Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHealth 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.]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/wholefoods.jpg "wholefoods.jpg")
"I will never shop there again," vowed Joshua, a 45-year-old blogger, who asked that his last name not be published.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 AllJohn Mackey's stores are not only expensive and cater to the wealthy but it also appears that he's against the general welfare and equal rights of everyone else. Of course this food market supremo is going to be against government interference and regulations. Mackey is not only for more individual empowerment but wants to keep grabbing larger pieces of the pie. He's already on my shit list for being against a union and humane conditions for the farmworkers who pick some of the fruits and vegetables for his stores. This conniving mega-businessman with megastores seems to also have little compassion or apathy for poor and working-class folk or for the small businesses he squeezed out. I wonder if he thinks about their hard lives while he takes it easy on his megaranch. It is his type of selfish individualism that is destroying our communities, our culture, and society at large. I believe a boycott of his stores will send a strong message to him that health care is indeed an intrinsic (inalienable) right that belongs to all us as members of the human race. People of good conscience always use nonviolent methods to stop injustices and moral thoughtlessness which can easily warp into moral depravity.
I'm going to make sure I start buying at Whole Foods instead of Safeway because I certainly appreciate the CEO! The spokesman I saw on TV tonight is a real JERK and does your boycott no good.
Safeway's CEO also laid out his idea for healthcare reform in a WSJ op-ed, moron.
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB124476804026308603.html
My husband worked for Whole Foods for five years, until he was fired three weeks before he was to receive full medical benefits. Yes Whole Foods gives you a card that is truly helpful, to buy prescriptions with, and they do not pay your full health insurance, you have to work there for 10,000 hours. We paid up to $200 a month into the plan, which isn't cheap when you get paid hourly. I don't think anyone gets paid more than about 17$ a hour, and that is the high end.
My husband was very discriminated against, major anti-semiticism, and Whole Foods did nothing about it, and instead found stupid things to fire my husband, like I said three weeks to getting full benefits. They also never give their employees reviews on time, my husband never received his, and was fired without having a review for 7 months.
I believe that Whole Foods is hiring a lot of minorities so they don't have to pay them as much. When my husband started with the company there was a mix of people, when he left maybe 90% or more of the store was people of a minority race. This is true of other stores I have been in. Besides the fact isn't this reverse discrimination.
Whole Foods gets away with a lot because they have this organic image, well they are a typical big American corporation with bureaucracy and no accountability.
Vitamins are good for high stress periods. But, one must be careful to take a food based vitamin and not some cheap, drugstore super vitamin that will basically be pissed out and not assimilated. New Chapter vitamins of Vermont are excellent, and use medicinal herbs and foods to boost the immune system. Do not take vitamins daily, just as one should not take certain herbs (echinacea, golden seal) daily, because you loose efficacy, and hence, your money.
Also, I recommend "Emergen-C ascorbate; the box used to have a picture of this totally hung over dude crawling on the ground with a glass of some liquid with Emergen-C (it is also a cure for hangovers). Vitamins have their place, but it is always better to get them from whole foods (NOT Whole Foods; definitely boycott Whole Paycheck Foods)!
Reliable sources have reported that there is no true way to "boost" the immune system other than healthier eating in the form of fruits and vegetables for antioxidants -- which are in reality similar to if not identical to vitamins.
Taking vitamins which have catalyst properties is most likely pointless but definitely pointless unless ingested with food which need their properties for absorption.
People had long long lives for centuries without vitamins. Having lived abroad, I have witnessed the vast amount of fruit consumed by very old cultures, as well as yogurt and many vegetables and tea. Meat, being expensive, isn't the mainstay of the diet as is rice or corn. Corn is quite superior nutritionally.
If you know of any clinical trials substantiating the "boost" power, I'd sure like to know them. Thank you.
BTW, the largest source of our immunity is the small intestine.
My boycott list gets longer.
Grow your own food, or at least some of it. Barter, give away food. Share.
Mackey is a really clever fellow...
