x
  • Bookmark and ShareShare
  • Earn Points
    What's this?
The Whole Foods boycott conundrum
Whole Foods helped to galvanize a nation of progressive shoppers, and now they're mad as heck.
Sun, Aug 16 2009 at 4:41 PM
 66

Image: Whole Foods Boycott

John's Mackey's out of "right field" op ed piece last week in the Wall Street Journal, which condemned Obama's health care plan, probably surprised Republicans more than the millions of characteristically uber-liberal Whole Foods shoppers.
 
Why, after carefully building the integrity of the Whole Foods brand as THE exemplary brand in the socially and environmentally conscious world of green business, would you throw it all out for a totally off-brand personal (one might say vain) statement by the man who is supposed to represent everything that the company stands for?
 
It just doesn't make good business sense.
 
By some estimation (check out Keith Olbermann) the Whole Foods demographic doesn’t just skew left; it is left -- by a factor of about 10:1 (or more).
 
Even though the environmental movement and the social justice movement are indeed two individual movements with different points of view, in the mind of the “conscious” consumer (the marketing term for people who shop at Whole Foods) the two movements have not only converged, they are one in the same.
 
As I just blogged about in my piece “Is Hate Green?” (detailing the challenge facing companies like GE and Wal-Mart who have green missions but still fund radical hate speech) corporations need to take this trend very seriously.
 
The Internet has allowed consumers to get more and more informed about the rift between what companies SAY and what companies DO. A good marketing campaign can no longer cover up issues like child labor abuses or toxic chemical additives.
 
Now, a whole host of blogs, web directories, forums, and apps (like The Good Guide) offer the consumer an at-a-glance inventory of a company’s laundry – both dirty and clean.
 
And as more and more companies adopt CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) plans, progressive consumers are coming to expect, even demand transparency and integrity of the companies they patronize, especially at the upper levels of management.
 
Now back to Whole Foods, Health Care and the preposterous conspiracy theory, now perpetuated by Mackey, that Obama’s plan is going to somehow turn the U.S (with all its minions of pampered Whole Foods shoppers) into a Lenin-era Soviet republic. 
 
Whether you’re Republican, Libertarian, or Democrat, you still have to agree that many social service industries should continue to be socialized (i.e. funded by the public) – public education, law enforcement, fire departments, highways, Medicare, etc, etc. Public education will not do away with private schools any more than a public health care option will kill private health care.
 
So why all the hullabaloo? The U.S is the richest country in the world, yet it consistently shows up at the bottom of every list on health care, lagging far behind even relatively poor industrialized nations (like Slovenia).
 
Clearly our fully privatized medical system is not working. Doctors aren't happy. Patients aren't happy. The uninsured certainly aren't happy, and the cataclysmic doctor bills that many families now face are contributing to a weak economy. So why not let our elected officials do their job and come up with an alternative? That’s what we pay them for. 
 
If you ask me why there is so much controversy it boils down one thing and one thing only – the end of corporate rule in America.
 
Many corporations – in the financial services (remember the trillion $ bailout?), in the manufacturing sector (remember all those outsourced jobs?), and now in health care -- are furious that they can no longer continue to monopolize their industries at the expense of the American people. And they are spending a lot of money (some estimates say $54 million was spent last week alone in health care PR) to lobby our politicians and confuse the public so that they can continue on in unregulated glory.
 
But I have news for them. It’s not going to work.
 
Environmentally and socially conscious consumers have woken up to their power. Ironically, Whole Foods was a big part of that awakening. Consumers came in droves to Whole Foods, paying higher prices for organic and sustainable products, proving a business model that defied conventional business logic.
 
10 years later, even Safeway has an Organics section. So now that 'conscious consumers' have had the taste of power, I don't think they will be giving it up anytime in the near future. 
 
If you doubt me, just look at Whole Food’s sales numbers.
 
If you want to learn more about the Whole Foods boycott which is now in full swing (I just popped my head into one and the place was a dead zone!) check out the Facebook group (which just started a couple days ago and already has 10,000 members). There are also several websites like Common Dreams and the Progressive Review now calling for a formal boycott.

