Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Health Care Stirs Up Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, Customers Boycott Organic Grocery Store
Joshua has been taking the bus to his local Whole Foods in New York City every five days for the past two years. This week, he said he'll go elsewhere to fulfill his fresh vegetable and organic produce needs.
Customers are threatening to boycott Whole Foods stores after the company's CEO, John Mackey, wrote an op-ed discussing his ideas for health care reform. "I will never shop there again," vowed Joshua, a 45-year-old blogger, who asked that his last name not be published.
Like many of his fellow health food fanatics, Joshua said he will no longer patronize the store after learning about Whole Foods Market Inc.'s CEO John Mackey's views on health care reform, which were made public this week in an op-ed piece he wrote for The Wall Street Journal.
Michael Lent, another Whole Foods enthusiast in Long Beach, Calif., told ABCNews.com that he, too, will turn to other organic groceries for his weekly shopping list.
"I'm boycotting [Whole Foods] because all Americans need health care," said Lent, 33, who used to visit his local Whole Foods "several times a week." (To join the 'Whole Foods Boycott" on Facebook, click here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=119099537379)
"While Mackey is worried about health care and stimulus spending, he doesn't seem too worried about expensive wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and big businesses such as his own that contribute to the deficit," said Lent.
In his op-ed, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare," published Tuesday, Mackey criticized President Barack Obama's health care plan.
Mackey provided eight "reforms" he argued the U.S. can do to improve health care without increasing the deficit. He suggested that tax forms be revised to "make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance."
Mackey also called for a move toward "less government control and more individual empowerment" instead of "a massive new health care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits."
He added that many of the country's health care problems are "self-inflicted" and are preventable through "proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices."
In the op-ed, Mackey outlines Whole Foods' employee health insurance policy. According to Mackey, Whole Foods pays 100 percent of the premiums for all employees who work 30 hours or more per week -- about 89 percent of his workforce.
Additionally, the company gives each employee $1,800 per year in "health-care dollars," says Mackey, that they can use at their own discretion for health and wellness expenses. This money can be put toward the $2,500 annual deductible that must be covered before Mackey says the company's "insurance plan kicks in."
Whole Foods Shoppers Weigh In
The op-ed piece, which begins with a Margaret Thatcher quote, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money," has left some Whole Foods loyalists enraged. Many say Mackey was out of line to opine against the liberal base that has made his fortune possible.
Christine Taylor, a 34-year-old New Jersey shopper, vowed never to step foot in another Whole Foods again.
"I will no longer be shopping at Whole Foods," Taylor told ABCNews.com. "I think a CEO should take care that if he speaks about politics, that his beliefs reflect at least the majority of his clients."
Countless Whole Foods shoppers have taken their gripes with Mackey's op-ed to the Internet, where people on the social networking sites Twitter and Facebook are calling for a boycott of the store.
A commenter on the Whole Foods forum, identified only by his handle, "PracticePreach," wrote, "It is an absolute slap in the face to the millions of progressive-minded consumers that have made [Whole Foods] what it is today."
"You should know who butters your hearth-baked bread, John," wrote the commenter. "Last time I checked it wasn't the insurance industry conservatives who made you a millionaire a hundred times over."
While Mackey reduced his annual salary to one dollar in 2007, after explaining to employees he was "no longer interested in working for money," Mackey is still the head of the 10th largest food and drug store in the U.S.
Whole Foods Market Inc. reported that sales for the last quarter rose by 2 percent to $1.878 billion. It is consistently ranked a Fortune 500 company.
And not all Whole Foods customers were upset by Mackey's op-ed.
Many posted online that they agreed with his message and would try to shop at the chain more often.
Frank Federer wrote ABCNews.com, expressing fatigue with the knee-jerk reaction of other shoppers.
"You can count me as one vote FOR Whole Foods' CEO," wrote Federer. "At a time when most folks are more inclined toward rancor than discussion of facts, I applaud John Mackey."
Despite his financial success, this is not the first time Mackey has become fodder for criticism. In 2007, it was discovered that Mackey had been using a pseudonym to post blogs lambasting Whole Foods' competitor, Wild Oats Market, and questioning the worth of the company's stock.
The postings were made public when Mackey announced his desire to buy Wild Oats Market, and a lawsuit was filed by the Federal Trade Commission over concerns that the purchase would violate antitrust laws.
