Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Berkeley Protest Demands Boycott of Whole Foods After CEO Comes Out Against Public Health Care
On August 16th people gathred on the sidewalk in front of Whole Foods in Berkeley to let customers know that its founder, CEO and Chairman of the Board John Mackey is working to prevent public funding of health care.
In an August 11th opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (it is also available on the Whole Foods website), Mackey wrote in a piece entitled "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare" that the "last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement" and that health care for the poor should take place through "voluntary, tax-deductible donations" rather than government funding. He goes on to ask "While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?"
Mackey has always held Libertarian views and is well known for being anti-Union even comparing them to herpes.
Shortly before the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the manager of a Whole Foods grocery store in the San Francisco Bay Area reportedly called a meeting because Whole Foods believed Obama would sign the Employee Free Choice Act, and threatened employees that "every benefit you have" could be "thrown out the window" if they formed a Union. Whole Foods has also been known to fire employees who have tried to Unionize stores.
Mackey's health care editorial was apparently partially written by Lanny Davis, who aside from lobbying for the coup regime in Honduras is working with Mackey to stop the Employee Free Choice Act from allowing card checks or binding arbitration.
Many people all over the country are now demanding a boycott of Whole Foods and Wild Oats, which Whole Foods bought up a few years ago (Mackey was investigated by the SEC after anonymously trying to talk down the stock price of Wild Oats before he bought it).
People in Berkeley are encouraged to protest at lunch time during the week in front of the Telegraph Ave location. More information about Berkeley protests and protests across the country are available on the Boycott Whole Foods Facebook page and on Daily Kos
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Don't get what I am saying wrong, because I am personally very much in favor of "single payor".
But are you sure you want to consider "political positions" (as opposed to wrongful actions) a legitimate reason for boycott? That gives me a queasy feeling. A rather good case can be made that the the issue here wouldn't be pro or against "single payor" but pro or against political rights.
Take an example from my neck of the woods, Here in small town New England we still decide matters by show of hands in town meeting. Are you saying that there could be any issue on which you might feel justified in calling a boycott agaisnt somebody you saw voting for the wrong side of that issue? (in your opinion) Wouldn't the particular issue become irrelevant then compapred to the issue "right to vote"?
But are you sure you want to consider "political positions" (as opposed to wrongful actions) a legitimate reason for boycott? That gives me a queasy feeling. A rather good case can be made that the the issue here wouldn't be pro or against "single payor" but pro or against political rights.
Take an example from my neck of the woods, Here in small town New England we still decide matters by show of hands in town meeting. Are you saying that there could be any issue on which you might feel justified in calling a boycott agaisnt somebody you saw voting for the wrong side of that issue? (in your opinion) Wouldn't the particular issue become irrelevant then compapred to the issue "right to vote"?
I try not to buy products from Burma since I don't like the political stance and actions of its leaders. The US has an official policy that is similar to this for Iran.
You can try to say this was just an opinion and not a store policy, but in this case the company and the CEO are closer to one and the same than in the case of almost any other company (he founded it, is Chairman of the Board, etc...) and he his union stance is more than just an opinion if you look at the links above (organizers have been fired and at least one store had meetings encouraging workers not to Unionize and not support... see http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/are-starbucks-and-whole-foods-union-busting ) Mackey's Libertarian views are not just personal; they spill over into how he uses and runs Whole Foods and Wild Oats (and his general morality can be seen in the way he took over WIld Oats and the related lawsuits).
Something else to think about is the relation between a desire for deregulation and the state of the alternative medicines they sell. There have been many cases where those types of products have been found to not contain what they advertise or even contain things that turned out to be poisonous ( http://www.nature.com/nrneph/journal/v5/n5/abs/nrneph.2009.41.html ). A push for less regulation and less regulation on health spending seems a bit of a conflict of interest with respect to Whole Foods selling products that claim to be alternatives to medicine but are not tested. It probably isn't wise to push a boycott and question the effectiveness of things many customers swear by but there are some serious questions that need to be asked about the sale of homeopathic medicines both in terms of if they really are more than placebo sugar pills and as to where the cost of them comes from if the dilution is as extreme as claimed. As WIkipedia points out "Modern homeopaths have proposed that water has a memory that allows homeopathic preparations to work without any of the original substance; however, the physics of water are well understood, and no known mechanism permits such a memory." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy ) Selling a small vial of sugar pills as a cure for arthritis I guess is ok and people can have their opinions but pricing it for $20 and then having the CEO of the store selling it talk about normal healthcare not being a right ($20 is still cheaper than a doctors visit without insurance) seems weird.
People shop at Whole Foods and pay above market prices not just because they like the quality of the products but because people think they are being socially responsible by shopping there. But, some of the money you spend does go to Mackey (he gets paid in options and is a major stock holder.) He would have had to have timed his editorial carefully (since internal trades have to be approved ahead of time I guess) but it is a bit strange that he also dumped some stock a week before the editorial came out:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/14/766906/-Whole-foods-execs-sold-$1.76-million-in-stock-before-the-editorial
Perhaps he knew his stance would hurt business or perhaps he has enough money he now doesn't care. At any other company would be a reason to push him out but in this case is probably impossible. He only owns about 5% of the companies stock but if people couldnt force him out for the SEC thing over Wild Oats or talking down the quality of the produce they sell in the UK saying "We sell a bunch of junk" and admitting most of what they sell at Whole Foods is not that healthy.
A boycott of Whole Foods seems no different from past boycotts of Coors or Dominoes for their opposition to gay rights and choice respectively (in the Coors case they made some structural changes as a result)
You can try to say this was just an opinion and not a store policy, but in this case the company and the CEO are closer to one and the same than in the case of almost any other company (he founded it, is Chairman of the Board, etc...) and he his union stance is more than just an opinion if you look at the links above (organizers have been fired and at least one store had meetings encouraging workers not to Unionize and not support... see http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/are-starbucks-and-whole-foods-union-busting ) Mackey's Libertarian views are not just personal; they spill over into how he uses and runs Whole Foods and Wild Oats (and his general morality can be seen in the way he took over WIld Oats and the related lawsuits).
Something else to think about is the relation between a desire for deregulation and the state of the alternative medicines they sell. There have been many cases where those types of products have been found to not contain what they advertise or even contain things that turned out to be poisonous ( http://www.nature.com/nrneph/journal/v5/n5/abs/nrneph.2009.41.html ). A push for less regulation and less regulation on health spending seems a bit of a conflict of interest with respect to Whole Foods selling products that claim to be alternatives to medicine but are not tested. It probably isn't wise to push a boycott and question the effectiveness of things many customers swear by but there are some serious questions that need to be asked about the sale of homeopathic medicines both in terms of if they really are more than placebo sugar pills and as to where the cost of them comes from if the dilution is as extreme as claimed. As WIkipedia points out "Modern homeopaths have proposed that water has a memory that allows homeopathic preparations to work without any of the original substance; however, the physics of water are well understood, and no known mechanism permits such a memory." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy ) Selling a small vial of sugar pills as a cure for arthritis I guess is ok and people can have their opinions but pricing it for $20 and then having the CEO of the store selling it talk about normal healthcare not being a right ($20 is still cheaper than a doctors visit without insurance) seems weird.
People shop at Whole Foods and pay above market prices not just because they like the quality of the products but because people think they are being socially responsible by shopping there. But, some of the money you spend does go to Mackey (he gets paid in options and is a major stock holder.) He would have had to have timed his editorial carefully (since internal trades have to be approved ahead of time I guess) but it is a bit strange that he also dumped some stock a week before the editorial came out:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/14/766906/-Whole-foods-execs-sold-$1.76-million-in-stock-before-the-editorial
Perhaps he knew his stance would hurt business or perhaps he has enough money he now doesn't care. At any other company would be a reason to push him out but in this case is probably impossible. He only owns about 5% of the companies stock but if people couldnt force him out for the SEC thing over Wild Oats or talking down the quality of the produce they sell in the UK saying "We sell a bunch of junk" and admitting most of what they sell at Whole Foods is not that healthy.