The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Comments: 66
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
anonymous
logicprobe Aug 18 2009 at 12:17 AM

What if the people employed by Whole Foods really like the type of health care benefits the company provides? How does that fit into the core values that you assert Mackey is somehow "going against".

|
anonymous
Guest Aug 17 2009 at 1:41 AM

Did you say anything? Who are you for? Or against? Or does it matter to you now that you've wasted 4 minutes of my good time? Here's a suggestion for your next post: Try a point.

|
anonymous
somedude Aug 17 2009 at 1:38 AM

I don't get it. The Mackey article makes a lot of sense. Those sane arguments are what is causing people to want to boycott? I should hurt the employees at Whole Foods for that?

By the way, much our healthcare spending is controlled by the government, and our system is not "fully privatized" as this post states.

|
anonymous
Guest Aug 17 2009 at 1:34 AM
The problem is that there aren't many Whole Foods-like stores out there to go to. Trader Joes? not quite even though I go there partly. If you're lucky, your corner privately-owned health food stores maybe? I still value my health with the healthiest foods I can get, even though I don't buy too much but just the essential organics. Revert to the conventional genetically-modified supermarkets? Of course not. I think for me was how he started the opinion piece with Thatcher's quote and uses the word
.... More
Obamacare, which makes him sound like the protestors out there. But in the end, the man is entitled to his opinion, if it is just that. Let's not go overboard and end up like the selfish Republicans. He's not exactly Karl Rove, you know.
|
anonymous
indi Aug 17 2009 at 1:25 AM

So why the liberals are against Mackey, just because he has a solution that is different from the Obama's? Please, talk about the solutions and everyone should try to contribute. Mackey offers a solution that is very very appealing to me. Boycotting Whole Food is childish and serves no purpose. And it shows how narrow minded the left is. There is a lot of waste and unjust in the current system. We should get rid of them first. Introducing another entitlement is not going to solve the problems.

|
anonymous
Guest Aug 17 2009 at 1:22 AM

The word is spelled "vain," not "vane."

|
anonymous
Melissa Aug 17 2009 at 10:18 AM

I noticed that, too. Does this site employ any copy editors? Having incorrect grammar, spelling, or punctuation detracts from your argument.

|
anonymous
Guest Aug 17 2009 at 1:02 AM
I read Mr. Mackey's article, and really have to say it makes sense to me. This is a man whose company provides some of the best working conditions and benefits in the world for unskilled workers. So it is experience on his part, not just personal opinion. For most of the rest of us it is only opinion, unless we have studied the economics of the matter. I don't normally shop at Whole Foods (vs. local grocery) because it costs me more time, $$, and gasoline to get there, but I think I will make the
.... More
effort.
|
anonymous
Guest Aug 17 2009 at 12:47 AM
Everything I do and say is done with the full knowledge that I represent the company. My opinions are not intended for the public. Anything that I say in public is expected to be representative of the business and in the best interest of the business. Prudence is very important to maintaining relationships. Everyday we must make decisions and choices. Sometimes those are choices that are possibly not in line with our own personal opinions, however as the CEO you represent the business. You
.... More
are the face of the business and as such must place the interest of the company ahead of your personal beliefs. I know my clients and customers. I work to maintain those relationships even with the ones that I disagree because it is not about me and my beliefs. I hope that something has been learned from this by every CEO. Know who your customers are and work to maintain those relationships. If you must speak your personal opinion. Quit first so that you spare the company the embarassment of cleaning up messes such as this. He either did not care that his customers were primarily liberal or did not know. In either case...quite poor.
|
anonymous
Bob Skinner Aug 17 2009 at 12:46 AM

The ugly truth about those on the far left, mindless drones who think all should be in lock step with their leaders.

|
anonymous
BenjaminFranklin Aug 17 2009 at 12:41 AM

Boycott Whole Foods! I know I'm going to, and I consider asking other to do the same to be my legitimate right to free speech. Stop enriching those who use your money to defeat the kind of enlightened health care system which has by no means led to communism nor ended capitalism in Western Europe. There are still plenty of mega yachts, mansions, and chauffeur driven cars in Europe despite compassionate and equitable health care systems.

