and policies embraced by founder John Mackey and the increasingly conventional nature of the "organic" giant's inventory, go here.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

09 July 2009

Organic Alternative and the Whole Foods Fraud


The organic monopoly and the myth of 'natural' foods:

How industry giants are undermining the organic movement

On non-meat products, the term natural is typically pure propaganda. Companies (like Whole Foods Market or UNFI) are simply telling us what we want to hear, so that we pay an organic or premium price for a conventional product.
By Ronnie Cummins / July 9, 2009

The organic alternative: A matter of survival

After four decades of hard work, the organic community has built up a $25 billion "certified organic" food, farming, and green products sector. This consumer-driven movement, under steady attack by the biotech and Big Food lobby, with little or no help from government, has managed to create a healthy and sustainable alternative to America's disastrous, chemical and energy-intensive system of industrial agriculture.

Conscious of the health hazards of Big Food Inc., and the mortal threat of climate change and Peak Oil, a critical mass of organic consumers are now demanding food and other products that are certified organic, as well as locally or regionally produced, minimally processed, and packaged.

The Organic Alternative, in turn, is bolstered by an additional $50 billion in annual spending by consumers on products marketed as "natural," or "sustainable." This rapidly expanding organic/green products sector -- organic (4% of total retail sales) and natural (8%) -- now constitutes more than 12% of total retail grocery sales, with an annual growth rate of 10-15%. Even taking into account what appears to be a permanent economic recession and a lower rate of growth than that seen over the past 20 years, the organic and natural market will likely constitute 31-56% of grocery sales in 2020.

If the Organic Alternative continues to grow, and if consumers demand that all so-called "natural" products move in a genuine, third party-certified "transition to organic" direction, the U.S. will be well on its way to solving three of the nation's most pressing problems: climate change, deteriorating public health, and Peak Oil.

Sales statistics and polls underline the positive fact that a vast army of organic consumers, more than 75 million Americans, despite an economic recession, are willing to pay a premium price for organic and green products. These consumers are willing to pay a premium because they firmly believe that organic and natural products are healthier, climate stabilizing, environmentally sustainable, humane for animals, and well as more equitable for family farmers, farmworkers, and workers throughout the supply chain.

Many of the most committed organic consumers are conscious of the fact that organic food and other products are actually "cheaper" in real terms than conventional food and other items-since industrial agriculture's so-called "cheap" products carry hidden costs, including billions of dollars in annual tax subsidies, and hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to our health, the environment, and climate.

Strengthening the argument for organic food and farming, scientists now tell us that it will take a massive conversion to organic agriculture (as well as renewable energy, sustainable housing and transportation) to drastically reduce climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million and to cope with the advent of "Peak Oil," the impending decline in petroleum and natural gas supplies.

Organic food and a healthy diet and lifestyle are obviously key factors in preventing chronic disease, restoring public health, and reducing out-of-control health care costs. While in 1970, U.S. health care spending appeared somewhat sustainable, totaling $75 billion, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services project that by 2016, health care spending will soar to over $4.1 trillion, or $12,782 per resident.

Millions of health-minded Americans, especially parents of young children, now understand that cheap, non-organic, industrial food is hazardous. Not only does chemical and energy-intensive factory farming destroy the environment, impoverish rural communities, exploit farm workers, inflict unnecessary cruelty on farm animals, and contaminate the water supply; but the end product itself is inevitably contaminated.

Plane spreads pesticides, adding to the contamination of non-organic food.

Routinely contained in nearly every bite or swallow of non-organic industrial food are pesticides, antibiotics and other animal drug residues, pathogens, feces, hormone disrupting chemicals, toxic sludge, slaughterhouse waste, genetically modified organisms, chemical additives and preservatives, irradiation-derived radiolytic chemical by-products, and a host of other hazardous allergens and toxins.

Eighty million cases of food poisoning every year in the US, an impending swine/bird flu pandemic (directly attributable to factory farms), and an epidemic of food-related cancers, heart attacks, and obesity make for a compelling case for the Organic Alternative.

Likewise millions of green-minded consumers understand that industrial agriculture poses a terminal threat to the environment and climate stability. A highly conscious and passionate segment of the population are beginning to understand that converting to non-chemical, energy-efficient, carbon-sequestering organic farming practices, and drastically reducing food miles by relocalizing the food chain, are essential preconditions for stabilizing our out-of-control climate and preparing our families and communities for Peak Oil and future energy shortages.

Decades of research confirm that organic agriculture produces crop yields that are comparable (under normal weather conditions) or even 50-70% superior (during droughts or excessive rain) to chemical farming. Nutritional studies show that organic crops are qualitatively higher in vitamin content and trace minerals, and that fresh unprocessed organic foods boost the immune system and reduce cancer risks.