A boycott of Whole Foods seems no different from past boycotts of Coors or Dominoes for their opposition to gay rights and choice respectively (in the Coors case they made some structural changes as a result)
When/if a business is taking a politcal position with regard to the buisness operation (say gay rights; they discriminate in hiring, promotion, same sex partner benefits, etc.) then of course a legitimate target.
But that isn't the case here, is it? You are in effect saying that somebody who supports one side or the other in a current political dispute is a legitimate target and you can go after that person's interests (although in this case not yet stated whether he is still the OWNER of the corporation -- though I suspect at least a major shareholder).
That is more than a little different. The example you gave, Burma, Iran, etc. is NOT the same thing at all in the sense that you are misdescribing the situation. Not like boycotting the TARGET but somebody who "votes in favor of the target". So to use the Burma example -- you have some UN sanctions issue pending and country X votes against your side. You are saying that's a legitimate reason to boycott them? But is your case against Burma (a good case let's say) any longer the main issue but rather "does country X have a right to vote?"
If you consider "exersize of political rights on the "wrong side" of an issue" to be a legitimate reason to attack, where do you mean to draw the line? If town Y votes for the Republican candidate (silly example) you'd feel comfortable declaring a campaign against the town? How about the other way around. How would you feel if a mill owner made a threat (and meaning it) like "if the Democrats* win in this town then I'm goign to close the mill down"? You wouyln't think that an attack on the worker's right to vote freely?
But please note that I'm not exactly saying "don't do this" but more like "this sort of thing reqires a great deal of thought". In the example I gave about the New England town meeting I don't care what the issue is. If you targeted me for which way I voted damned straight I'd consider the merits on either side of the issue that was voted on no longer relevant -- in other words, no matter how good your case for the primary dispute you can't deny me my right to vote freely. You might think otherwise of course and all I am saying here is THINK!
* Or Socialists -- that sort of example wasn't unknown say a hundred years ago when the Democrats weren't yet the party on the left side.
But that isn't the case here, is it? You are in effect saying that somebody who supports one side or the other in a current political dispute is a legitimate target and you can go after that person's interests (although in this case not yet stated whether he is still the OWNER of the corporation -- though I suspect at least a major shareholder).
That is more than a little different. The example you gave, Burma, Iran, etc. is NOT the same thing at all in the sense that you are misdescribing the situation. Not like boycotting the TARGET but somebody who "votes in favor of the target". So to use the Burma example -- you have some UN sanctions issue pending and country X votes against your side. You are saying that's a legitimate reason to boycott them? But is your case against Burma (a good case let's say) any longer the main issue but rather "does country X have a right to vote?"
If you consider "exersize of political rights on the "wrong side" of an issue" to be a legitimate reason to attack, where do you mean to draw the line? If town Y votes for the Republican candidate (silly example) you'd feel comfortable declaring a campaign against the town? How about the other way around. How would you feel if a mill owner made a threat (and meaning it) like "if the Democrats* win in this town then I'm goign to close the mill down"? You wouyln't think that an attack on the worker's right to vote freely?
But please note that I'm not exactly saying "don't do this" but more like "this sort of thing reqires a great deal of thought". In the example I gave about the New England town meeting I don't care what the issue is. If you targeted me for which way I voted damned straight I'd consider the merits on either side of the issue that was voted on no longer relevant -- in other words, no matter how good your case for the primary dispute you can't deny me my right to vote freely. You might think otherwise of course and all I am saying here is THINK!
* Or Socialists -- that sort of example wasn't unknown say a hundred years ago when the Democrats weren't yet the party on the left side.
"When/if a business is taking a politcal position with regard to the buisness operation (say gay rights; they discriminate in hiring, promotion, same sex partner benefits, etc.) then of course a legitimate target....But that isn't the case here, is it?"
It is more similar to the Dominos and Coors boycotts than the boycott of grapes. In the Domino's case it is almost identical (owners supporting extreme antiabortion groups) while in the Coors case there were so many different things the owners did personally and through the company it is hard to say which parts played into why people boycott (but if you see Whole Foods labor stances in this light it looks similar).
"You are in effect saying that somebody who supports one side or the other in a current political dispute is a legitimate target and you can go after that person's interests"
Well it is a bit different for someone to hold private views or even speak in public with a clear differentiation between their views and the views of the company. In this case Mackey is more tied to Whole Foods than the CEO of most other companies. His op ed also promoted WHole Foods itself as an alternative to government funded healthcare (both in terms of its empoyee plans and that he thinks people would get sick less if they shop at Whole Foods)
"The example you gave, Burma, Iran, etc. is NOT the same thing at all in te sense that you are misdescribing the situation."
Iran would be more similar since before the stolen election some of the reason for people supporting boycotting Iran were the statements of the President on things unrelated to Iranian actions.
It would perhaps be similar to boycotting Ford before WWII? He used the money he made selling cars to promote antiSemitism. Unlike Mackey he didnt tie his hateful views back to the products he sold so boycotting Ford would be close to what you are condemning than it would be to the Whole Foods case.
"If town Y votes for the Republican candidate (silly example) you'd feel comfortable declaring a campaign against the town?"
People already do that without realizing it. If you are African American you probably avoid really racist towns. If you are openly gay you may avoid a town that voted strongly against Prop 8. etc...
"How would you feel if a mill owner made a threat (and meaning it) like "if the Democrats* win in this town then I'm goign to close the mill down"? "
People did that with the anti-recruitment protests in Berkeley. Fox News ran huge things about it. O'reilly even talked about San Francisco deserved to be attacked because of their vote on recruitment in schools. Such calls are ones I disagree with but were largely meaningless since the usual result in such cases is to boycott things people already avoid unconsciously for political reasons. In the case of Whole Foods, the reason for the press coverage is that the customer base is at odds with the CEO. If the customer base controlled the board of Whole Foods they could easily fire him over this (not for his views but for his being willing to take such a public stand as the head of Whole Foods and not complaining about the title "The Whole Foods Alternatibe To Obamacare" until days after calls for boycotts started... the title itself implied it was the companys stance and not just his) If American Guns N Ammo magazine's CEO came out on MSNBC announcing he wants handguns to be banned, I dont think there would be a huge outcry if gun owners stopped buying the magazine. That is much closer to the case here than what you are describing.
The reason we will not get a public option and many people will remain without health insurance is very closely tied to the public's willingness to give people like Mackey money (and Whole Foods makes a good profit on their overpriced products). It is somewhat similar to how one could blame the public who ignored Ford's statements for not boycotting his cars when he was promoting hate in the early 1900s. In the US money equals political power (think Bloomberg and Ross Perot) and if you let things get too far out of control ignoring that that business leaders are empowered by your spending you can get people like Berlusconi running things..
It is more similar to the Dominos and Coors boycotts than the boycott of grapes. In the Domino's case it is almost identical (owners supporting extreme antiabortion groups) while in the Coors case there were so many different things the owners did personally and through the company it is hard to say which parts played into why people boycott (but if you see Whole Foods labor stances in this light it looks similar).
"You are in effect saying that somebody who supports one side or the other in a current political dispute is a legitimate target and you can go after that person's interests"
Well it is a bit different for someone to hold private views or even speak in public with a clear differentiation between their views and the views of the company. In this case Mackey is more tied to Whole Foods than the CEO of most other companies. His op ed also promoted WHole Foods itself as an alternative to government funded healthcare (both in terms of its empoyee plans and that he thinks people would get sick less if they shop at Whole Foods)
"The example you gave, Burma, Iran, etc. is NOT the same thing at all in te sense that you are misdescribing the situation."