|
anonymous
Losing Faith Aug 17 2009 at 12:25 AM
It is shocking to me that we no longer allow others to have opinions that differ from ours. We should be allowed to have opinions different than theirs, but the converse it not true. The result is crazy ideas like boycotting a business because the CEO dared to voice his opinion on an issue that will impact us all. I love the idea of having health insurance coverage for everyone. It is an admirable goal with only one small issue, human nature. I keep looking for a model that works. Please don't tell
.... More
me about European or Canadian models. They are not working. I want to believe that there is a way to pull such a plan off, but my youthful belief in government for the people has given away to a reality based cynicism. The government doesn't do much well or efficiently. Why we continue to believe that it will just because a politician makes a promise is beyond me. Actually, it's not. It is human nature to make decisons and base beliefs on what we "hope for" and not what is. Like children, when we hear what we want might not happen, we throw fits...and apparently boycott stores. I'm not sure why folks are so upset at Mr. Mackey for posting his ideas for improving health care. It is based on real life experience. I'll give him this, at least it is tangible and understandable. There is something to consider other than a call for change. I have no idea what President Obama and Congress are proposing other than change. I'm not sure what we are even debating since neither has actually shown us a plan to debate. Whole Foods treats it's employees well and is a great example of being a globally responsible corporation. Now, I'm supposed to boycott it because the CEO doesn't think like me? If that is so, our future will not be brighter. We will slowly spiral down culturally as we become more divided and unwilling to discuss or consider oppossing viewpoints. You can boycott the store if you want, but please don't pretend you have any great hold on intellectual honsety or the ability to critically consider an issue. You don't.
|
anonymous
Guest Aug 17 2009 at 2:59 AM
"The government doesn't do much well or efficiently." You are so right! Because you drive on dirt freeways, libraries only let you check out pornography, the fire department puts out fires with squirt guns, the police laugh in the face of a crime underway, lifeguards let people drown and work on their sun tan instead, the U.S. Postal Service carrier throws your mail in the garbage the minute he leaves the post office, public school teachers deal drugs from the front of the class...I know, the government
.... More
sucks! None of those government-run systems work at all! Clearly things would be much better if they privatized things, like they did with energy. Enron did a MUCH better job and really looked out for people when they took energy out of the hands of government and put it in the hands of the private sector. Ah, Enron. Good times.
|
anonymous
Guest Aug 17 2009 at 2:48 AM
"Please don't tell me about European or Canadian models. They are not working." Where in Europe and Canada do you live? I'm assuming you have a great deal of firsthand experience with those systems. Me too! Always saw a doctor in Holland right away. It was always covered 100%. My aunt passed away of stomach cancer two months ago. She had two surgeries to prolong her life by just a few weeks that would certainly have been rejected by every insurance company here, because they were acknowledged to
.... More
be unhelpful besides giving her some extra time. The Dutch healthcare system paid for the surgeries, 100%. She wanted to be at home in her last weeks instead of the hospital, so a hospital bed was brought in with I.V. drips of morphine and a catheter, etc. She had round-the-clock hospice care from personal nurses who all came to her funeral when she finally passed. Gues what? This "not working" system you speak of (and clearly know not of personally) paid for 100% of all of the above. Everything. Here in the U.S. a family would be bankrupted by that kind of hospice care. I have never spoken to a European or Canadian who dislikes their healthcare system. So I don't know what you are basing this "not working" comment on. Heresay from right-wing pundits, is my guess, who cherry pick the few stories they can find where something went wrong. I can tell you having lived there, that is not the norm. Incidentally, the Dutch pay 7% of their income to cover public healthcare, and have 100% coverage. I pay 20% of my income to insurance premiums, and get 80% coverage. Now, you may not be the best in math, but I will make it easier on you: Their system is a much better deal! You know what might ease the right's mind? Why don't we call the public healthcare money a "premium" and not a "tax". Apparently the opponents of public healthcare would rather hand over their entire paycheck if we call it a premium, but the minute you label it a "tax", they won't let go of a dime, even for better services. It's rather ridiculous. So let's just obscure the word, kind of like not saying the word "broccoli" to a child when they ask what the green stuff on their plate is. As far as Whole Foods' "great" health plan, a high deductible insurance plan for low-wage earners is not a fantastic plan, since anything besides a catastrophic incident comes 100% out of their pockets. You think they will see a doctor when they have the flu, feel a weird lump, need a checkup, etc., when they know it will cost them half their paycheck to do so? No. They will not be paying for preventative care. Those people end up in the emergency room or in the hospital when their ailments progress, and they cannot pay the bill. So guess where it comes from in the long run anyway? YOUR TAXES.
|
anonymous
Guest Aug 17 2009 at 1:54 PM
Taxation on the Dutch: "34.15% for the first €17,046, out of which the greatest percentage (31.70%) is held by social security contributions; then they increase at 41.45% in the case of the following €13,585, out of which, once again, social security holds the same percentage; then at 42% for the following €21,597, where social security contributions are no longer registered, tax is the single issue here; and finally, for whatever exceeds the last threshold, the belasting percentage reaches
.... More
the point of 52%." http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Belasting--income-tax-in-the-Net.... Wow, such a bargain!
|
anonymous
Amy Rowan Aug 17 2009 at 1:01 AM
Regarding Losing Faith's comment, I certainly respect the right Whole Food's CEO has to his opinion. Mr. Mackey can sing from the rafters whatever he so believes regarding the health care debate. I, however, have the right not to shop at his stores. Period. I put my money where my mouth is. I don't agree with his position so I will instead spend my hard earned money somewhere that can positively affect a community in a way that I think is best for said community. This does not imply debate,