The FTC eventually let the sale go through, provided that Mackey sold 31 of the Wild Oats stores, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which had launched an investigation into the online postings, did not press charges.
Libba Letton, a Whole Foods spokeswoman, told ABCNews.com that Mackey was unavailable for an interview and said that the op-ed "stands on its own." Letton offered no further comment regarding customers' threats to boycott the store.
When a CEO Speaks Out...
According to Robert Passikoff, the founder of Brand Keys, a N.Y.-based consulting firm, what a CEO says or does can often have a direct impact on consumers' pocketbooks.
"You can have a tremendous effect as a CEO, but it's a double-edge sword in that you'll have people who will support your position and feel better about your brand because of what you say," said Passikoff. "But equally so, you'll have people who think you're crazy and because they can't take it out on you, the CEO, they'll take it out on the company."
It is the risk of losing customers, said Passikoff, which more often than not leads CEOs to keep their mouths shut, at least when it comes to polarizing issues such as health care.
Tom Monaghan, the founder of Domino's Pizza who was outspoken in the pro-life movement, ostracized many of his consumers who weren't sure how much of the money he earned making pizza was then going to support the pro-life movement.
Lynn Upshaw, a brand marketing consultant at Upshaw Brand Consulting in Kentfield, Calif., said that more often it is the actions of an entire company, and not just of a CEO, that lead to boycotting by consumers.
For example, Upshaw remembers when, in the late 1970s, Nestle angered consumers with a baby formula product it claimed to be a healthy alternative to breast-feeding.
"It's relatively unusual for a CEO to be as outspoken as Mackey has been," said Upshaw. "Because any time you weigh in to something political, you're bound to have loyal customers who will question [your] point of view, and that can have a very negative effect."
Upshaw added that Mackey's op-ed may have done more harm than might be typical because of the unique makeup of his clientele.
"You have more activist consumers going to Whole Foods than other stores," said Upshaw. "They're not just simply expressing an opinion, they do something about it.
"These are people who have already gone out of the way to find a place that is more expensive to buy certain types of food," he said. "So in theory, they might be more willing to take the action to go somewhere else if they don't agree with Mackey."
115 Comments so far
Show AllThe irony is that Whole Foods is supposedly about selling (at a high margin of course) foods which promote health, yet Mackey opposes the country providing health care for people. How does he reconcile that?
There is a new Whole Paycheck coming to a town near me...it will be the first (and probably last) one in the state. I will not be shopping there.
He probably does not reconcile the two at all, because he is into health food only in so far as he can draw a handsome profit from it. It is obviously the entire corporate way of doing things that he is defending when opposing a universal heath care service.
I agree. When you see is view on health care you can see that he has no concern for the average persons health. IMHO he could happily make his money selling organic food, clothespins, or bullets. No difference to him.
I live in Albuquerque. We stopped shopping at the local "co-op" after they spent thousands of dollars in an anti-union campaign that we were a part of. I will boycott Whole Foods but our local co-op is not an option. In fact, I am running out of options. Our regular grocery store is union and is offering more organic items all the time but good meats are still an issue.
"Natural" food is no longer a movement. It is a product like anything else and we should encourage all grocery stores to make it mainstream so we (and everybody) can buy healthy food where ever we go.
Very true here. My food co-op in Pittsburgh also busted a union organizing effort - which unfortunately was also facilitated by a lot of failures on the part of the organizers themselves - dropping the entire ball on big consumer-solidarity drive.
That was about five years ago.
Workers' co-ops, or hybrid worker - consumer co-ops are usually progressive. Consumer co-ops, especially large ones, are often not. That is because consumers don't know enough about what is going on in the store. Control passes to management, who treat workers the same as any other private management does.
The Berkeley Co-op, which (foolishly) expanded to 13 stores before it failed in the 80's, was a prime example. Workers were not allowed to sit on the board of directors. As a result, no one could call the purchasing agents on their standard grocery store corruption. They were paid off by sellers, which resulted in inferior produce. The customer/members didn't know about it, but the workers did. They, however, couldn't speak up because they were subject to standard industrial discipline, sometimes quite heavy handed.
If you are involved in a co-op, work towards active worker participation. The workers will speak up for consumer interests better than the consumers are able to do for themselves.
In the Mondragon co-ops of Spain, supermarkets are worker - consumer hybrids.