Iran would be more similar since before the stolen election some of the reason for people supporting boycotting Iran were the statements of the President on things unrelated to Iranian actions.
It would perhaps be similar to boycotting Ford before WWII? He used the money he made selling cars to promote antiSemitism. Unlike Mackey he didnt tie his hateful views back to the products he sold so boycotting Ford would be close to what you are condemning than it would be to the Whole Foods case.
"If town Y votes for the Republican candidate (silly example) you'd feel comfortable declaring a campaign against the town?"
People already do that without realizing it. If you are African American you probably avoid really racist towns. If you are openly gay you may avoid a town that voted strongly against Prop 8. etc...
"How would you feel if a mill owner made a threat (and meaning it) like "if the Democrats* win in this town then I'm goign to close the mill down"? "
People did that with the anti-recruitment protests in Berkeley. Fox News ran huge things about it. O'reilly even talked about San Francisco deserved to be attacked because of their vote on recruitment in schools. Such calls are ones I disagree with but were largely meaningless since the usual result in such cases is to boycott things people already avoid unconsciously for political reasons. In the case of Whole Foods, the reason for the press coverage is that the customer base is at odds with the CEO. If the customer base controlled the board of Whole Foods they could easily fire him over this (not for his views but for his being willing to take such a public stand as the head of Whole Foods and not complaining about the title "The Whole Foods Alternatibe To Obamacare" until days after calls for boycotts started... the title itself implied it was the companys stance and not just his) If American Guns N Ammo magazine's CEO came out on MSNBC announcing he wants handguns to be banned, I dont think there would be a huge outcry if gun owners stopped buying the magazine. That is much closer to the case here than what you are describing.
The reason we will not get a public option and many people will remain without health insurance is very closely tied to the public's willingness to give people like Mackey money (and Whole Foods makes a good profit on their overpriced products). It is somewhat similar to how one could blame the public who ignored Ford's statements for not boycotting his cars when he was promoting hate in the early 1900s. In the US money equals political power (think Bloomberg and Ross Perot) and if you let things get too far out of control ignoring that that business leaders are empowered by your spending you can get people like Berlusconi running things..
I have to get to some contract work that just came up... but....
I think one concern people have over productive protest tactics is that the "other side" may use it as an excuse to use similar tactics. They will complain and claim to use it as an excuse for their actions but they are doing these types of things already and the complaints are mainly ones to prevent such tactics.
The Harry and Louise ads in the 90s and the smear campaign about "death panels", and people yelling at town hall meetings has been taking place when we were being quiet. The insurance industry and Libertarian supports will do anything they can to prevent a change in the health care system.
There is a feeling on our side by some that if we are perfectly civil than that will encourage others to act the same, but it has never worked that way in practice. A boycott is not nearly as uncivil as yelling at town halls or spreading false rumors and it is a normal tactic to urge companies to change their actions (and in the Whole Foods case the action would be to get rid of Mackey for using the company's image to promote an anti public health care agenda... when I wasn't a contractor all the companies I worked for would have fired me if their name appeared in some newspaper next to an opinion piece in my name even if the mention of the name was just to say I worked at the company)
I think one concern people have over productive protest tactics is that the "other side" may use it as an excuse to use similar tactics. They will complain and claim to use it as an excuse for their actions but they are doing these types of things already and the complaints are mainly ones to prevent such tactics.
The Harry and Louise ads in the 90s and the smear campaign about "death panels", and people yelling at town hall meetings has been taking place when we were being quiet. The insurance industry and Libertarian supports will do anything they can to prevent a change in the health care system.
There is a feeling on our side by some that if we are perfectly civil than that will encourage others to act the same, but it has never worked that way in practice. A boycott is not nearly as uncivil as yelling at town halls or spreading false rumors and it is a normal tactic to urge companies to change their actions (and in the Whole Foods case the action would be to get rid of Mackey for using the company's image to promote an anti public health care agenda... when I wasn't a contractor all the companies I worked for would have fired me if their name appeared in some newspaper next to an opinion piece in my name even if the mention of the name was just to say I worked at the company)
"While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?"
You hit the nail on the head, Mr Whole Foods CEO. How about making food and shelter entitlements on par with a PUBLICLY FUNDED healthcare system? Section 8 and food stamps for all.
You hit the nail on the head, Mr Whole Foods CEO. How about making food and shelter entitlements on par with a PUBLICLY FUNDED healthcare system? Section 8 and food stamps for all.
I'm just asking you to THINK very hard and long about "changing the subject".
The point here is that the tactic of attacking not the position but the person's right to take that opposing position has removed the battle from one about "single payor" to one whether our political opponents on the issue have a right to be political opponents. That's a whole different kettle of fish than where we started. Now there are two possibilities here. One, which I can't rule out, is that you don't favor democracy. It is after all "repsectable" to take Plato's side in the debate within Western Civ that we can document at least a sfar back as Plato vs Aristotle. The reality is that "democracy" is NOT designed to porduce good, wise, just, etc. etc. decisions -- just, when workign properly, the decisions that the people want no matter how bad, foolish, unjust, unwise, etc. those decisions might be. It's why we have the Constititution -- a LIMIT on democracy making it much more difficult for "the people" to do certain things even if that's what the majority want.
The other is that you don't understand the tactical dangers. The risk here is that neutrals on the main issue, even lukewarm supporters, might feel compelled to defend the right of this person to be taking the other side. Now in my years in the trenches I've seen this happen in both directions with the clearest example from student days in the 60's where roughing up of a small demo by a tiny unpopular leftist group by jocks led to fost a hundred and eventually hundreds of people coming out to defend thier right to protest unmolested. These people were NOT doing that because they supported the positions of this tiny group. Many of them were irritated at being "forced" to come out by the ill advised actions of those jocks.
But did you think I meant to say we should be civil in arguing for "single payor"? Hell no. I'm just saying don't get the campaign diverted inot other issues.
The point here is that the tactic of attacking not the position but the person's right to take that opposing position has removed the battle from one about "single payor" to one whether our political opponents on the issue have a right to be political opponents. That's a whole different kettle of fish than where we started. Now there are two possibilities here. One, which I can't rule out, is that you don't favor democracy. It is after all "repsectable" to take Plato's side in the debate within Western Civ that we can document at least a sfar back as Plato vs Aristotle. The reality is that "democracy" is NOT designed to porduce good, wise, just, etc. etc. decisions -- just, when workign properly, the decisions that the people want no matter how bad, foolish, unjust, unwise, etc. those decisions might be. It's why we have the Constititution -- a LIMIT on democracy making it much more difficult for "the people" to do certain things even if that's what the majority want.
The other is that you don't understand the tactical dangers. The risk here is that neutrals on the main issue, even lukewarm supporters, might feel compelled to defend the right of this person to be taking the other side. Now in my years in the trenches I've seen this happen in both directions with the clearest example from student days in the 60's where roughing up of a small demo by a tiny unpopular leftist group by jocks led to fost a hundred and eventually hundreds of people coming out to defend thier right to protest unmolested. These people were NOT doing that because they supported the positions of this tiny group. Many of them were irritated at being "forced" to come out by the ill advised actions of those jocks.
But did you think I meant to say we should be civil in arguing for "single payor"? Hell no. I'm just saying don't get the campaign diverted inot other issues.
People should boycott Whole Foods/Wild Oats because of the way they treat their workers. John Mackey can share his mean-spirited opinions all he wants, but his company also actively intimidates workers who stand up for their right to unionize, gives them crappy "high deductible medical savings accounts" in lieu of health insurance (which means that if they get seriously ill they're fucked), and pays humiliatingly low wages. This company isn't just scum, it's hypocritical scum.
