MB Civic

Published on BuyBlue.org

Bring Whole Foods to Camden, Then We’ll Talk – The Whole Foods SOLUTION (Part 4)
By OMO Sapien
Created Aug 14 2006 – 7:03pm

When all is said and done, John Mackey is right: Whole Foods has done a lot of good for organics by integrating them into a mainstream shopping milieu, and what is good for organics is a vast improvement over the ecocidal disaster of the past 60 years. I can be objective enough to admit that.

There is a lot to like about Whole Foods. I won’t use this limited space to elaborate; so much is already scrawled across cyberspace for those who want to see it. Do a web search on “Whole Foods” and read what comes up; check out their website if you dare. (Keep in mind, of course, that business writers tend to genuflect all around them, and there is a thick veneer of PR over most of what they say about themselves, so investigate –make up your own mind. I trust that conscientious consumers can discern what’s what.)

The reason that Jodi and I avoid shopping at Whole Foods is that we have alternatives that we prefer to support, based on economic and social wellness principles. Our view of what is good in economics and for our commercial landscape seems to be the diametric opposite of what Mr. Mackey proffers in his writings and interviews, so we prefer to spend our money elsewhere –plain and simple.

But let’s keep one thing in perspective: Whole Foods is not the enemy. “Sure,” some of you long-time members of the organic community may be saying, “but with friends like these, who needs enemies?” A valid point as well.

But consider this: Right now, approximately 2% of all food consumed in the United States is organic, and 2% is eaten locally to its place of origin (the exact figures vary depending on the source and whether restaurant food is included). I’ll throw in a generous 2% to account for passive organics and otherwise “naturally grown” items. That means at least 94 percent of our food is ecocidal –if the socio-ecological footprint of what is sold at your local co-op is that of, say, a raccoon, Whole Foods’ footprint might be a small child….but that 94 percent is a mutant Sasquatch on steroids. That is the enemy.

I think the question of whether Whole Foods is a friend or foe of the organic community is all a matter of viewpoint. If you did most or all of your food shopping at Safeway or Albertsons or Kroger and the like before Whole Foods moved into your area, you will probably see them as revolutionary, a cutting-edge business that is leading the way in an emerging, beneficent retail field. If, on the other hand, you were a loyal supporter of a store that Mr. Mackey was referring to when he said, “we are coming to your town and taking your business,” and they came, and you watched it happen, you are more likely to see Whole Foods as imperialists of Wal-Martesque proportions, a predatory corporation that used financial privilege to swallow its competition and capitalize on the “overnight success” of a movement that is actually over 40 years in the making. Both viewpoints are true in their own partial way, and it is the reconciliation of these truths into an individual’s path of ethical action that makes for a conscientious choice in the market place –be it a choice between retail products or between the retailers themselves. The advice is the same as it is everywhere else: be informed and follow your conscience.

Beyond that, there is a point where it gets counterproductive to dwell upon what could have or should have happened to the organics movement. It is not 1990 anymore; it is 2006. The USDA defines “organic” for us and Whole Foods has several boatloads of our money. The real question is, what should we do now? In what direction should we go from here?

Regarding the USDA, the OMO website will be detailing what we consider a two-pronged approach consisting of political and apolitical action. In the political realm, we must vociferously oppose any further degradation of or compromise to NOP standards, and we must equally support any incremental changes that strengthen them; this is to help insure the very real gains we have made in improving agricultural practices in America –not as much as we want, not in as many ways as we want, but the situation is improving.

From the apolitical perspective: acknowledging that the term “organic agriculture” has been irrevocably divorced from its integral meaning by an act of law –a government rarely if ever chooses to relinquish a power it has assumed—we intend to join the call for alternatives to the NOP. To that end, we seek to bring together organic farmers and food producers, distributors, retailers, buyers’ cooperatives and consumers under a philosophical tent that we call a “Network Of Trust” (NOT). Our purpose is to adopt and promote one of the alternatives that already exist, or take the best ideas from these programs and create our own. This network will be founded on the democratic principles of voluntary association, mutual aid, self-government and complete transparency –the opposite of what we have from 16 years of control by the USDA. It is apolitical in nature because it seek to neither fulfill nor defy the NOP, nor to shape public policy, but merely to work and buy and sell according to the interior principles of ethical action, rooted firmly in social justice and agroecology. This is where we feel the heart of the organic movement must go to regain its spirit.

As for Whole Foods, I believe there is value in the role they have created for themselves –the conscientious leader of an expansion-minded industry that is seeking to (literally) break new ground. A leaner, more humble Whole Foods can do a world of good for organics by expanding into communities that are currently underserved when it comes to natural foods.