Excellent post, good information about Berkeley, good analysis.
Let me amend my advice: people everywhere should form new WORKER co-ops.
Hi Webwalk,
A good example of a HYBRID supermarket co-op is in Arcata in Northern California. Not only are there reserved worker seats on the Board, but the various units of the store - produce, meats, etc - are run by workers' councils.
My information on this is old, I have to confess, so you might like to check it out.
If you find out more, I would appreciate it if you give me a heads up.
Laurenceofberk@aol.com
Well that's really sad, not too big of a surprise i suppose. i work at a unionized co-op in Seattle - not a perfect store or job but i do what i can. Seems like we're making some progress toward better adherence to our founding purpose and values, as an outpost of economic democracy, dedicated to providing natural food and being accountable to our members and community and the Earth.
i would say to you, co-ops do have a democratic structure, and you could join your local co-op and try to organize members to run for the board and work to make sure the workers have a voice. It might seem hopeless to try to "work from within" your co-op but it's a lot more doable than "working from within" the Democratic party...
Another option people all over should look into is starting your own food-buying club, and think about forming new co-ops that are defined in the purpose statement of the Articles of Incorporation as being dedicated to adhering to the founding values.
i hate to give up on the co-op model of democratically accountable food stores that strive for ecological accountability.
I'm young and single so I only have to feed myself...for someone in my situation, all that's really needed is a farmer's market to go to once a week to pick up a week's worth of fresh food, then a grocery store for basic cooking ingredients and whatever the local region doesn't grow or produce.
Democratic workers' control is, of course, the goal of all real socialists; but we also have to consider the COMMUNITY context of workers' co-ops and collectives. When co-ops are embedded within a commune which includes other co-ops as well as organized neighborhoods, all are stronger and can help keep each other democratic. Co-ops embedded within communes is one structure now being experimented with in Venezuela. (Although there is a lot of resistance, much of which comes from within the Chavez government and "Unified Socialist Party.")
Solidarity and democracy within the workplace reflects upon the community, and vice-versa. All advances, no matter where they are made, continue to reverberate beyond our immediate knowledge. Vinceremos!
If only more folks realized that it is their dollars that have built these enormous corporate structures... their insatiable need to have more or better that corporations target. The power of the purse is the one power that everyone chooses to use individually. I constantly hear "but I am too stressed to use the extra time/money to shop responsibly..." and so instead; the corporations get larger, more powerful - and less accountable.
It is one of the choices in our lives where a single step toward a higher good could make a world of difference!
Imagine all the small businesses(and resultant prospering communities) that could thrive on our purchases - if there were no giants whose only purpose is to gather enormous wealth to themselves!
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
Exactamente
"He added that many of the country's health care problems are 'self-inflicted' and are preventable through 'proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.'"
SOunds like he was writing his op-ed as a commercial to shop more at Whole Foods. Kind of slimy....
Exactly! What, in so many words, he is saying is: who needs health care when you have Whole Foods.
Simply despicable.
Mackey provided eight "reforms" he argued the U.S. can do to improve health care without increasing the deficit.
1. Die right now
2. Give me (Mackey) all your money
3. Die right now
4. Give me (Mackey) all your money
5. Die right now
6. Give me (Mackey) all your money
7. Die right now
8. Give me (Mackey) all your money
How convenient, now you can do both Mordechai at the same time: Give him your money and die from Leukemia, since the law allows 5% of the crap he's peddling to be GMO and synthetic. 240 chromazone threatening synthetic food additives are now permitted under the so-called "Organic" label thanks to the bushmonkey administration.
I would eat rocks before I would trust any food coming out of the "ButWhole" FrankenFood Store. Tell "Mac-the-Food-Knife" to stick his green-wrapped GMO up his bottom line.
New Rules:
• If it's wrapped in plastic: Don't buy it.
• If it's processed in any way: Don't buy it.
• If it's not a raw fruit or vegetable: Don't buy it.
• If it doesn't have black spots: Don't buy it.
• If it doesn't have an occasional worm: Don't buy it.
• If it's from Butwhole Foods: Don't buy it.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Mackey doesn't talk about controlling prices or corruption! He doesn't mention the collusion between the Wall St. lobbies and the government that is the cause of skyrocketing costs!