"One, which I can't rule out, is that you don't favor democracy."
Not shopping at Whole Foods is not favoring democracy? Don't quite get how basing one's consumption choices off of ones beliefs has anything to do with democracy. In a Democracy one should be free not only to shop where you want to for whatever reason but even tell others to ship where they want to for whatever reason. Whole Foods whole public brand revolves around consumption being a moral decision. Would it be wrong to ask people to boycott Fox TV because it funds Fox News (like funding Whole Foods is funding a campaign against health caere)? Consumers wouldn't go for it since people want to watch the Simpsons and it is free but I don't see how someone asking people to do such a thing would be anti-Democratic.
While I do not think it should be legal it currently is legal for an employer to fie someone for speaking in public about their political beliefs even if they make no connection between those beliefs and the company they work for. Examples of this include the firings at the SF Chronicle during the start of the Iraq war. That does seem antidemocratic but the reason it is legal is the company can claim that when you interact with customers they will associate you with the public persona you created by speaking in public on something controversial. In the case of Whole Foods a complaint by the company about Mackey would seem reasonable since the editorial ended up being titled to imply it was the company's view of health care ("The Whole Foods Alternative to Obamacare") and even if Mackey didn't chose the title he knew his views would be presented in a fashion that would reflect on the company (since he often speaks in public for Whole Foods, used Whole Foods as an example in the editorial and he is more strongly associated with the company than any mere employee since he founded it and is both CEo and Chairman of the Board of Directors)
"The other is that you don't understand the tactical dangers....the clearest example from student days in the 60's where roughing up of a small demo by a tiny unpopular leftist group by jocks led to fost a hundred and eventually hundreds of people coming out to defend thier right to protest unmolested."
So far the main people denouncing the boycott and saying they didn't shop at Whole Foods before but will now are Libertarians and some other conservatives. I doubt they wil. Choosing not to get ripped off based off ones political belief is much easier than chosing to pay a lot because of ones political belief. Whole foods costs extra so customers can feel like they are doing the right thing and for most the right things includes a variety of liberal causes one of which is health care reform. People can choose to pressure them to change their CEO over or his past actions and undermining their brand
Social justice issues are even promoted at Whole Foods to create its brand image in its choices of magazines near its counters. In fact, I would bet many magazines at Whole Foods in the next month will have articles in them telling people not to shop at Whole Foods. I will be interested to see if any call for it on their front page (in the list of titles of contained stories) and if so if Whole Foods refuses to sell them.
Curious why you seem so worried about this. Is it because you like other aspects of Whole Foods and don't want them hurt for that reason? Are you opposed to boycotts as a tactic and if so can you give any recent examples of ones you think were dangerous? I don't think boycotts of classes of people or whole groups with a specific ideology would be a good analogy since this is much less like a boycott of a corner store because the owner has strong beliefs and more like people refusing to give donations to some environmental group until the owner is changed after finding out the head of it was active in something hurting the environment.
Getting back to your worry about it tactically backfiring... Asking people not to shop at Whole Foods to not support Mackey's efforts to undermine health care has almost no risk aside from not convincing a sizable segment to actually boycott. If some right wing types want to start buying organic products there, while those boycotting buy organic goods at alternative locations, maybe that is a good thing since even if it doesn't pressure Whole Foods as much at least it helps promote organic produce. Even if the boycott fails to impact Whole Foods, public views on Mackey will hopefully at least be changed enough that something like his Wall Street journal piece will not be portrayed in right leaning papers as "even liberals oppose health reform" since people will know that he is extremely conservative. The Wall Street journal would not have given him op-ed space if he were the head of a popular organic food chain associated with conservative values; they chose him to influence the debate because they knew that many of those who support health reform like and shop at Whole Foods.
Not shopping at Whole Foods is not favoring democracy? Don't quite get how basing one's consumption choices off of ones beliefs has anything to do with democracy. In a Democracy one should be free not only to shop where you want to for whatever reason but even tell others to ship where they want to for whatever reason. Whole Foods whole public brand revolves around consumption being a moral decision. Would it be wrong to ask people to boycott Fox TV because it funds Fox News (like funding Whole Foods is funding a campaign against health caere)? Consumers wouldn't go for it since people want to watch the Simpsons and it is free but I don't see how someone asking people to do such a thing would be anti-Democratic.
While I do not think it should be legal it currently is legal for an employer to fie someone for speaking in public about their political beliefs even if they make no connection between those beliefs and the company they work for. Examples of this include the firings at the SF Chronicle during the start of the Iraq war. That does seem antidemocratic but the reason it is legal is the company can claim that when you interact with customers they will associate you with the public persona you created by speaking in public on something controversial. In the case of Whole Foods a complaint by the company about Mackey would seem reasonable since the editorial ended up being titled to imply it was the company's view of health care ("The Whole Foods Alternative to Obamacare") and even if Mackey didn't chose the title he knew his views would be presented in a fashion that would reflect on the company (since he often speaks in public for Whole Foods, used Whole Foods as an example in the editorial and he is more strongly associated with the company than any mere employee since he founded it and is both CEo and Chairman of the Board of Directors)
"The other is that you don't understand the tactical dangers....the clearest example from student days in the 60's where roughing up of a small demo by a tiny unpopular leftist group by jocks led to fost a hundred and eventually hundreds of people coming out to defend thier right to protest unmolested."
So far the main people denouncing the boycott and saying they didn't shop at Whole Foods before but will now are Libertarians and some other conservatives. I doubt they wil. Choosing not to get ripped off based off ones political belief is much easier than chosing to pay a lot because of ones political belief. Whole foods costs extra so customers can feel like they are doing the right thing and for most the right things includes a variety of liberal causes one of which is health care reform. People can choose to pressure them to change their CEO over or his past actions and undermining their brand
Social justice issues are even promoted at Whole Foods to create its brand image in its choices of magazines near its counters. In fact, I would bet many magazines at Whole Foods in the next month will have articles in them telling people not to shop at Whole Foods. I will be interested to see if any call for it on their front page (in the list of titles of contained stories) and if so if Whole Foods refuses to sell them.
Curious why you seem so worried about this. Is it because you like other aspects of Whole Foods and don't want them hurt for that reason? Are you opposed to boycotts as a tactic and if so can you give any recent examples of ones you think were dangerous? I don't think boycotts of classes of people or whole groups with a specific ideology would be a good analogy since this is much less like a boycott of a corner store because the owner has strong beliefs and more like people refusing to give donations to some environmental group until the owner is changed after finding out the head of it was active in something hurting the environment.
Getting back to your worry about it tactically backfiring... Asking people not to shop at Whole Foods to not support Mackey's efforts to undermine health care has almost no risk aside from not convincing a sizable segment to actually boycott. If some right wing types want to start buying organic products there, while those boycotting buy organic goods at alternative locations, maybe that is a good thing since even if it doesn't pressure Whole Foods as much at least it helps promote organic produce. Even if the boycott fails to impact Whole Foods, public views on Mackey will hopefully at least be changed enough that something like his Wall Street journal piece will not be portrayed in right leaning papers as "even liberals oppose health reform" since people will know that he is extremely conservative. The Wall Street journal would not have given him op-ed space if he were the head of a popular organic food chain associated with conservative values; they chose him to influence the debate because they knew that many of those who support health reform like and shop at Whole Foods.
You never really responded to the example of Henry Ford. Would you have opposed a boycott of Ford Motors under Henry Ford due to the political views promoted by Ford? It wouldn't have worked that well but would you have seen boycotting Ford Motors for Ford's promoting anti-Semitism as being anti-democratic?
