MB Civic

Published on BuyBlue.org (http://www.buyblue.org)

If “Transparent is the New Organic,” Color Whole Foods Conventional — The Whole Foods Problem, Part 3
By OMO Sapien
Created Aug 2 2006 – 7:47am

ORGANIC MEANS ORGANIC
Biting the hands that feed us.

This seems like the most opportune moment to launch a deeper discussion of what we have been calling on OMO’s website “the $377.2 Million question.” [Note: This represents Whole Foods’ cumulative annual net profits in the three fiscal years since implementation of the USDA National Organic Plan in October 2002; in the seven previous years, the total was $246.6 million.]

Whole Foods’ literature proudly proclaims that they were the only retail grocer to participate in the creation of the USDA’s National Organic standards and certification process (that in itself is a disturbing fact –one must wonder what kind of political process gave Whole Foods that exclusive privilege). Certainly we are not naïve enough to think that the folks at Whole Foods went into this process without thinking of what would be the best scenario for Whole Foods, and we can see that their average annual net profits have more than tripled since the inception of the USDA program. Is it crazy to wonder how those two points are related?

First, we need to address something that could be taking on an air of hypocrisy in this discussion (that is, if you are hearing a similar critical voice to the one in my own head): OMO suggests that there is something fishy in the certification program, and that the organic community should “live by the ethic, not by the label,” yet we spent most of Part 2 arguing that Whole Foods should “live by the label” –is this not a double standard?

I would agree with this argument except for two very important side notes. One: Whole Foods helped create this black-and-white organic program, and they pledge support for it every chance they get. Obviously to be “organic” in their eyes means to carry the label. They could have supported a program that recognized the nuances of the real world, or at least eased the financial burden on unsubsidized organic farmers that were already on the short end of a stacked deck. But they didn’t –the helped the government drive a wedge through the organic community, separating it into the certified “haves” and the non-certified (passive organic) “have-nots.” To suggest that America’s First National Certified Organic Grocer should stock at least something close to half of its fresh and prepared food sections with Certified Organic food, therefore, is merely asking them to lie in the bed they helped make.

Two: I have no problem with Whole Foods selling non-certified produce, no more or less than I do with Essene or Abundance Co-op or GreenStar or any other natural foods store that is aiming for a balance of principles and economic sustainability (and the socially desirable outcome of supporting local, transitional and passive organic farmers as well). Included in this notion is an acknowledgement of the plain truth that there is some non-certified produce out there that is grown to higher ecological and social justice standards than its certified competitors. The produce buyers at Whole Foods are no dummies; surely they know this, and they understand that a crop’s entire socio-ecological footprint –from the farm to the plate and all the hands it passes through en route—is what determines if it is truly organic, not a government label. Communicating the subtle qualities and quantities of this footprint is a challenging task, but OMO’s entire reason for existence is to persuade all players on the organic supply-demand chain that this is EXACTLY what is required if we would “take organics to the next level” (a popular topic in the Mackey-Pollan letters).

Just last night I was reading an interesting blog entry from BuyBlue.org on this subject; it was titled “’Transparent’ Is the New ‘Organic.’” That’s it, in a nutshell. An increasingly conscious public –ironically overfed and under-nourished by the products of the Big Food Machine—is also growing increasingly unwilling to scarf down whatever is handed to it. As we accept responsibility for being co-creators of our bodies through our dietary choices, we also learn that this cannot be done in isolation; unless we live in a remote cave and grow all of our own food, we need the co-operation of our food producers to truthfully inform us of the processes involved, people employed and materials used in bringing their products to our table. Transparency –the willingness to be up front and honest in revealing these processes, without the coercive force of law—will soon become the gold standard for consciousness in agriculture that organics once was. The days of food producers, distributors and retailers being able to hide behind the guise of “proprietary information,” thankfully, are coming to an end.

The folks at Whole Foods are masterful at public relations, and I’ve read numerous articles recently lauding their internal transparency with employees regarding workplace issues. But transparency with customers? Not their strong suit.