His insurance plan for his employees is noteworthy:
If you work 30 hrs per week you are entitled to:
1800. grant to cover your medical expenses
Then you pay 700 on your own.
THEN you get the insurance.
I wonder do you have to pay the 700 before you get the 1800?
That wouldn't surprise me, given Mackey's genius.
All note: Mackey wrote a lot of negative stuff about Wild Oats before he
bought it (after driving down the stock price). This was done under
a PSEUDONYM !!!!!!!!
What else has Mackey written under a pseudonym? When I see glowing reports
and praise I wonder if he has written it...
The SEC investigated but let him devour Wild Oats. But then this is the same SEC that let Madoff conduct one of the biggest ripoffs in America.
Who do we trust? Who can we trust? I don't put any credence in Mr. Makey.
By the way, here's something to ponder
If the food offered at Whole Foods is organic, and really whole, WHO NEEDS VITAMINS?????????
What a total farce!!!!
Just to drive the point home:
If the food at WHOLE Foods is whole (whatever that may mean), and it is ORGanic, to boot,
WHY BUY VITAMINS?
Vitamins are one of the biggest ripoffs perpetuated ...
IF your food is from non depleted soil (hard to find without adding fertilizers, many of which are chemically engineer) ,,,,, and organic, and you eat that kind
of food, why in the world do you need vitamins.
I would guess that there is a very huge profit in vitamins.
Eat your carrot and apple a day, with your dark greens, and watch your problems go away!
organic food is 2nd to vitamins as biggest ripoff ever.
Alas, all that healthy food has neither improved his mind nor his conscience. Also, let's remember too that his company is as anti-union as another yuppie establishment, Kripalu Center. Maybe these folks think that eating your way to Nirvana--if you are not too poor to afford organic produce prices-- while chanting OMMMMMM is the way to go. Personally, I think good old resistance will get the goods.
Whole Foods just lost my business. I usually spent about 150 per week at Whole Foods. Publix Greenwise just have to new customer due to Mackey's selfishness. I live in West Palm Beach Florida and Publix Greenwise is highly recommended as an alternative to Whole Foods.
I used to work at Publix and usually shopped there, but the Greenwise markets didn't start until after I left and I've never been to one. How are they?
I'd rather see everyone in this country (in this world) boycott the fast food chain restaurants that have led in great strength and calculated effort to a health crisis in America - a crisis that is infecting much of the world.
It's easier just to boycott everything the US produces.
Produce your own or do without it.
kw
Seems there are contributions that work off the same prefabricated argumentation.
Of course, people should live a healthy life. They should not smoke, they should eat organic, not too much, drink 2 litres of water each day. But people are obese because an entire industry and their well paid servants (ad, lobby, PR industry) brainwash them into it. They clearly are able to look through this matrix of lies and wrong beliefs that hundreds of thousands of well paid, gifted and talented people serve them everyday.
What should somebody do who is born with an genetic defect and develops a serious illness because of that ? No way, he/she could have prevented it by living healthily. These people are disadvantaged and it is the duty of any community to care for them. A nation is also a community. Not through a generous donation by a mild-hearted billionaire, but by the billionaire paying a high enough tax. Does somebody who owns 10 billion really miss 100 million ? Does his life change in any way? No, not at all.
I guess, everybody has read Michael Pollan's books "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "In Defense of Food". If you haven't, do so. It shows that largescale organic farming is in fact much better than traditional agriculture, but the larger the fields and the company, the less difference there is. It is better to support and buy from enterprises that are more than just a green copy of the traditional corporate model and thinking. When it comes to food, organic (especially when it is defined in such a weak way) is not enough anymore if we truly want to change the world. It also should be locally produced. Moving from Whole Foods to locally produced food sounds like the right thing to do.
I actually largely agree with Mr. Mackey - I read his article in The Wall Street Journal. I don't know how best to deal with the health care issue but I do agree with him as to how to deal best with our health problems:
Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.
Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.
Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society. —Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.
Half the US federal budget is spent on the military. Close to half of global military spending is spent by the US alone.
