After Whole Food’s lost billions of dollars due to Michael Pollan’s criticisms of the company in The Omnivore’s Dilemma, John Mackey—Whole Foods CEO—announced that a certain percentage of products in every Whole Foods store would be locally sourced. Well, this is an admirable move for such a large company.
But, what does “local” actually mean? As I discovered with the Treasure Island bell peppers, grocery stores seem to have either a non-existent definition of “local” or a very loose one. Well, I now have an inside connection to Whole Foods, although this person shall remain nameless. And I just learned, from my secret insider source, that Whole Foods does indeed have a definition for “local,” but this definition may surprise you. This is what Whole Foods says on their website:
“Local produce is by definition seasonal. In spring in California, that means artichokes; summer in Michigan means blueberries and autumn in Washington means apples. We value this natural diversity, and each of our 11 regions has its own firm guidelines for using the term ‘local’ in our stores. While only products that have traveled less than a day (7 or fewer hours by car or truck) can even be considered for ‘local’ designation, most stores have established even shorter maximum distances. Ask a team member for your store's definition of ‘local.’”
Well, if you were to ask a team member at one of the stores (the secret source’s store is to also remain secret) you would be told that “local” means a product that was grown OR packaged within the state border of that particular store, or within a 250 mile radius of that store.
Now first off, many states in the US are very large. So, to consider San Francisco Bay Dungeness crab a “local” product in San Diego seems a little odd to me.
Secondly, notice the language here—a product that was grown **OR PACKAGED** within the state border or 250 mile radius. This means that corn grown in Iowa can be trucked or flown to a processing plant in California where it is turned into tortilla chips and sold in a California Whole Foods as a “local” product. Does this seem a little odd to you, or is it just me?
I wonder why each store needs to have its own individual definition of “local”. Why is it not a company wide standard? On one hand, I think that Whole Foods is an admirable company. They treat and pay their workers well, they give great benefits, and the fact that they at least attempt to promote local food is a good thing. However, when I hear things like this definition of local, I start to get a little bitter because I feel deceived as a customer—-especially if I am paying a premium price for these supposedly “local” items. This is why I am a fan of the farmers’ markets. I can support and buy from the local farmers directly. Although, I do like Whole Foods' beer selection, if that is any consolation…
***Image from Whole Foods Website Flickr Account
5 comments:
You seem to be trying to make a point critical of Whole Foods without even making sure that what you say is self-consistent, let alone true or relevant.
"I wonder why each store needs to have its own individual definition of “local”. Why is it not a company wide standard?"
You answered that question in the third paragraph. There is a company wide minimum standard, but the company allows stores to adopt their own more restrictive standards. They don't 'need' to have their own definition, but rather want to. How you can think this is a bad thing is beyond me.
Later on you imply that an un-named location of Whole Foods has a standard that would allow a San Francisco product to be considered local in San Diego. However, by both the company wide standards and the local store standards you cite, this would not be the case. National - I defy you yo get from SF to SD in 7 hours by car. Local - it's clearly more than 250 miles away. So, one would have to conclude that Whole Foods agrees with you that to consider SF crabs local to SD is 'a little odd'. Yet you make that claim as though you're making a point against Whole Foods.
You claim that Pollan's criticisms made Whole Foods lose billions of dollars. When? What are your numbers? According to public record, Whole Foods has posted a profit every year of its existence, including dismal, but still profitable, 2008. Do you even know for sure that Whole Foods operates on a scale that losses of 'billions of dollars' would leave the company with its doors open?