Whole Foods treats workers about the same as any employer selling similar priced products, but it is actively anti-union. I have talked to some workers who thought working there was ok and others who did not like it. The benefits Mackey talked about don't apply to all (or even most?) workers since many are part time and it sounds like they are shifting their work force in that direction. The PR people who came out to talk to us during the protest had a creepy way of never saying employees and always calling workers "team members". The "team members" talk actually relates a lot to the anti-union stand since they want Whole Foods to be like a family and Mackey talks about how unions undermine the personal relationship between management and labor (in smaller businesses one often sees such attitudes leading to abusing practices by management since it can turn legitimate complaints into a perception that one "isn't on the team").
A boycott of Whole Foods for their health care stand should probably primarily focus on Mackey's role as CEO and his statements on health care and unions and how he has tried to use the company to sell his ideas to his workers and the general public.
A boycott of Whole Foods for their health care stand should probably primarily focus on Mackey's role as CEO and his statements on health care and unions and how he has tried to use the company to sell his ideas to his workers and the general public.
For a number of years, the closest supermarket to my house was a Whole Foods. During that time, I shopped there a lot. Since October I’ve lived around the corner from a Safeway and have been pretty much “boycotting” Whole Foods ever since. Recently, however, Whole Foods CEO John Mackey piped up with a renewed expression of his longstanding right-wing political views leading to renewed Netroots interest in a Whole Foods boycott:
"I am a Nashville area surgeon and a loyal customer of the Nashville Whole Foods ever since it first opened. This is true no longer. I was stunned and deeply disappointed to read Mr. Mackey’s right-wing propaganda piece in the WSJ. He has his right to speak his point of view. I have the right to take my money elsewhere."
I saw that link via my friend Tim Lee who tweeted “Do Daily Kos commenters really want a world where CEOs are expected to pander to their customers’ political prejudices?”
And I’ll admit that at first I was pretty dubious of this notion. After all, if you don’t want to buy products that are sold by businesses whose owners and managers are conservatives, you would basically have to stop buying everything. Corporate managers are more right-wing than the country as a whole, owners of stock are more right-wing than the country as a whole, and owners of small businesses are much more right-wing than the country as a whole. Democrats are backed by the exciting categories of unskilled workers, professionals, routine white collar workers, and people with part time jobs.
That said, there’s asking a CEO to pander to your prejudices, and there’s pressuring a CEO not to go out of his way to offend your prejudices. Corporate executives have a lot of social and political power in the United States, in a way that goes above and beyond the social and political power that stems directly from their wealth. The opinions of businessmen on political issues are taken very seriously by the press and by politicians on both sides of the aisle. Once upon a time perhaps union leaders exercised the same kind of sway, but these days all Republicans, most of the media, and some Democrats feel comfortable writing labor off as just an “interest group” while Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and Jack Welch are treated as all-purpose sages. One could easily imagine a world in which CEOs were reluctant to play the role of freelance political pundit out of fear of alienating their customer base. And it seems to me that that might very well be a nice world to live in.
At any rate, very few businesses go as far as Whole Foods in marketing their products specifically as part of a quasi-politicized left-wing lifestyle and few CEOs go as far as Mackey in public advocacy of political views that are only tangentially related to his business. If Whole Foods shareholders were to start to wonder whether having their corporate brand dragged into the health care debate is really a smart use of their assets, I would call that a good thing. More like this please, in other words.
"I am a Nashville area surgeon and a loyal customer of the Nashville Whole Foods ever since it first opened. This is true no longer. I was stunned and deeply disappointed to read Mr. Mackey’s right-wing propaganda piece in the WSJ. He has his right to speak his point of view. I have the right to take my money elsewhere."
I saw that link via my friend Tim Lee who tweeted “Do Daily Kos commenters really want a world where CEOs are expected to pander to their customers’ political prejudices?”
And I’ll admit that at first I was pretty dubious of this notion. After all, if you don’t want to buy products that are sold by businesses whose owners and managers are conservatives, you would basically have to stop buying everything. Corporate managers are more right-wing than the country as a whole, owners of stock are more right-wing than the country as a whole, and owners of small businesses are much more right-wing than the country as a whole. Democrats are backed by the exciting categories of unskilled workers, professionals, routine white collar workers, and people with part time jobs.
That said, there’s asking a CEO to pander to your prejudices, and there’s pressuring a CEO not to go out of his way to offend your prejudices. Corporate executives have a lot of social and political power in the United States, in a way that goes above and beyond the social and political power that stems directly from their wealth. The opinions of businessmen on political issues are taken very seriously by the press and by politicians on both sides of the aisle. Once upon a time perhaps union leaders exercised the same kind of sway, but these days all Republicans, most of the media, and some Democrats feel comfortable writing labor off as just an “interest group” while Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and Jack Welch are treated as all-purpose sages. One could easily imagine a world in which CEOs were reluctant to play the role of freelance political pundit out of fear of alienating their customer base. And it seems to me that that might very well be a nice world to live in.
At any rate, very few businesses go as far as Whole Foods in marketing their products specifically as part of a quasi-politicized left-wing lifestyle and few CEOs go as far as Mackey in public advocacy of political views that are only tangentially related to his business. If Whole Foods shareholders were to start to wonder whether having their corporate brand dragged into the health care debate is really a smart use of their assets, I would call that a good thing. More like this please, in other words.
For more information:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives...
""While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?"
You hit the nail on the head, Mr Whole Foods CEO. How about making food and shelter entitlements on par with a PUBLICLY FUNDED healthcare system? Section 8 and food stamps for all."
I want you to take a close look. Yes, many of US consider that possession of a right implies possession of an entitlement (becuase of OUR political beliefs). As evidence see how one of us commenting sliiped in the change. But Mackey as a libertarian (if he really is) SHOULD have said "while all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrisic ENTITLEMENT to health care than they have to food or shelter".
You don't understand the diference? Well if you have an entitrlement to something then you automaticly have a right to it; but if you have a right to something, well then we can legitimately disagree whether you also have an entitlement tio it (whether it is possible to assign to somebody the duty/obligation to supply it to you should you lack it --- that's a very different matter than saying that nobody is permitted to take it away from you or to prevent ypu from having it).
Now I don't know why Mackey made this mistake; could well have been the context of the persons to whom he was speaking (like us) or could have just been carelessness. But he's left himself vulnerable. The point here is that he said something very bad EVEN according to how a libertarian should think. A proper libertarian DOES think everybody has a RIGHT to food, shelter, or health care for that matter (they are pretty keen on individual RIGHTS) but denies that anybody is entitled to just about anything.
You hit the nail on the head, Mr Whole Foods CEO. How about making food and shelter entitlements on par with a PUBLICLY FUNDED healthcare system? Section 8 and food stamps for all."
I want you to take a close look. Yes, many of US consider that possession of a right implies possession of an entitlement (becuase of OUR political beliefs). As evidence see how one of us commenting sliiped in the change. But Mackey as a libertarian (if he really is) SHOULD have said "while all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrisic ENTITLEMENT to health care than they have to food or shelter".
You don't understand the diference? Well if you have an entitrlement to something then you automaticly have a right to it; but if you have a right to something, well then we can legitimately disagree whether you also have an entitlement tio it (whether it is possible to assign to somebody the duty/obligation to supply it to you should you lack it --- that's a very different matter than saying that nobody is permitted to take it away from you or to prevent ypu from having it).
Now I don't know why Mackey made this mistake; could well have been the context of the persons to whom he was speaking (like us) or could have just been carelessness. But he's left himself vulnerable. The point here is that he said something very bad EVEN according to how a libertarian should think. A proper libertarian DOES think everybody has a RIGHT to food, shelter, or health care for that matter (they are pretty keen on individual RIGHTS) but denies that anybody is entitled to just about anything.