Any talk of "financial responsibility" with regards to health care, or any other sector, is empty rhetoric, with no mention of military spending.
"Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices."
Cancer isn't.
"Half the US federal budget is spent on the military".
That's not entirely accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008
Hey, Insurance Gecko,
You forgot the black programs. They are classified but known to be in the trillions of dollars. (e.g. the B-2 Bomber was the price of a space shuttle and was not in the visible federal budget until years after it was developed. New space shuttles and military satellites fall into the same category.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
I have not respected Mr. Mackey since, some years ago, he referred to unions as "herpes" in an article published in Adbusters. I read it, funnily enough, while standing in line at a local Whole Foods. That was the last Adbusters I ever saw in a Whole Foods - and I have frequented all seven stores in the three-county area in which I live. I have a lot of gripes about Whole Foods, and I rue the day they bought out our county's locally owned organic store chain. I will no longer shop at Whole Foods. I will go to our local, family owned market that has been providing everything Whole Foods does for years.
Mackey is simply saying that we can't afford how in debt we are and adding more debt is only going to make matters worse. And this is an understatement, the entire world not just America is on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse.
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13825211
And the economic problems in our future will not be good for poor people. And all the government debt in the world is not good for poor people. Look at the World Bank and the suffering it caused. America and many other first world countries are now in even worse financial situation than the developing countries that were ruined with debt. Debt is slavery, debt is war on poor people. To argue that we will use debt to help the poor is like arguing that we are bombing people to free them. That is essentially Mackey's main point and he is right. I'm guessing he was less outspoken about the cost of the War on Terror or the bank bailouts so for that reason he is hypocrite and you should have been boycotting his stores a long time ago anyway. I always look for an alternative.
Any talk of debt is irrelevant right wing scaremongering rhetoric unless it includes talk of government propping up of corporations. Any talk of debt is irrelevant right wing scaremongering rhetoric unless the issue of executives of propped up corporations paying themselves huge incomes is addressed.
Any talk of debt is irrelevant right wing scaremongering rhetoric unless the issue of executives of propped up corporations paying themselves huge incomes is addressed, while paying low taxes is addressed.
Any talk of debt is completely utterly irrelevant right wing scaremongering rhetoric unless military spending is addressed. Not just the "War on Terror", but military spending in general.
Talking about debt, without talking about how the existing available money is spent, and where it comes from, is war on poor people.
It seems obvious from the excerpts from his article that Mackey does not support "healthcare for all Americans" - especially a single-payer system which is what is truly needed. I don't like the Obama plan either. We should go single payer. But Obama knows that there isn't a chance in hell of passing single-payer right now. It's pathetic, but that's our country.
I live in Austin, the birthplace of Whole Foods. They've been getting worse and worse every year - more and more corporately minded - trying to reduce standards for organic foods, etc. This is the last nail in the coffin for me. I'm never shopping there again.
"Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the shadow"
Whole foods ? Try, Greedy Foods Inc.
I am also against the Obama Health Care Plan. That does NOT mean that I am against healthcare for all Americans and I believe that Mackey probably feels the same way.
Many, many people who need medical care and are without insurance are not interested in politics and don't really understand the process. When we oppose Obama's plan we are speaking for all those who cannot or will not speak for themselves.
This plan is a threat to all Americans. I can promise you that you won't be happy with the kind of care that Obama has mapped out. I have a very good insurance plan and I'm sure that all of you without insurance would be very, very happy with the same plan. Under Obama, you will never get the opportunity to use my plan because your health care will put you in a medical 'welfare office' atmosphere.
Well, I do understand how to eat a good melon. How to tap on it. Find out whats inside. You know, ask a few questions, look at a few telltale signs. The WholeMelon. Listen very carefully. Is it tight inside? Or maybe thick rind? I don't know. You tap and it seems OK. But crack it open and it's rotten to the core. Stinks. Hey! We got tons of stink melon over here. Is there anybody who can do anything about it? Hey, you ever sit in an emergency room all night? The following morning. Makes a welfare office look like a vegetable patch.