And, of course climate scientists emphasize that organic agriculture substantially reduces greenhouse pollution. Organic farms use, on the average, 50% or less petroleum inputs than chemical farms, while generating drastically less greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. Moreover diverse, multi-crop organic farms sequester enormous amounts of CO2 in the soil. Agronomists point out that a return to traditional organic farming practices across the globe could reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 40%.

In other words, America and the world desperately need an Organic Revolution in food and farming, not only to salvage public health and improve nutrition, but also in order to literally survive in the onrushing era of Peak Oil and climate change.


Scientists, as well as common sense, warn us that a public health Doomsday Clock is ticking. Within a decade, diet and environment-related diseases, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer-heavily subsidized under our Big Pharma/chemical/genetically engineered/factory farm system-will likely bankrupt Medicare and the entire U.S. health care system.

Likewise, climate chaos and oil shortages, unless we act quickly, will soon severely disrupt industrial agriculture and long-distance food transportation, leading to massive crop failures, food shortages, famine, war, and pestilence. Even more alarming, accelerating levels of greenhouse gases (especially from cars, coal, cattle, and related rainforest and wetlands destruction) will soon push global warming to a tipping point that will melt the polar icecaps and unleash a cataclysmic discharge of climate-destabilizing methane, fragilely sequestered in the frozen arctic tundra.

If we care about our children and the future generations, we obviously must reverse global warming, stabilize the climate, and prepare for petroleum shortages and vastly higher oil prices. The only way to do this is to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 90% by 2050, by shifting away from petroleum and coal-based energy to radical energy conservation and making a transition to renewable solar and wind power-not only in transportation, housing, and industry, but in farming, food processing, and food distribution as well.

In the food sector, we cannot continue to hand over 88% of our consumer dollars to out-of-control, chemical-intensive, energy-intensive, greenhouse gas polluting corporations and "profit at any cost" retail chains such as Wal-Mart. The growth of the Organic Alternative is literally a matter of survival. The question then becomes how (and how quickly) can we move healthy, organic, and "natural" products from a 12% market share, to becoming the dominant force in American food and farming. This is a major undertaking, one that will require a major transformation in public consciousness and policy, but it is doable, and absolutely necessary.

But before we overthrow Monsanto, Wal-Mart, and Food Inc., we need to put our own house in order. Before we set our sights on making organic and "transition to organic" the norm, rather than the alternative, we need to take a closer, more critical look at the $50 billion annual natural food and products industry.

How natural is the so-called natural food in our local Whole Foods Market, coop, or grocery store? Is the "natural" sector moving our nation toward an organic future, or has it degenerated into a "green washed" marketing tool, disguising unhealthy and unsustainable food and farming practices as alternatives. Is "natural" just a marketing ploy to sell conventional-unhealthy, energy-intensive, and non-sustainable food and products at a premium price?

The myth of natural food, farming, and products

Walk down the aisles of any Whole Foods Market (WFM) or browse the wholesale catalogue of industry giant United Natural Foods (UNFI) and look closely. What do you see? Row after row of attractively displayed, but mostly non-organic "natural" (i.e. conventional) foods and products. By marketing sleight of hand, these conventional foods, vitamins, private label "365" items, and personal care products become "natural" or "almost organic" (and overpriced) in the Whole Foods setting.

Whole Foods: Row after row of 'natural' foods.

The overwhelming majority of WFM products, even their best-selling private label, "365" house brand, are not organic, but rather the products of chemical-intensive and energy-intensive farm and food production factories. Test these so-called natural products in a lab and what will you find: pesticide residues, Genetically Modified Organisms, and a long list of problematic and/or carcinogenic synthetic chemicals and additives.

Trace these products back to the farm or factory and what will you find: climate destabilizing chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, and sewage sludge-not to mention exploited farm workers and workers in the food processing industry. Of course there are many products in WFM (and in UNFI's catalogue} that bear the label "USDA Organic." But the overwhelming majority of their products, even their best selling private label, "365," are not.

What does certified organic or "USDA Organic" mean? This means these products are certified 95-100% organic. Certified organic means the farmer or producer has undergone a regular inspection of its farm, facilities, ingredients, and practices by an independent Third Party certifier, accredited by the USDA National Organic Program (NOP).

The producer has followed strict NOP regulations and maintained detailed records. Synthetic pesticides, animal drugs, sewage sludge, GMOs, irradiation, and chemical fertilizers are prohibited. Farm animals, soil, and crops have been managed organically; food can only be processed with certain methods; only allowed ingredients can be used.

On the other hand, what does "natural" really mean, in terms of farming practices, ingredients, and its impact on the environment and climate? To put it bluntly, "natural," in the overwhelming majority of cases is meaningless, even though most consumers do not fully understand this. Natural, in other words, means conventional, with a green veneer.