There's plenty of reasons to boycott Whole Foods, the main reason being that they are making organic foods into another corporation based on profits, and this takes away from the concept of locally grown healthy organic food that supports the community farmers and ranchers. What Whole Foods has done is make the organic foods lifestyle into another corporate player alongside Wal-mart and other corporate mammoths that only view profit as important, even if wrapped in an organic label..
Then there's the way that Whole Foods treats their employees, not very well would be an understatement. Preventing workers from organizing unions is not ethical, and many smaller organic food and health shops are much nicer and treat their workers with respect. The co-op model where employees are profit sharing is a world of difference from the top down heirarchal approach of mega-corporations like Whole Foods.
Whole Foods position as a major corporate player is causing smaller more ethical organic and health food stores to go out of business as Wal-mart does to smaller family owned clothes, hardware, etc... stores in many communities. In other words, Whole Foods is the Wal-mart of organic food stores, and even then they are much more expensive than Wal-mart!! Why would anyone who cares about organic food and healthy lifestyle even go to Whole Foods to begin with unless no other option exists??
As someone who has views on health care that are similar to libertarians, i do not agree with the Democrat's current version of "new and improved" health care either. However, the opinions of the CEO of Whole Foods on health care are not going to cause me to begin shopping there either, as i prefer smaller and locally owned organic food stores and would only go to Whole Foods as an extreme last resort. Even then, there's always ants and dandylions!!
Though i never attended one of the "town hall" meetings nor ever yelled out loud about anything related to health care plans, i am not in favor of the (Obama) Democrat's health care plan for several reasons. Maybe i am misinformed, and there are plenty of socialists on this website waiting to re-educate me about my skewed views and explain at length why i should just roll over and take whatever the Democrats decide is in my health's best interest, though i'm going to express my dissent here regardless..
My health care is in my own hands. That is why i go out of my way and sacrifice the expense of having a motor vehicle so that i can buy the harder to obtain and more expensive (due to lack of government subsidies) organic foods raised without toxic pesticides. NO western medical doctor exists that can give me any cure for any impending cancers in my future. Western medicine exists to provide treatment for symptoms of a disease once it is recognized, though no effort is expended on prevention of diseases in the first place! Benefits of nutrition and exersize are not covered in western medical schools either! My first objection is that it should be correctly called "medical insurance" and nothing else..
What is wrong with Medicare and Medicaid? Why not just allow employees who are laid off or fired easier access to Medicare? Why not use the billions of dollars needed for the Democrat's "new and improved" health care plan to instead shore up our Medicare/Medicaid system and improve access to doctors by Medicare patients??
On PBS Bill Moyer's show an interview explained that many of the "town hall yellers" were not "Nazi brownshirts" as the corporate media (and some misguided "socialists") portrayed them, instead they were citizens on Medicare or Medicaid who questioned the reasoning behind the shift of funding away from Medicare and Medicaid into "new and improved" Democrat's health care plan. Though i support the "working class" and believe that everyone should be getting some form of medical insurance, taking options away from Medicare patients isn't going to help either..
Certainly health care reform is a priority, and i hate the parasitic medical insurance corporations as much as anyone else, though robbing Peter to pay Paul will only worsen the problem. Send the health care plan back to the drawing board and then send us another one that strengthens instead of weakens Medicare/Medicaid programs already in existence..
We need to admit that there are many abuses of the western medical system by people who choose not to use personal responsibility for their own health. Maybe i was the only one applauding a decision made last year by the N.Y. state governor to tax soda beverages, the so-called "junk food tax" that many people on the east coast are complaining about. However, given the scientific knowledge that there is a direct correlation between consumption of refined sugars and high fructose corn syrup commonly found in soda beverages and resulting medical conditions like diabetes, should we enable people to abuse their bodies with junk food and then get on state subsidized medical insurance programs? Granted this is already happening with Medicare/Medicaid also, and this is a problem that needs to be addressed. ANY health care plan subsidized by the state should be supported by additional taxes on junk foods. My view is that the N.Y. governor did not go far enough, we should also have in addition to the soda tax a red meat tax, refined flour/sugar tax, and taxes on any other junk foods shown by science to result in adverse medical conditions. Maybe that is where i part ways with my libertarian comrades!? Having to further subsidize these and other self inflicted medical conditions with a "new and improved" medical insurance bill will not make anyone healthier..
Removal of toxins in our shared environment (Hey Pres. Obama, how about cleaning up some of our many toxic superfund sites as part of the next health care plan? The list there is quite long!) would solve a great many future medical conditions like cancers via the prevention route. However, here is where Big PHARMA steps in and complains, where would their record profits from chemotherapy go if people stopped getting cancer??
Another future health care option would be government subsidies revoked from industrial agribusiness that is dependent of toxic pesticides and instead subsidizing small start up organic farms that use crop rotation, intercropping and integrated pest management (IPM) methods as alternatives to toxic pestices..
Back to the drawing board on medical insurance reform;
The current health care plan as it stands is doomed to fail, and Pres. Obama will need to restart his efforts from square one and draft another medical insurance plan that is more inclusive of alternative medicines and doesn't pander to the profit driven desires of the AMA, and the western medical establishment in general. Maybe when Pres. Obama hires nutrition expert Gary Null as Surgeon General he may get my support for his next medical insurance proposal..
Until then, so long as i don't get run over by an eighteen wheeler or beaten to a bloody pulp by an angry mob of socialists, my personal choice is to avoid hospitals and the western medical establishment altogether, keeping up with true health care by eating locally grown organic foods where they exist..
Try making it easier for locally grown organic farmers to access lower income communties, that is the only real health care we need!!
Then there's the way that Whole Foods treats their employees, not very well would be an understatement. Preventing workers from organizing unions is not ethical, and many smaller organic food and health shops are much nicer and treat their workers with respect. The co-op model where employees are profit sharing is a world of difference from the top down heirarchal approach of mega-corporations like Whole Foods.
Whole Foods position as a major corporate player is causing smaller more ethical organic and health food stores to go out of business as Wal-mart does to smaller family owned clothes, hardware, etc... stores in many communities. In other words, Whole Foods is the Wal-mart of organic food stores, and even then they are much more expensive than Wal-mart!! Why would anyone who cares about organic food and healthy lifestyle even go to Whole Foods to begin with unless no other option exists??
As someone who has views on health care that are similar to libertarians, i do not agree with the Democrat's current version of "new and improved" health care either. However, the opinions of the CEO of Whole Foods on health care are not going to cause me to begin shopping there either, as i prefer smaller and locally owned organic food stores and would only go to Whole Foods as an extreme last resort. Even then, there's always ants and dandylions!!
Though i never attended one of the "town hall" meetings nor ever yelled out loud about anything related to health care plans, i am not in favor of the (Obama) Democrat's health care plan for several reasons. Maybe i am misinformed, and there are plenty of socialists on this website waiting to re-educate me about my skewed views and explain at length why i should just roll over and take whatever the Democrats decide is in my health's best interest, though i'm going to express my dissent here regardless..
My health care is in my own hands. That is why i go out of my way and sacrifice the expense of having a motor vehicle so that i can buy the harder to obtain and more expensive (due to lack of government subsidies) organic foods raised without toxic pesticides. NO western medical doctor exists that can give me any cure for any impending cancers in my future. Western medicine exists to provide treatment for symptoms of a disease once it is recognized, though no effort is expended on prevention of diseases in the first place! Benefits of nutrition and exersize are not covered in western medical schools either! My first objection is that it should be correctly called "medical insurance" and nothing else..
What is wrong with Medicare and Medicaid? Why not just allow employees who are laid off or fired easier access to Medicare? Why not use the billions of dollars needed for the Democrat's "new and improved" health care plan to instead shore up our Medicare/Medicaid system and improve access to doctors by Medicare patients??