So dying in the street because of medical bankruptcy or lack of any access to medical care is better? Too bad your "good" insurance obviously does not cover mental problems. No human deserves to be sick in a rich country like this one, or anywhere else. Being poor is NOT a capital crime.
You have a GOOD health care plan?
Well you must either be in Congress or in Cuba! Or you're in Medicare or in Europe. Even Canada is way better than what 90% of us have.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
I used to spend an average of $200 a week (or, about $10,000 a year) at Whole Foods. This week, after reading Whole Foods CEO John Mackey's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal I've decided to no longer shop at Whole Foods unless Mackey reverses his opposition to Obama's health care reform or the Whole Foods board replaces him. I am shopping at Trader Joe's instead.
I used to watch "Emeril Green". He did his show at a "Whole Foods" Store. Wonder if he knows. No moer "Emeril Green" for me.
I read as far as Friedman's "health food fanatics" and then stopped. I think we know where this is going -- on the all out battle against organic foods...
I do not think it's about that at all. Let Friedman and others twist it whatever way they will; it's more about the source (in this case a corporate source). Best to grow your own garden, better to shop locally, whenever possible, and to avoid places like Whole Foods (which will inevitably use their clout to decide what is organic and what is not in order to make maximum profit).
"...Best to grow your own garden, better to shop locally, whenever possible, and to avoid places like Whole Foods (which will inevitably use their clout to decide what is organic and what is not in order to make maximum profit)."
Bingo chessgames56,
You have distilled the core equation down to a small paragraph. Big biz through government bribes DECIDES the definition of what is organic: (i.e., The same FrankenFood ingredients pumped from the same ChemFood Companies: Kraft and Dean.)
The Wholepaycheck price is just to "Greenwrap" the same old crap and to give the CEO a hundred million dollars in dishonest cash.
I admire your gift of clarity and your writing skill chessgames.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Thanks for the kind words, TJ. :)
Oops!
It's great to see boycotting Whole Foods. Imagine if we boycotted other services/products. We, as well as the exploiters, would quickly realize that they need us more than we need them. Use less gas, buy a good water filter, patronize your farmer's market, work under the table (here I have mixed feelings. As long as revenues are primarily used to bail out the bankers, and build war machines, it's better to starve the tax man wherever possible. Generally local taxes are okay though as long as your state provides decent social services. That said, this kind of civil disobedience is not without its consequences, if one is caught). Also, do all you can to take care of your health, by modifying your diet, quitting smoking, and getting more exercise. Perhaps those doctors caring more about getting maximum profit can organize into coops, where they treat people without accepting conventional insurance (meaning we'd have to pay something, but not the blood money the present system demands). Don't know what the ultimate answer would be, but there is a lot we can do. Start by voting with your pocket book.
I never take a wealthy persons whines, rants or social ideas seriously, nothing so self serving as a very wealthy(net worth above 5 million) person saying taxes are too high! His company represents the kill model of big capital. The killing of small merchant, family and sole proprietor shops. Why is it necessary for one company to do so much of the food selling? I find it ironic that in high tax socialist states, the number of small businesses is far greater than in free market, capitalist America. Maybe his employees would like their own small enterprise, you know the small merchant on the corner, oh wait they can't afford health insurance. I wonder if that has anything to do with his fear of a national health plan?
I hate to tell you all this, but so far living has a 100% death rate. All this talk of health care as a universal right is fairly absurd. It is all of our responsibilities to take care of ourselves and to help take care of our brothers and sisters who arent able to take care of themselves. People are going to get sick and die though. I wish this weren't so, andit really breaks my heart...but get used to it because it isn't going to change. If there is one universal 'law' in the universe, it is that everything that has ever or will ever live, is going to die, and that the matter of that living thing will make life possible for a different living thing. We're all so concerned about dying, that few if any of us have even began to live. Love those around you, love all of Creation, and try to love yourself. This world is fucked up, but universal solutions always create universal problems. The state and the corporations will not save us, only enslave us and create much bigger problems. EMBRACE YOUR LIFE, EMBRACE YOUR DEATH!