.... More
discourse, or intellectual curiosity is dead. It merely shows that the capitalist system works. In any case, I seriously doubt the people who are in dire need of health care (let's not forget, the whole purpose of health care reform is to ensure that an entire under served population can get affordable coverage) are dropping 20 bucks on fancy organic cheese.
|
anonymous
logicprobe Aug 17 2009 at 12:23 AM
Mackey's op-ed piece offered a legitimate alternative and a real-world example of it working. What we have today is not insurance; it is more like a pre-paid medical plan. I wish my company offered medical insurance like that of Whole Foods instead of the expensive PPO/co-pay mess that is so popular with government regulators nowadays. I was self-employed for several years and necessarily had to provide my own medical insurance. I wanted insurance against large unexpected expenses, i.e. a high-deductible
.... More
deductible policy that would cover catastrophic injury and illness while limiting my out-of-pocket expense to something I could handle if need be. I did not want to pay for an expensive policy that covered everything from pregnancy to mental illness to chiropractic care, including stubbed toes and hangnails. I could not get a catastrophic insurance policy because the state insurance commissioner thought everyone should have "managed care". I ended up paying for way more "insurance" than I needed, wanted, or used. The proposals currently popular in the halls of Congress and among Democrat politicians do nothing to address this, and in fact will make the current situation worse by mandating pre-paid medical care masquerading as insurance for everyone. That's a pretty warped version of "choice". Supporters of the proposals in fashion at the White House keep saying that "the Right" has not offered any alternatives. Mackey's column shows that for the outright lie that it is. Everyone should take a couple of deep breaths and read Mackey's op-ed piece with an open mind, and if you disagree with him, give some reasons and counter arguments for your position instead of name calling and ad hominem attacks. You people throw the "hate" word around so much that you neglect to look in the mirror. Why all the hate for Mackey and his ideas?
|
anonymous
Ted Aug 17 2009 at 1:28 AM
"I ended up paying for way more insurance than I needed, wanted, or used." This statement applies to the younger half of employees at just about every business that has an insurance plan. It's the very attribute that makes it "insurance". The fact is, even if you were able to purchase your catastrophic coverage plan you'd still be paying a huge surcharge to help offset uninsured people who visit the E.R. with a migraine. And just because you look back and say you didn't need the extra coverage,
.... More
the fact is you are lucky you weren't the one with the migraine and no place to go. I guess because I haven't had a claim on my car or home owners insurance I wasted all that money!
|
anonymous
logicprobe Aug 18 2009 at 12:09 AM
"the fact is you are lucky you weren't the one with the migraine and no place to go." Let's do a thought experiment. Assume I have catastrophic insurance like I've described, a high deductible policy - say $5000 per year. Okay, now I've got a migraine; what's stopping me from going to my doctor? How is it that I have no place to go? I don't understand your comment. If I haven't met my deductible yet, I'll pay the doctor out of my own pocket and the amount goes toward my deductible for the year. If
.... More
it turns out that the migraine was actually a symptom of a brain tumor, I'll need more extensive treatment, possibly surgery, and in that case I will probably incur medical expenses well above my $5000 deductible, and that's what my insurance covers, the amount over $5000. When I purchased the policy, I was comfortable with the potential for having to spend up to $5000 of my own money on health care, even though most years I probably wouldn't meet the deductible and therefore wouldn't collect a cent on the policy. I don't have a problem with this scenario; why do you? It's my life and ought to be my choice. If you want a Cadillac policy that covers a doctor visit for the sniffles or a stubbed toe, fine; I have no problem with your choice, just don't force it on me. "I guess because I haven't had a claim on my car or home owners insurance I wasted all that money!" Good straw man; I bet a lot of your fellow travelers fall for it. The fact is, as you so pithily said, that's the very attribute which makes it "insurance". I want a real insurance policy, not a comprehensive pre-paid medical care plan. As for homeowners insurance, does it pay for someone to vacuum the floors and clean the bathrooms? No. It pays for stuff like a tree falling on your house. Does your home owners insurance pay if the kid next door hits a baseball through a window, breaking it? No, probably not, because the cost of repairing the window most likely falls below your deductible. I want the same sort of medical insurance, not a gold-plated policy which covers a doctor visit every time scrape my knee. Is that so difficult to understand?
|
anonymous
logicprobe Aug 17 2009 at 11:42 PM
Actually, younger people (who tend to need less medical care) pay less for insurance. That's why insurance companies have lots of actuaries on staff, to manage risk. And shouldn't it be *my* choice what coverage I get? Why should I be forced by the government to purchase more coverage than I want? I understand the consequences, and I'm willing to take the risk. A catastrophic policy would have capped my out-of-pocket expense at a level I was comfortable with. Why is that a problem for you? Do you
.... More
think I should be required, forced (by men with guns) to buy an expensive policy with coverage levels I don't need or want?
|
anonymous
Amy Rowan Aug 17 2009 at 1:12 AM
...but Mr. Mackey's behavior during the proposed Whole Foods purchase of Wild Oats was childish, imprudent, mean spirited, and rather bizarre for an established CEO and supposedly respected businessman. By leaving profanity laden comments on various blogs using a host of made up names all in an attempt to bash Wild Oats leadership and terrorize their board of directors was infantile at best and intentionally malicious at worst. He made his intentions to squash his competition quite clear in e-mail
.... More
obtained by FTC attorney Michael Bloom. How free market is that?!?
|
anonymous
BenjaminFranklin Aug 17 2009 at 12:51 AM