For instance, I hope we can all agree that Whole Foods no longer need to grow its own customer base through an expansion policy based upon “lateral shift” –drawing customers away from independent natural food stores and co-ops, siphoning money that was already earmarked for organic and local food. If Whole Foods wants to help chip away at that “94 Percent Machine”, let them lead the way for organics into untraditional markets, NOT places like Ithaca, New York and Greenfield, Mass. These communities were too small and not wealthy enough to fit the Whole Foods profile, but folks there do worry that a new wave of expansion could target their ample customer base. I hope Whole Foods will continue to use its spoils of victory (capital) to create more vertical growth for organics. Anything else at this point would be a pure money grab.

Likewise, we would love to see Whole Foods extend its mission-driven philosophy into offering healthy food choices to those who live in redeveloping urban neighborhoods. We tend to forget that in this society of such lavish abundance for some, there are many, many others who have no access to decent food in the places where they live.

Our home office in South Jersey is just one town removed from Camden, one of the most notorious examples of extreme urban blight surrounded by typical American prosperity. Camden was prosperous itself until a few decades ago, when every major employer deserted it for greener pastures; now entire neighborhoods of historic rowhouses are boarded up and falling down, and drugs are the only profitable business for its young adults to enter. Drive around Camden a while and I’d guess you’ll see at least 5 or 6 stores for every grocery, and what food stores you do find will be disproportionately stocked with the cheap junk that Whole Foods admirably refuses to sell. It isn’t even a matter of making healthy choices in places like Camden –healthy choices don’t exist. Several areas in Philadelphia are the same way; in fact every significant urban area in America can point to neighborhoods where bad nutritional options are forced upon people by the marketplace. The fact that we allow this to happen is one of the great badges of shame on this society.

Whole Foods has placed itself in a unique position to address this injustice. No other private or public institution combines their dedication to high-quality food and economic clout –a stockpile of capital and strategic command of market share—with what Whole Foods calls a “mission-driven” business model: capitalism with a purpose beyond increasing shareholder wealth. Yet in Philadelphia, Whole Foods will be moving out of one Center City location (an old Fresh Fields building) and relocating to a new bigger facility a few blocks away. This is a typical “box store” maneuver, and it is disappointing (though we do appreciate them for building “green” if they must build).

Making private-label products with attention to quality ingredients is good –Trader Joes has proven that this concept can make good food somewhat more accessible to consumers—and it might assuage some of the “Whole Paycheck” criticism, but it does nothing to help the people who need help the most to put these products on the same shelves in the same gentrified neighborhoods and swank suburban stripmalls.

To do otherwise, it seems, requires an entirely different business model than what is employed in the high-income districts. A Whole Foods in Oklahoma City or Cheyenne would expect to have a lower profit margin than, say, Columbus Circle or Beverly Hills, and a Camden store would have to be run almost like a non-profit in order to work. But Whole Foods owns all of its stores (no franchises) so theoretically, not all of them need to pull their own weight for the whole chain to succeed. The “rising tide” of their profitable stores would lift the smaller “boats” they build to serve the smaller and under-privileged communities (see, I was paying attention in the ‘80s too). They could initiate a program at these stores to train young minority team members for the management track. If Whole Foods is the darling of socially-conscious investors now, how fabulous would that be –not a redistribution of wealth, but of opportunity. Now we’re talking the same language, eh John?

Yeah, I’m still skeptical that we could convince the folks at Whole Foods that this is in their best interest –but it’s worth a try. More than addressing all of the problems mentioned in our first four installments of this series, this is the one solution that could change my mind about John Mackey and his grocery chain. His blog is so chock-full of the idea that Big Business can (and in his case, does) do the most good for the most people, so I dare offer this in the form of a challenge: show us. Prove us ol’ anarcho-communists wrong. If Whole Foods can take real, significant steps toward a more egalitarian system of distribution for healthier, organic and natural foods, even I will get on board.

Until then, they’re still the Food Hole ‘round these parts, and OMO will still do everything in its power to keep as many people as we can from falling in. We want everyone in a Whole Foods community to know that there are many options beyond the supermarket/box store model, and we will build a directory to support these alternatives and inform consumers about their choices.

Don’t worry, Mr. Mackey, we’re not coming to your town and taking your business. We just want to reallocate some of your resources. “Outsource” some of your customer base. That’s all.

While any of us are left out of the market for “whole foods,” none of us are “Whole People.” Remember that.
Source URL:
http://www.buyblue.org/node/6631