Good, so when you're sick, don't go see a doctor. Part of being loving is taking care of yourself and your loved ones. I hate to tell you this, but 'universal law' also includes COMPASSION, meaning caring for and helping others, and not just when it's profitable, or for self-gain. It's easy to cite universal law with partial truths, but much more difficult to participate in the whole of being. No offense, but ersatz, new age flunkies come a dime a dozen; they refuse to see what is undesirable or difficult--at least until they are forced to. Go to a poor third world country and see your philosophy practiced in spades. Better, yet, tell the parents of a child who could be easily cured with an antibiotic that living has a 100% death rate, and see how that goes over--oh, and add that universal health care is fairly absurd. You just better hope they're not packing.
I hate to tell you this, but so far, no one has made the claim that universal health care is a "cure" for death. I hate to tell you this, but everyone in this world knows that humans get sick and die. I hate to tell you this, but most people in this world are used to this.
I hate to tell you this, but your claims that talk of health care as universal right is absurd, is absurd.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And when you get sick? Do you keep this attitude with you? Or is it only the poor ho must accept their lot in life? Yes, mother nature is a sadistic bitch. We can treat ours better than she.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray
http://www.paulmurray.id.au/ageofworms
Shoo fly. Go away.
Or drop dead. You pick.
- Insurgent
That was a rude/bad thing of me to say. I take it back and apologize.
Unlike politicians, I don't wish death on anyone especially when that death can be prevented. Of course everyone has to leave this crappy world someday (hopefully for The Better Place), but in this world, to deny people their basic right to health is no better than willfully condemning them to death.
It's not a joke, it's not a trifling matter, it isn't anything to be pooed poohed about. And assuming anyone believes in death/life/heaven/hell or God anymore, what's He going to think about all this arguing? If we flippantly leave each other to die, what's to stop Him from tossing everyone who railed against it in the hot place?
Sure ain't no health insurance down there.
- Insurgent
i appreciate your answer. i think one of the fundamental roots of the ugliness of our "civilization" it that it is rooted in the fear of death.
But embracing the fullness of life including death, does NOT mean we should ignore health care. We should care for our health - while we are alive. Understanding that we are going to die.
i once wrote a spoken word piece titled "There ain't no such thing as human rights". i think my point may have been similar to yours. But to recognize that our "rights" are human inventions, does not mean we should stop inventing them.
Let's declare that access to health care is a human right. And then let's do our best to structure our society to secure that right (among all the other rights that we also declare). AND,let's never lose sight of, or take undue fright of, our own necessary death.
"The state and the corporations will not save us, only enslave us and create much bigger problems."
Tell that to the people of Great Britain, France, the Scandinavian countries, Cuba, etc, etc, where their state-guaranteed, universal health care means that they have higher quality of life indicators, better health, lower infant mortality, and longer lives than we in the US do. Plus, they never lose their homes because of medical bills.
Ok, this is one of my pet peeves so I have to interject. Pls stop giving Cuba as an example in healthcare and quality of life.
I'll stop giving Cuba as an example of quality of life when the World Health Organization stops ranking it high in that area. Until then, I won't be fooled by US lies that the country is a disaster. And I certainly won't be swayed by right-wing Miami ex-Cubans trying to tell me that Cuba is like Nazi Germany or whatever. Outside the US, Cuba is admired, world-renowned even, for its health care system, its commitment to environmental issues, and its mobile doctors sent around the world to serve people in poor areas. Imagine if Americans had that career option instead of being forced by lack of opportunity to join the US military and kill people.
Dean ,
Thanks for your response on Cuba and setting that person straight. I wish I could visit Cuba but last time I checked it was illegal for U.S. citizens. Castro didn't play the U.S. game and certainly not with the Bush's. Reminds me of Chavez who has also been referred to as the new Hitler. Lot's of new Hitlers everywhere.
Politicians always say that about leaders who won't allow them to rape and exploit their countries of their natural resources for profit.
And on and on goes the game.