Mackey is just a typical corporate US CEO who has more than plenty for himself and travels in circles where he remains oblivious to the ever spreading basic healthcare needs of millions of others. The US Congress members with their ultra healthcare package mostly care little for the dire needs of more and more of their supposed constituents. The corporate/government elites simply have no compassion or shame, even as they readily accept the open bribes of the healthcare lobbyists to finance themselves and their political ambitions. Lately the usually somewhat hidden corruption has been visible from the secret meetings at the Obama White House to the stacked Senate hearings. The organized greed and power of corporate capitalism will defeat the disorganized citizens who face a corrupted system. It could perhaps be sobering for the elites to be in attendence at some of the Remote Areas Medical healthcare events such as the recent ones at Wise, VA or Inglewood, CA. but they would have to be shackled or tied down, lest they just make a media photo op appearance and thus avoid absorbing the reality of the lives of thousands of ill and desperate people. Former Cigna PR man, Wendell Potter, awakened at one of these events (Wise, VA), so perhaps others deadened consciences would also revive.
I'm out. There are other places to shop. Hell, Safeway is a union shop....
I'm out, too.
Yeah it is, and I do most of my basic bulk shopping there...the one by my house isn't run very well though, it's pretty messy and constantly out of things.
What I don't get is, given all this, wouldn't Whole Foods' operating expenses be much lower if we had national health care? You'll see me getting my vegetables across the street at Union Square now, buddy...
Whole Foods? You must mean Whole Paycheck, which is what it costs to shop at Mackey's stores for overpriced food that, in any kind of world that made sense, should cost LESS than products that have MORE additives and are subject to MORE processing.
"I live in Albuquerque. We stopped shopping at the local "co-op" after they spent thousands of dollars in an anti-union campaign that we were a part of."
I just want to say, the company I work for is unionized and it's completely useless. All it is, is one more deduction from my paycheck.
Secondly, I hate to break it to some of you, but, food from Whole Foods has the SAME EXACT nutritional value as food from any other grocery store, it's called a scam. The "organic" label is a crock of sh*t.
The current anti-organic scare tactic campaign obscures the definition of what organic means, or at least what it has meant for decades. All organic means is that plants and animals are grown without toxic chemicals, without petrochemicals, whether they be pesticides, herbicides, growth hormones, whatever. Leaving those out of the production process has nothing to do with nutrients, but it does mean that there is no risk of chemical poisons in the land, in your food, or in the plants and animals affected. Essentially, what is currently called "organic" was just called "traditional" before the rise of chemical-intensive farming in the 1940s. Again, the organic label has nothing to do with nutrient content but with the absence of toxic chemicals, it is not a "crock of shit", and it has nothing to do with nutritional value, except in those cases where pesticides or herbicides might block the availability of certain nutrients.
Good explanation. Use of organic foods slows the build up of toxic chemicals in our bodies, and in our soil and water supplies, including the ocean ultimately. There are immediate and cumulative harmful effects of using hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, herbicides and artificial fertilizers. These are implicated in cancers, birth defects, coastal dead zones, etc.
I wish we had more reliable standards for calling a food organic, however. I believe that use of the European equivalent "Bio" is more regulated.
Joe
You have no idea what your talking about, read any study that tests "organic" food for chemicals and see what comes up.
"Secondly, I hate to break it to some of you, but, food from Whole Foods has the SAME EXACT nutritional value as food from any other grocery store, it's called a scam. The "organic" label is a crock of sh*t."
I hate to break it to you, but you are fooling no one.
That you conveniently only mention nutritional value as measured in amounts of some nutriets, reveals the deception you are engaging in. You conveniently omit mention of pesticides. Of fertiliser. Of hormones. Of antibiotics. Of various growth factors. You conveniently omit mention that multiple studies have shown the presence of pesticides, fertilisers, hormones, antibiotics in non organic food. You conveniently omit mention that multiple studies have indicated these substance have effects on humans.
Bad news rfloh,
The government allows an exemption of up to 5% synthetic ingredients to exist under the so-called "Organic" label. They also have not acted on many of the guidelines they put forth: e.g., Dairy products were supposed to come from farms that allow free bovine grazing. That's not being enforced. So-called "Organic-labeled" food, with "organic" milk is allowed by the gov to have BGH/anitbiotic mad cows from hell who can't stand up on their own feet they are so weak from atrophy from being imprisoned in a stall knee high in animal feces.