What is the difference between PR and transparency, you may ask? PR is the glowing, adjective-heavy, market-driven description on the label of a processed food item; transparency is the ingredient list, plain and simple. Labels can also be a useful medium of transparency when used right (sticking with the organic hummus theme: “We buy our chickpeas from Grass Roots Organics, a growers’ cooperative from Tennessee…” –note the element of cross-promotion/mutual aid with their supplier) and not in the classically vague style of PR (“We buy only the finest certified organic chickpeas….”). When it comes to produce, pictures and blurbs about the swell organic farmers you occasionally buy from is PR (“That’s great, but where is their produce on the shelves??”); signs accurately depicting what is on the shelves, where it came from and how it was grown –hopefully corresponding to the farmers whose praiseworthy ecological contributions are chronicled on the walls—are transparency. (Note: more detailed thoughts on transparency will be available soon in the “Food Revolution” and “Network Of Trust” departments, and on the OMO Blog.)

Here’s what Whole Foods tells us about its “Conventional” produce on a sign posted in each store; you decide –is this PR or transparency?

“Whole Foods offers the highest quality conventionally grown produce available. Every day our buyers select the freshest and best tasting produce on the market. Our random testing program helps ensure that pesticide residues are within government guidelines.”

Personally, the only two conclusions I can make from that statement are that Whole Foods’ conventional produce is yummy and not illegally toxic –not exactly the kind of information that lets us make a conscious choice. And let’s not forget the “natural” produce in the salad bar and deli we covered in Part 2.

To be fair, almost every retailer I’ve visited can improve their transparency quotient –the idea that transparency can be a valued (and therefore “valuable”) commodity in the food industry is very new—and there is only so much a retailer can do alone, being at least one or two steps down the supply-demand chain. But that is a big part of the point: retail demand for greater transparency will foster its growth in the supply direction of the chain –growers, producers and wholesalers will begin to see it as a valuable commodity. Demand for transparency, therefore, like organics, is a consumer-driven phenomenon, so those who would be suppliers would do well to listen to the growing clamor and not fall back on tiresome PR techniques.

Now let’s segue back to the big question: is there a relationship between the enforcement of the USDA organic certification program –an undemocratic process in which Whole Foods was somehow the sole voice of the American retail sector—and Whole Foods’ skyrocketing growth in the years since?

One could make a simple (and correct) cause-effect conclusion that USDA certification led to broader acceptance of organics, which led to greater numbers of consumers seeking out the most visible source of organics, which, in most of the nation’s wealthy demographic regions (due to a decade of expansion and acquisition in these areas) was Whole Foods. They were smart and they set themselves up very well to reap a large portion of the windfall. I don’t deny that.

But simple answers to complex questions are rarely satisfying, and especially not here. For USDA certification also paved the way for greater rapid growth-oriented industrialization of organic agriculture; it gave a platform for hormone-free milking factories to market themselves as substantially equal to sustainable farms; and, as writers like Samuel Fromartz have pointed out, it created an unassailable legal status for the possibility of the “organic Twinkie” and other gustatory crimes against anatomy (“Organic Coca-Cola? High fructose syrup from organic corn? Sure, why not?”)

I think this raises a fair secondary question that isn’t so easy to answer: was USDA certification established to safeguard the principles of organics, or to facilitate the hijacking of those principles to serve the privilege-based interests of economic oligarchy and stacked-deck capitalism?

Inherent in this question is another: does a one-size-fits-all “USDA Organic” sticker encourage greater consciousness on the part of consumers, or does it perpetuate the mindless consumption patterns that destroy our personal, social and environmental health –the very problems that organic principles are designed to fix?

I emphatically say the latter to both. It did not have to be that way, but that is what we got. Here’s why, and here’s how Whole Foods has profited…..

Next: Part 4
Source URL: http://www.buyblue.org/node/6603