Peace
Well, after a little bit of Googling, I found there's a big food co-op about a mile and a half from me, and a natural foods store/deli about 8 blocks from me...should be fun to check out as replacements for Whole Foods.
I gave a link to a list of food co-ops in my reply to your comment a couple days ago. I suspect your situation is similar to may others - a co-op nearby and most people don't know about it.
Yep. Honestly I had never heard of them until recently.
Mackey should be boiled in a vat of the purest organic grapeseed oil.
After all, according to the literature, "the health benefits of grapeseed oil make it a versatile and guilt free choice when it comes to a cooking oil."
· Yr Obd't Servant
I think he should be lightly battered first. Either with an organic tempura paste, or a small ball peen hammer. I just can't decide.
Sweet, so we'll have no guilt from cooking him in it.
So i went and read the guy's article. Not sure why everyone is so outraged and threatens boycott.
He's against the President's healthcare plan, I understand that resonates negatively with the CD crowd but he kinda makes some good points:
1.) what's wrong with with removing obstacles to high ded insurance? the actual insurance would be less and a lot of the 44mil who are not covered would probably buy it. I prsonally know 3 families who can afford insurance but being young don't really think they need it. Lowering the cost would probably persuade them to get insurance.
2.) I would like to get teh same tax deduction when i buy my own insurance as when my employer buys it. Wouldn't you?
3.) Not an economist so I don't realy understand point 3 but i see how more competition would drive down prices.
4.) If i am 20 and only want insurance against motorcycle crashes, snowboarding accidents, basically anythign that's not an illness why should I not be able to get that only. when I get older and think i might get cancer I'll pay exra and add that.
5.) don't even wanna start with that. A lot of the waste in the US is cuz of unneccessary tests. why do docs prescribe them? well beside the fact that they might get a commission (i guess) they wanna cover their a**es against law suits. "Oh, but the doc didn't request that test. I think he should now be paying all my expenses until i die"
I could go on and on. One that i really would like to see enacted is the one about transparency. Got myself into a motorcycle accident last year and it was like pullig teeth until i found out how much stuff cost. Turns out if i went thru my insurance a procedure would have been $500 where as out of pocket was $900.
Anyway I wanna see some more opinions on why his proposals are bad. Try to ignore the fact that he's against single payer.
By the way I don't shop at Whole Foods. I might be out of touch with reality but I didn't even know there was something like that. After reading comments around here looks like they are expensive too.
Actually, the CD crowd is against the presidents healthcare plan too, but their preferred alternative - medicare for all/single payer - Mackey would hate even more.
Your "I'm young and immortal" attitude is a large reason why medical insurance is so costly, you need to be paying into the pool now exactly because your risks are lower (and I hope you wear a helmet). Of course, single payer with everyone in/nobody out would take care of this.
Oh, I'm not young and immortal at all. I actually pay for insurance. I know with the stuff I do sometimes, i can't go without but also shop around when i need care. And yes, I do wear a helmet :) That's why I'm still around.
I also lived in Canada for about 10 years and had "free" medical care there. Had to use it, unfortunately. Don't believe what people say. It's pretty good and not too much wait times like it's being claimed. At least it wasn't for me. MRI took a couple of weeks vs 2 days in the US but truth being told it wasn't an emergency. My shoulder would have been just as f*d up two days later as it was two weeks later.
The thing most people (including the President) don't wanna talk about is who's gonna pay for it. even if per capita costs are reduced to Canada's level the total for the US would be about $1.5T/year ($1.5 trillion per year). The total tax income of the US govt is about 2.5T. So taxes will have to go up about 50%. Which is kinda what they are in all countries with "free" healthcare. In my opinion, instead of pussyfooting around with false claims like 1T over 10 years the pols and the "single payer advocates" should let people know the truth. That would be a good start and once people get used to the idea it's gonna be much easier to implement. What they are doing right now is gonna fail miserably. And cost money the US doesn't really have right now.