Reader "MBK" is correct. FDA Organic Labeling is a scam. Butwhole foods are still coming from Dean and Kraft chemfood factories.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/05-6
"the original law creating the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "certified organic" program recognizes such realities, allowing up to 5 percent of a certified product to consist of non-organic ingredients.
This exemption, however, was not intended to be a free-for-all loophole for dilution of the USDA's organic standard. Two strong caveats were attached to that 5 percent allowance. First, any non-organic substance has to be approved by the National Organic Standards Board. Second, the explicit intent of the law was for producers and processors to be in active pursuit of all organic ingredients, moving away from synthetic and non-organic substances as quickly as the real things could be found.
Enter from stage right: corporate agribusiness and Barbara Robinson. With the phenomenal growth in consumer demand for organic products, such giants as Kraft and Dean Foods have rushed to capture this multibillion-dollar market, except they don't want to play by the rules.
Big Food found its enabler in Robinson, who was chosen to administer the organic program during the George W. Bush years.
Consulting regularly with the corporate powers, Robinson has brought synthetic after synthetic under the organic label. At the start of the certification program, 77 non-organic ingredients were on the allowable list, which was supposed to shrink as time passed. Today 245 ingredients are listed.
Likewise, the program was supposed to set uniform standards for how organic foods are produced. Yet 65 of the standards recommended by the board since 2002 simply have been ignored by the administrator. For example, the board proposed specific rules to ensure that organic dairy farmers provide "access to pasture" for their cows, but Robinson's team has refused to implement the proposal. Thus, a giant milk purveyor such as Dean Foods (Horizon dairy products) is allowed to sell "organic" milk from cows that are confined in factory conditions rather than allowed to graze in open pastures. By failing to set rules that apply to everyone, the USDA is permitting private, for-profit organic certification firms to create their own standards, which means corporate interests can shop around for the most lenient certifiers.
You might think that the USDA would see the organic labeling program as a way to earn consumer trust in the integrity of these products. But, no. Robinson told The Washington Post that the label's main purpose is to "grow the industry." A consultant to Kraft Foods eagerly added his amen to her loosey-goosey regulatory ethic. "We don't want to eliminate anyone who wants to be a part of the organic community," he explained." UNQUOTE.
Stay out of big stores and you'll probably be O.K.
The above is, as all my posts are, just my opinions only.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
I agree that the current labeling system is highly flawed.
However,
look at this
"The government allows an exemption of up to 5% synthetic ingredients to exist under the so-called "Organic" label. "
A limit of 5%. Compare that to "normal" foods.
MBK's argument focusing on simply nutritional component, is an entirely argument. His argument is that there is no difference at all between organic and "normal" foods, thus everyone should eat "normal" foods, support industrial chemical farming.
That's a good point rfloh. My concern is the same as the mideast Bedouin's. Once you allow the Camel's nose to poke under the edge of your tent, you are doomed. It is only a matter of time before you have the whole camel trying to get inside the tent.
FDA imho, is not a competent custodian of public safety anymore. Documented cases of unstable (unsafe for human consumption) GM corn slated only for animal feed, repeatedly got into the US human food supply. And those are the cases we know about. From another safety related business, aviation, I can promise you that for every fatal accident reported, there were at least one hundred close calls that went unreported.
Homo sapien is an inherent liar. It is the nature of the beast. It might seem like the "lesser of the evils" argument makes sense in this application and in political parties, but in my experience, accepting "the lessor of the evils" just makes things worse. Most of the customers are getting conned imho.
I'm not a nutritionist, and most of those I've met seem like glorified pill salesmen, so I am not qualified to comment to that. I solve this problem by eating strange unknown fruits off tropical trees, that have neither pesticides nor GMO since they come from known wild sources. My favorite is the Do-hot. Looks like an olive but is sweeter than anything I've ever eaten at a BigFood Monopoly store.
My advice to everybody is to find a little lot in the tropics and drop out.
Cheers,
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
That is not my argument at all, my argument is that people who spend outrageous amounts on "organic" are wasting there money.
Lol, trust me i'm not trying to deceive anyone. You really think "organic" labeled food doesn't have pesticides, fertiliser or antibiotics? If you do your very naive. Having grown up on a small farm I can tell you, that all the forementioned still get used. But hey, keep buying it, waste your time. There was an article on CD a few weeks back about how most food labeled organic was false.