People hate him because, though he is rich and has no need to scramble to make ends meet, he has no compassion for the suffering of those who don't share his privileged lifestyle, and those who are stricken by illness on top of their financial misfortunes. We loved and continue to love John F. Kennedy because he understood that to those to whom much is given, much is to be expected.

|
anonymous
Guest Aug 17 2009 at 1:21 AM

JFK was a supply sider before Reagan! JFK lowered taxes to spur economic growth. Does that make you leftists cringe to hear that your heros don't always follow ideology? It's important to know that people are not caricatures of the right or the left. Mackey and Kennedy can and should follow ideas that think will work despite not being in line with mainstream progressive thought.

|
anonymous
Jeff Aug 17 2009 at 12:28 PM

Thanks for flagging the conceit that JFK was the liberal that pop culture has painted him as.

|
anonymous
Guest Aug 17 2009 at 12:06 AM
Good health for all is much more closely aligned to the nature of our American democracy than the concept that corporations might be granted more rights than individuals. We are not here to serve the corporations, and their profit margins, no matter how allegedly "green". It is unfortunate that John Mackey has used his position as CEO to speak against the public option for healthcare rather than to responsibly serve the interests of the many employees and customers of Whole Foods. Let him eat organic
.... More
cake.
|

EDITORS' PICKS

tease Pope Francis

line

tease tree-dwelling animals

line

tease Internet shaming

Advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered
Advertisement