And single payer would be infinitely simpler than any of the alternatives or the present ripoff system. Get sick, go in, get it taken care of well before the emergency room stage. Plenty of preventative care for all. No more medical collection agencies. All would benefit. Small business would flourish. No wonder CorpCo is so adamantly against us taking care of us all.
I wonder if anyone objects to saying SS taxes because they don't plan on getting that old? It's about as ridiculous as an argument against getting health insurance: "I don't plan on getting sick or injured!"
This is exactly what delusional conservatives say!! My John Bircher father spewed this for years. When his company was sold, the pension scheme was gutted and he ended up with essentially nothing but the dreaded Social Security. The lesson here is: Don't denigrate the fire department until AFTER you have really, really needed it.
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.
"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."
Just because an existing assumption is wrong, does not mean that there is no causal link between lifestyle choices and disease. Just because lifestyle is not the ONLY link, and that there are other links, such as genetics, does not mean that there is no link. Just because the link isn't perfect, does not mean that there is no link.
Many medications are highly flawed, and often do not work for some people. Does that mean that there is no link between modern medicine and the successful treatment of disease?
Your French example actually illustrates this. The idea that all dietary fat is healthy is wrong. It was based on junk science. Anyone who actually paid attention to the science could have told you that. That there was pretty much no real world empirical evidence to back that assumption. It was based on the usual reductionist junk science. That hardly proves that there is no link between diet and health. It is simply evidence that there is no link between all dietary fat and bad health.
pjd412, I had clearly said "I have to agree on technicality - that healthcare cannot be a right for all people under all circumstances." Why did you remove the "on technicality" part when you quoted that sentence? After all, it's only two words - but I felt it necessary to include them :)
"There is no causal link between lifestyle choices and disease", you say? You may be thinking of exceptions - but they don't make the rule. True, there are statistical correlations, and all these correlations have not been 100% mechanistically explained. But that's because science is still progressing. In the meantime, you want to ignore the statistical correlations? And the large amount of mechanistic explanations - about how a certain disease originates? Do you know that there is enough evidence to suggest that even SOME forms of cancer are related to diet? Have you heard of the book called "The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell?
I never recommended judging who's worthy and who's not for public aid - that's a typical right-winger ploy to pull stuff selectively out of what someone said and turn it into "death panels". I'm not saying you're a right-winger - but in imagining that I am one and selectively quoting what I said, you are using THEIR tactics.
All I'm saying is that the mainstream information peddled in North America about health and diet is incomplete at best, and outright fraudulent in some cases. Again, it's a technicality - we all know everyone needs food and shelter. But why are they not declared as rights? Because of certain logic on individual responsibility. That doesn't mean there aren't millions of victims who don't get decent food and shelter for no fault of theirs. It's similar in the case of healthcare. Also, PLEASE read my next paragraph above - I clearly said universal coverage is one way a "civilized society" takes care of those who fall sick, get into accidents, or have congenital diseases, etc. This is not meant to be some kind of list of what gets covered. It was just meant to justify universal coverage for all. I bet you didn't bother to read carefully, the moment you saw I mentioned something about lifestyle choices. That's your choice. But to me, the logic is simple: even in the case of auto insurance, you lose coverage if you are drunk while driving. In my own case, I can argue that I can drive perfectly well even after having lots to drink. In the past, I could even ride the motorcycle after drinking. But it doesn't work, if there's an insurance claim, right? In the case of health insurance, it's not easy to make that kind of a direct linkage. That's why, without putting in these kinds of preconditions, it's still important to choose a healthy lifestyle. Especially if we are going for a single payer system and universal coverage. Rights with responsibilities - it's simple to me.
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.
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...
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'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!!
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.
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 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.
"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.
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.
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?
"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.
"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.
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.
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 is not my argument at all, my argument is that people who spend outrageous amounts on "organic" are wasting there money.
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
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.
You have no idea what your talking about, read any study that tests "organic" food for chemicals and see what comes up.
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
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.
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...
I'm out. There are other places to shop. Hell, Safeway is a union shop....
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.
I'm out, too.
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.
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 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
"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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
The 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.