Actually I don't think that organic labeled food doesn't have ANY pesticides, fertiliser, or antibiotics. I am well aware of the labeling flaws. I am also well ware that despite your claims organic labeled food is not the same as that not labeled as organic.
"Having grown up on a small farm I can tell you, that all the forementioned still get used"
So what? Was that small farm that you grew up on organic? You conveniently choose not to mention that. Why is that?
You do concede that pesticides, fertilisers, antibitics, hormones are a problem?
I never said pesticides, fertilisers, antibiotics, or hormones arn't a problem, I complete agree with you they are. But if you honestly believe that a banana that says organic on it is any safer to eat than the half priced non-"organic" banana the next shelf over your badly mistaken.
This health care struggle and economic struggle as well as the constitutional struggle is about the "Haves" against the "Have Nots."
It's pure and simple CLASS WAR.
The Dems and Repugs employed by the ruling elite/corporations against the poor, working class and the middle class.
Everything has a price.
There is Justice if you can afford it.
There is Health Care if you can afford it.
There is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness
if you can afford it.
And only the top 2% can afford it.
Until we all realize who is really oppressing whom, only then will we be able to take the first step to regain our freedom once again.
ma77hew77 August 15th, 2009 1:54 pm...........What freedom would that be? The freedom of illusion?
When I moved to the birthplace of Whole Foods, Austin, TX, in the late 80s, I shopped at their tiny first store until I talked to some coworkers who were Catholic peace and justice activists. These were the kind of Christians for whom "pro-life" doesn't just mean pro-fetus; these people were antiwar, pro-sanctuary for Latin American immigrants, and pro-labor. They told me that Whole Foods refused to recognize the United Farmworkers grape boycott and they thus refused to shop there and urged other people to avoid the place as well. I later found out from people who had worked there how very anti-union it is. I currently live in Austin near their massive flagship store, a very popular place, but I haven't been there in years. Luckily, there's a local food co-op and several good farmers' markets I can get food at so I don't have to rely on the Libertarian/Thatcherite/Randian monstrosity that is Whole Foods Market. Too bad that in many towns it's the only place to get healthy products.
"Lynn Upshaw, a brand marketing consultant at Upshaw Brand Consulting in Kentfield, Calif., said that more often it is the actions of an entire company,......For example, Upshaw remembers when, in the late 1970s, Nestle angered consumers with a baby formula product it claimed to be a healthy alternative to breast-feeding."
Typical corporate consultant to be not aware of the true social issue. Nestle's crime was free samples to third world mothers who couldn't afford formula but had stopped lactating by the time the samples were done and now needed the formula to feed their child and besides they had unsanitary water supplies to make formula with.
It took Nestle years tostop this marketing technique that was responsible for many children's deaths in the 3rd world.Much more deadly than the claim of being a healty alternative.
Whole Foods has long been a scam that presents one face to the public, while it something else entirely while conducting its' corporate business. Thus, to anyone whom has been paying attention, John Mackey has long been a corporate troglodyte right up there with the douche bags whom run the Oil business. A case in point is Whole Foods gobbling of their main competitor, Wild Oats.
We don't even have a whole foods up here in my county. Oh well. I guess I'll just have to go to my local co-op. Or the three other independent food stores. Poor, poor me. Guess I'll have to spend my sunny saturday mornings at the local farmers market on strawberries picked that morning.
Still won't set foot in a whole foods even if I'm travelling either. I think the nearest one to me is in San Francisco anyway, a full 8 hours drive.
Whole foods is a scam - it is very expensive to buy a decent quantity of anything in whole foods. Here in Phoenix, I buy in Sprouts, which has a comparable selection of organic & whole foods.
Mackey's comments have to rank up there with some of the stupidest moves anyone has made. Even if these are his opinions, and he's entitled to them, it was unwise to express them publicly. I can't shop at Whole Foods because there are none in my area, but when I next visit Honolulu, I will make a point of missing that stop. Being of the healthy lifestyle persuasion for decades, I had been rather looking forward to exploring the new Whole Foods on Oahu. I no longer see the need. I'll go to Down to Earth instead.
I can't agree with you more!!
The pretentious and price abusive "Whole Foods" needs be boycotted systematically and brought to its knees.