On PBS Bill Moyer's show an interview explained that many of the "town hall yellers" were not "Nazi brownshirts" as the corporate media (and some misguided "socialists") portrayed them, instead they were citizens on Medicare or Medicaid who questioned the reasoning behind the shift of funding away from Medicare and Medicaid into "new and improved" Democrat's health care plan. Though i support the "working class" and believe that everyone should be getting some form of medical insurance, taking options away from Medicare patients isn't going to help either..
Certainly health care reform is a priority, and i hate the parasitic medical insurance corporations as much as anyone else, though robbing Peter to pay Paul will only worsen the problem. Send the health care plan back to the drawing board and then send us another one that strengthens instead of weakens Medicare/Medicaid programs already in existence..
We need to admit that there are many abuses of the western medical system by people who choose not to use personal responsibility for their own health. Maybe i was the only one applauding a decision made last year by the N.Y. state governor to tax soda beverages, the so-called "junk food tax" that many people on the east coast are complaining about. However, given the scientific knowledge that there is a direct correlation between consumption of refined sugars and high fructose corn syrup commonly found in soda beverages and resulting medical conditions like diabetes, should we enable people to abuse their bodies with junk food and then get on state subsidized medical insurance programs? Granted this is already happening with Medicare/Medicaid also, and this is a problem that needs to be addressed. ANY health care plan subsidized by the state should be supported by additional taxes on junk foods. My view is that the N.Y. governor did not go far enough, we should also have in addition to the soda tax a red meat tax, refined flour/sugar tax, and taxes on any other junk foods shown by science to result in adverse medical conditions. Maybe that is where i part ways with my libertarian comrades!? Having to further subsidize these and other self inflicted medical conditions with a "new and improved" medical insurance bill will not make anyone healthier..
Removal of toxins in our shared environment (Hey Pres. Obama, how about cleaning up some of our many toxic superfund sites as part of the next health care plan? The list there is quite long!) would solve a great many future medical conditions like cancers via the prevention route. However, here is where Big PHARMA steps in and complains, where would their record profits from chemotherapy go if people stopped getting cancer??
Another future health care option would be government subsidies revoked from industrial agribusiness that is dependent of toxic pesticides and instead subsidizing small start up organic farms that use crop rotation, intercropping and integrated pest management (IPM) methods as alternatives to toxic pestices..
Back to the drawing board on medical insurance reform;
The current health care plan as it stands is doomed to fail, and Pres. Obama will need to restart his efforts from square one and draft another medical insurance plan that is more inclusive of alternative medicines and doesn't pander to the profit driven desires of the AMA, and the western medical establishment in general. Maybe when Pres. Obama hires nutrition expert Gary Null as Surgeon General he may get my support for his next medical insurance proposal..
Until then, so long as i don't get run over by an eighteen wheeler or beaten to a bloody pulp by an angry mob of socialists, my personal choice is to avoid hospitals and the western medical establishment altogether, keeping up with true health care by eating locally grown organic foods where they exist..
Try making it easier for locally grown organic farmers to access lower income communties, that is the only real health care we need!!
From Organic Consumers Association;
"Breaking the Organic Monopoly and the “Natural” Foods Myth
Whole Foods Market and United Natural Foods, Inc.: Undermining Our Organic Future
After four decades of hard work, the organic community has built up a $25 billion “certified organic” food and farming sector. This consumer-driven movement, under steady attack by the biotech and Big Food lobby, with little or no help from government, has managed to create a healthy and sustainable alternative to America’s disastrous, chemical and energy-intensive system of industrial agriculture.
However, the annual $50 billion natural food and products industry is threatening to undermine the organic movement by flooding the marketplace with conventional products greenwashed with “natural” labeling. "Natural," in the overwhelming majority of cases, translates to "conventional-with-a-green-veneer." Natural products are routinely produced using pesticides, chemical fertilizer, hormones, genetic engineering, and sewage sludge. "Natural","all-natural," and "sustainable," products in most cases are neither backed up by rules and regulations, nor a Third Party certifier. These are label claims that are neither policed nor monitored. For an evaluation of eco-labels see the Consumers Union Eco-Label website.
For example:
* Tests Show Widespread Presence of GMOs in So-Called "Natural" Foods
* So-called "Natural" non-organic soy milk products, including leading brands such as "Silk,"are made with conventional soy lecithin, utilizing the hazardous chemical, Hexane, as an extraction agent.
* Dozens of "natural" and "made with organic" personal care and household cleaning products contain known carcinogens, such as 1,4 Dioxane. Just about the only personal care products you can trust are those bearing the “USDA Organic” label.
* 90% or more of the vitamins and supplements now on the market labeled as "Whole Foods," "natural" or "food based" are spiked with synthetic chemicals.
Despite the massive popularity and demand for certified organic products, retailers like Whole Foods Market, and wholesalers like United Natural Foods Inc., continue to push "natural" products at a premium price, while, in effect slowing down the growth of organics with their near market monopoly. In fact, the majority of products sold and distributed by Whole Foods Market and UNFI are not certified organic, but rather so-called "natural.” Meanwhile, independent and cooperative grocers often offer more certified organic products at competitive prices."
read article @;
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27537
Here's another source of subsidized medical insurance, taxes on junk food!!
N.Y. Governor David Paterson taxes junk food (soda);
"The Case for the Obesity Tax
April 12, 2009 by David Pechar, Contributing WritercloseAuthor: David Pechar, Contributing
Writer Name: David Pechar
Email: david.pechar [at] gmail.com
Recently, New York Governor David Paterson promoted a plan for legislation that would have levied a 15% tax on sodas and other drinks with high sugar content and containing less than 70% fruit juice. Proponents of the ‘Obesity Tax’ argued that the measure would help reduce the prevalence of obesity in New York State. The revenue generated was to be reinvested into public health programs and obesity prevention measures. Citing the success of other similar public health initiatives, including anti-smoking measures such as hefty sales taxes placed on the purchase of cigarettes, supporters were optimistic that this policy would have comparable effects in terms of reducing the consumption of soda and other high-sugar beverages, particularly in children.
Not exactly Mr. Popularity
Responses to the proposed ‘Obesity Tax’, however, were mostly negative and likely compounded by the Governor’s current negative approval ratings. The tax faced opposition from individuals, associations, and other organizations, including the New York State Restaurant Association and the National Restaurant Association. Disapproval took the form of the expected outrage over legislation which would dictate personal habits and beliefs that the ‘Obesity Tax’ would prove to be an ineffective public health measure. Others felt that, in contrast to successful cigarette taxes that have progressively increased the price of cigarettes by larger margins, a 15% tax on soda would fail to produce any changes in consumption. This latter criticism helped paint the Governor’s legislation as merely a disingenuous attempt to meet New York State budget shortfalls under the guise of a compassionate public health policy. And maybe that is exactly what it was, as the Governor recently performed an about face and replaced the “Obesity Tax” and other revenue measures with money from the federal stimulus package.
Yet the current political climate and unpopular governors notwithstanding, there is a larger point that can be gleaned from this debate. Public health measures that attempt to dissuade unhealthy behavior, whether through consumer tax or mandatory disclosure of nutritional information, are economically, politically, and morally justified. In addition to the promotion of healthy individual living, the basic goals of public policies like the ‘Obesity Tax’ include decreasing both the incidence of chronic illnesses and the amount spent on health care treatment for preventable diseases. In fact, as I will discuss below, reducing health care expenditures on the treatment of preventable chronic diseases should be a critical element of any plan aimed at improving the current health care system in the United States."
article cont's @;
http://demockracy.com/the-case-for-the-obesity-tax/
Here's a belated thank you to Gov. Dave Paterson for making the correct choice! Now how about that red meat tax!!