Natural products are routinely produced using pesticides, chemical fertilizer, hormones, genetic engineering, and sewage sludge. Natural or conventional products-whether produce, dairy, or canned or frozen goods are typically produced on large industrial farms or in processing plants that are highly polluting, chemical-intensive and energy-intensive.

"Natural," "all-natural," and "sustainable," products in most cases are neither backed up by rules and regulations, nor a Third Party certifier. Natural and sustainable are typically label claims that are neither policed nor monitored. (For an evaluation of eco-labels see the Consumers Union website). The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service provides loose, non-enforced guidelines for the use of the term "natural" on meat--basically the products cannot contain artificial flavors, coloring, or preservatives and cannot be more than minimally processed.

Cruel and unusual.

On non-meat products, the term natural is typically pure propaganda. Companies (like Whole Foods Market or UNFI) are simply telling us what we want to hear, so that we pay an organic or premium price for a conventional product. Perhaps this wouldn't matter that much if we were living in normal times, with a relatively healthy population, environment, and climate. Conventional products sold as natural or "nearly organic" would be a simple matter of chicanery or consumer fraud. But we are not living in normal times.

Pressuring natural and conventional products and producers to make the transition to organic is a matter of life or death. And standing in the way of making this great transition are not only Fortune 500 food and beverage corporations, Monsanto, and corporate agribusiness, as we would expect, but the wholesale and retail giants in the organic and natural products sector, UNFI (United Natural Foods) and Whole Foods Market (WFM).

UNFI and Whole Foods: Profits at any cost

UNFI and Whole Foods Market are the acknowledged market and wholesale distribution leaders in the $70 billion organic and natural foods and products sector. Companies or brands that want to distribute their products on more than just a local or regional basis must deal with the near-monopoly wholesaler, UNFI, and giant retailer WFM. Meanwhile retailers in markets dominated by Whole Foods have little choice but to emulate the business practices of WFM -- i.e. sell as many conventional foods, green washed as "natural," as possible.

Unfortunately neither UNFI and Whole Foods are putting out the essential message to their millions of customers that expanding organics is literally a matter of life or death for public health, climate, and the environment. Neither is leading the charge to double or triple organic food and farming sales by exposing the myth of natural foods, giving preference to organic producers and products, and pressuring natural brands and companies to make the transition to organic. Neither are the industry giants lobbying the government to stop nickel and dime-ing organics and get serious about making a societal transition to organic food and farming.

Organic Carrots. Photo © Rebekah Burgess / Dreamstime.com / Organic Feast.

The reason for this is simple: it is far easier and more profitable for UNFI and WFM to sell conventional or so-called natural foods at a premium price, than it is to pay a premium price for organics and educate consumers as to why "cheap" conventional/natural food is really more expensive than organic, given the astronomical hidden costs (health, pollution, climate destabilization) of conventional agriculture and food processing.

UNFI has cemented this "WFM/Conventional as Natural" paradigm by emulating conventional grocery store practices: giving WFM preferential prices over smaller stores and coops ---many of whom are trying their best to sell as many certified organic and local organic products as possible. Compounding this undermining of organics is the increasing practice among large organic companies of dropping organic ingredients in favor of conventional ingredients, while maintaining their preferential shelf space in WFM or UNFI-supplied stores.

In other words the most ethical and organic (often smaller) grocers and producers are being discriminated against. WFM also demands, and in most cases receives, a large quantity of free products from producers in exchange for being distributed in WFM markets.

The unfortunate consequence of all this is that it's very difficult for an independently-owned grocer or a coop trying to sell mostly organic products to compete with, or even survive in the same market as WFM, given the natural products "Sweetheart Deal" between UNFI and WFM.

As a consequence more and more independently owned "natural" grocery stores and coops are emulating the WFM model, while a number of brand name, formerly organic, companies are moving away from organic ingredients (Silk soy milk, Horizon, Hain, and Peace Cereal for example) or organic practices (the infamous intensive confinement dairy feedlots of Horizon and Aurora) altogether, while maintaining a misleading green profile in the UNFI/WFM marketplace.

Other companies, in the multi-billion dollar body care sector for example, are simply labeling their conventional/natural products as "organic" or trade-marking the word "organic" or "organics" as part of their brand name.

The bottom line is that we must put our money and our principles where our values lie. Buy Certified Organic, not so-called natural products, today and everyday. And tell your retail grocer or coop how you feel. Please join thousands of other Organic Consumers and send a message to Whole Foods and UNFI today.

[Ronnie Cummins is National Director of the Organic Consumers Association.]

Source / CommonDreams

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.