The chain should be forced into bankruptcy to give it a taste of what ordinary folks feel when they are led into foreclosure.
Mackey is clearly suffering from some sort of mental illness that has him attempting Whole Foods suicide. Why else dare to publicly stick it right up the ass of 99% of your customer base, just days after admitting your stores 'sell a lot of junk.'?
Dr. Frankenstein syndrome... must kill the monster I created...
Any CEO will be opposed to Single Payer but he's not the one to be targetted. The real boycotting should be on Congress who controls what passes and what doesn't. I don't support what the CEO says against single payer but I'm not surprised and at least he's honest and open about it. Name me one big company CEO that actually supports Single Payer.
Having watched the furore over John Mackey's op-ed in WSJ, I had to see what exactly he has said that has provoked so much reaction. After reading his piece, I can see that I too am opposed to a lot of what he has to say - particularly his opposition (though not stated explicitly) to a single-payer system. I was put off by his opening with a quote from Margaret Thatcher, of all the people! And the first paragraph is on the deficit. While ultimately every country would have to balance its budget and pay off its debts (unless they are written-off by the lenders), for the USA, the place to start would be by rolling back its empire. I don't know if John Mackey has ever spoken out against empire-building. If he hasn't, I think a lot of this outrage against his op-ed is perfectly justified.
But here's where I think he does raise some points that need to be debated before being shot-down (or not):
He says that healthcare cannot be an intrinsic right just like food and shelter are NOT. Well, I would say that food and shelter have to be intrinsic rights - but there is no country in the world that has made these as rights. Without declaring them as rights, countries with socialist leaning try to provide these, AND healthcare, to the best of their abilities. But I have to agree on technicality - that healthcare cannot be a right for all people under all circumstances. Just as someone who gambles away his wealth cannot claim food and shelter as a right, so too people who live a mostly unhealthy life out of choice cannot demand healthcare as a right.
That said, in a civilized society, those who are better off need to step in to help those who are less fortunate. Especially in the case of accidents, congenital defects and other diseases that are beyond the control of the individual. And one way to do this is by providing universal coverage of health insurance - as is being done in several countries.
However, even in countries that provide universal coverage (without declaring them as rights), the situation will become unsustainable if many of their citizens are careless with their health, diet and lifestyle. In such cases, clearly those taxpayers who live a careful life are subsidizing others who follow careless lifestyles, but expect society to take care of them.
Diet is a big factor in people's health. Why is there not so much debate over the diet-disease linkage? The meat and dairy industries (and the tobacco industry in the past) have been very effective in managing what information reaches the public. Other industries pass on the costs due to their operation (pollution, e.g.) as externalities, to be absorbed by the society. And these have a direct bearing on people's health.
There is enough knowledge on what it takes to lead a healthy life. But there are so many factors that are beyond the individual's control which prevent us from staying healthy - including faulty information. An enlightened citizenry should be fighting for a better quality of life, and for changing the system that prevents such a life.
While recommending a healthy lifestyle, John Mackey seems to defend the status quo - especially when he advocates more "high-deductible health insurance plans". What the hell is that, other than continued profits for the insurance industry? In fact, where is the need for for-profit insurance companies in the first place? I can see costs spiralling out of control in a free-for-all system, but that is where individual responsibility and collective action come into play.
"But I have to agree...that healthcare cannot be a right for all people under all circumstances. Just as someone who gambles away his wealth cannot claim food and shelter as a right, so too people who live a mostly unhealthy life out of choice cannot demand healthcare as a right."
This is a classic USAn dysfunctional attitude. How dare you think you or others should judge people like this and divide the "worthy" from "unworthy" for public aid! Stop worrying about how others live their lives!
There is no causal link between lifestyle choices and disease, only statistical and probabilistic ones, with many often more important confounding factors like genetics, stress, and societal factors. My parents have been terribly out of shape, fatty food meat eaters and in the case of my father, smokers, all their lives, yet they are living to a ripe old age. Meanwhile, I have known perfectly fit people struck down with cancer or hidden heart disease - including a co-worker who never smoked a cigarette in his life, yet died of lung cancer at the age of 40.
If you travel to France, you will see breaking every USAn fad diet rule out there - fat, cheese, butter, alcohol, meat. Yet they have a higher life expectancy, and anyone suggesting what you did would be considered loony.