"Breaking the Organic Monopoly and the “Natural” Foods Myth
Whole Foods Market and United Natural Foods, Inc.: Undermining Our Organic Future
After four decades of hard work, the organic community has built up a $25 billion “certified organic” food and farming sector. This consumer-driven movement, under steady attack by the biotech and Big Food lobby, with little or no help from government, has managed to create a healthy and sustainable alternative to America’s disastrous, chemical and energy-intensive system of industrial agriculture.
However, the annual $50 billion natural food and products industry is threatening to undermine the organic movement by flooding the marketplace with conventional products greenwashed with “natural” labeling. "Natural," in the overwhelming majority of cases, translates to "conventional-with-a-green-veneer." Natural products are routinely produced using pesticides, chemical fertilizer, hormones, genetic engineering, and sewage sludge. "Natural","all-natural," and "sustainable," products in most cases are neither backed up by rules and regulations, nor a Third Party certifier. These are label claims that are neither policed nor monitored. For an evaluation of eco-labels see the Consumers Union Eco-Label website.
For example:
* Tests Show Widespread Presence of GMOs in So-Called "Natural" Foods
* So-called "Natural" non-organic soy milk products, including leading brands such as "Silk,"are made with conventional soy lecithin, utilizing the hazardous chemical, Hexane, as an extraction agent.
* Dozens of "natural" and "made with organic" personal care and household cleaning products contain known carcinogens, such as 1,4 Dioxane. Just about the only personal care products you can trust are those bearing the “USDA Organic” label.
* 90% or more of the vitamins and supplements now on the market labeled as "Whole Foods," "natural" or "food based" are spiked with synthetic chemicals.
Despite the massive popularity and demand for certified organic products, retailers like Whole Foods Market, and wholesalers like United Natural Foods Inc., continue to push "natural" products at a premium price, while, in effect slowing down the growth of organics with their near market monopoly. In fact, the majority of products sold and distributed by Whole Foods Market and UNFI are not certified organic, but rather so-called "natural.” Meanwhile, independent and cooperative grocers often offer more certified organic products at competitive prices."
read article @;
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27537
Here's another source of subsidized medical insurance, taxes on junk food!!
N.Y. Governor David Paterson taxes junk food (soda);
"The Case for the Obesity Tax
April 12, 2009 by David Pechar, Contributing WritercloseAuthor: David Pechar, Contributing
Writer Name: David Pechar
Email: david.pechar [at] gmail.com
Recently, New York Governor David Paterson promoted a plan for legislation that would have levied a 15% tax on sodas and other drinks with high sugar content and containing less than 70% fruit juice. Proponents of the ‘Obesity Tax’ argued that the measure would help reduce the prevalence of obesity in New York State. The revenue generated was to be reinvested into public health programs and obesity prevention measures. Citing the success of other similar public health initiatives, including anti-smoking measures such as hefty sales taxes placed on the purchase of cigarettes, supporters were optimistic that this policy would have comparable effects in terms of reducing the consumption of soda and other high-sugar beverages, particularly in children.
Not exactly Mr. Popularity
Responses to the proposed ‘Obesity Tax’, however, were mostly negative and likely compounded by the Governor’s current negative approval ratings. The tax faced opposition from individuals, associations, and other organizations, including the New York State Restaurant Association and the National Restaurant Association. Disapproval took the form of the expected outrage over legislation which would dictate personal habits and beliefs that the ‘Obesity Tax’ would prove to be an ineffective public health measure. Others felt that, in contrast to successful cigarette taxes that have progressively increased the price of cigarettes by larger margins, a 15% tax on soda would fail to produce any changes in consumption. This latter criticism helped paint the Governor’s legislation as merely a disingenuous attempt to meet New York State budget shortfalls under the guise of a compassionate public health policy. And maybe that is exactly what it was, as the Governor recently performed an about face and replaced the “Obesity Tax” and other revenue measures with money from the federal stimulus package.
Yet the current political climate and unpopular governors notwithstanding, there is a larger point that can be gleaned from this debate. Public health measures that attempt to dissuade unhealthy behavior, whether through consumer tax or mandatory disclosure of nutritional information, are economically, politically, and morally justified. In addition to the promotion of healthy individual living, the basic goals of public policies like the ‘Obesity Tax’ include decreasing both the incidence of chronic illnesses and the amount spent on health care treatment for preventable diseases. In fact, as I will discuss below, reducing health care expenditures on the treatment of preventable chronic diseases should be a critical element of any plan aimed at improving the current health care system in the United States."
article cont's @;
http://demockracy.com/the-case-for-the-obesity-tax/
Here's a belated thank you to Gov. Dave Paterson for making the correct choice! Now how about that red meat tax!!
Right wing nuts are using quotes from this letter as if they had an original thought.
aka "nowhere in the constitution or bill of rights does it say americans should have x, y, z"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/16/national/w075037D49.DTL
1200+ readers voted for the most popular comment:
SNIP
=========================
gern8/16/2009 8:42:53 AM
What is most often lost in all of this is one simple fact; Obama swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about assuring that everyone has healthcare?
To those who continue to blindly defend him, I AM a Dem and I cannot in good conscience defend his actions to date.
1. More debt.
2. No positive effect on economy.
3. Creation of "Czars" with questionable backgrounds themselves - TOTALLY violates the Constitution.
4. No action taken to control the tide of illegals and instead seems intent on giving them free services.
5. No action taken to get us out of the Middle East.
It is really hard to defend someone who is so wrong so much of the time. To those who believe this is a "we versus they" scenario, read up on the Constitution a little. Get to know what our Founding Fathers really wanted for us. And then ask yourself if Hussein is working towards or away from this end.
Recommend: (1272)
aka "nowhere in the constitution or bill of rights does it say americans should have x, y, z"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/16/national/w075037D49.DTL
1200+ readers voted for the most popular comment:
SNIP
=========================
gern8/16/2009 8:42:53 AM
What is most often lost in all of this is one simple fact; Obama swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about assuring that everyone has healthcare?
To those who continue to blindly defend him, I AM a Dem and I cannot in good conscience defend his actions to date.
1. More debt.
2. No positive effect on economy.
3. Creation of "Czars" with questionable backgrounds themselves - TOTALLY violates the Constitution.
4. No action taken to control the tide of illegals and instead seems intent on giving them free services.
5. No action taken to get us out of the Middle East.
It is really hard to defend someone who is so wrong so much of the time. To those who believe this is a "we versus they" scenario, read up on the Constitution a little. Get to know what our Founding Fathers really wanted for us. And then ask yourself if Hussein is working towards or away from this end.
Recommend: (1272)
For more information:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...
Good grief, a company that for 3 decades depicted itself as progressive, Earth-friendly, and a healthy alternative to crap foods is once again exposed as a Republinazi-minded traitor company. And for 30 years, progressives gave this company their money, paying more for healthier foods while unknowingly funding extremist right-wing causes that hurt Americans.
Amazing.
Amazing.
For more information:
http://www.skeptictank.org
People are entitled to their opinons. Mackey has almost nothing to do with the company anymore. As a whole foods employee I am treated quite well and feel glad to have a job right now. They did not fire ANYONE during these hard economic times.
Don't punish all of the people that work for Whole Foods to feed their families just because you are offended by something that was SAID.
Good grief!!
Wasting time on a boycott of a Grocery store when you could be feeding the homeless and teaching your children how to grow up and save this world... instead of letting them become great video game players. You should all be ashamed.
Don't punish all of the people that work for Whole Foods to feed their families just because you are offended by something that was SAID.
Good grief!!
Wasting time on a boycott of a Grocery store when you could be feeding the homeless and teaching your children how to grow up and save this world... instead of letting them become great video game players. You should all be ashamed.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$180.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network