In sum, parts of this post explicitly employ some of the sloppiest of purportedly coherent thinking I've seen in a while. Do you even know your own standards, or do you just work on vague, fuzzy (or tingly) feelings?
secret source responds, in defense although also in agreement...
while i don't think that "processed and packaged" is equivalent to "grown," i also don't think whole foods is being hypocritical, or deceptive.
the local food movement has thus far been driven by environmental concerns - locavores eat local to cut down on fuel consumption, and also to encourage farmers to grow crops that can be farmed efficiently in a given climate or soil. by this definition, it would seem distinctly un-local to fly corn into california from iowa to be popped into homemade kettle corn, for example.
yet whole foods acknowledges that its definition of local might not agree with many shoppers, mentioning when it writes about local food that the "100 mile diet" - too restrictive for whole foods in states other than delaware and rhode island - is popular among locavores.
further, whole foods has a different reason for supporting local farmers and producers, even if they do ship in the oregano for their tomato sauce or the corn for their popcorn from other states. whole foods sets aside 10 million dollars a year for low-cost loans to local producers not because they're sustainable (though they may be) but because they, as small businesses, are part of the community, as whole foods sees it. for a large company, whole foods takes small businesses seriously, believing that it's just better to buy your popcorn from someone in your community than someone not. in the modern era, a state may not be such an unreasonable definition of community. so, when you pay that extra dollar for the popcorn, you may be supporting environmental responsibility, but you are also supporting the cause of mom-and-pop businesses and family farms.
whether you still want to spend that dollar is of course an individual choice, but i think it's worth pointing out that "local" isn't just a sales pitch, or another example of corporate hypocrisy. i'd encourage anyone reading to go into your local (!) whole foods and have a chat with a team member about what local means to you, them, and the store. i'm not technically a secret source - any team member worth their salt would give any curious customer an honest description of their store's "local" policy. it's a little cheesy, but at the end of the day we are all a community after all...
Eric, here is a direct quote from John Mackey in conversation with Michael Pollan on February 27, 2007 at Zellerback Auditorium on the UC Berkeley Campus, 1 hour and 23 minutes into the conversation:
"You probably only cost us about 2 billion dollars, Michael…Sorta after your book was published, it became open season on Whole Foods. The media likes to build people up and tear them down. […] Our stock was very highly valued. You took some of the air out of our tires…Michael, I am not blaming you for the fall off of the stock price …Very much,"
I was there that night at the auditorium to see the two men in conversation with each other. You can watch the entire conversation online still: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=19147&p=1&ipp=15&category=
And yes, my post was on vague and fuzzy feelings. I am a consumer and a Whole Foods shopper. I do not deny it. And as I said, I admire Whole Foods very much for many things that they do as a company. I think that if more companies upheld standards like Whole Foods does, the US would be in a much better place.
However, I am still critical. Whole Foods is not perfect. So yes, I am making a critical point of Whole Foods. After talking more with my "Secret source" who so kindly posted his/her response above, I see that perhaps it is a good thing that each store has their own definition of local. And it is even better that they actually have definition for local, unlike Treasure Island in Hyde Park.
However, Whole Foods is still a big huge corporate business. When people shop at Whole Foods, even if they are buying local products, they are not aware of the local food system which they are a part of. They are only aware of the middle man--Whole Foods. I am aware that big business will never go away. And if we are going to have big business, I would like more of them to be like Whole Foods.
But what I would like to see, is for Whole Foods to not only buy directly from local farmers, but to also host local farmers' markets in their parking lots. I would like each Whole Foods store to not only publicly post their definition of "local" but to also make more of an effort to tell their customers who those local farmer and producers are. I know that they are doing this sometimes, but I think that they could do a better job.
The bottom line is that I think it is absolutely necessary to be critical of everything we eat and where we get our food from. To simply say, "Whole Foods is a fabulous company, and they support local farms and producers, thus I will not think twice about what I buy there," is doing a disservice to not only yourself as a consumer, but to the company.
If you watch this conversation between Mackey and Pollan, John Mackey himself admits that Whole Foods has a long way to go, and is far from being a perfect company. And Mackey openly thanks Michael Pollan for forcing Whole Foods to be critical of their own practices, and to not take their popularity for granted.
So yes, I am working on vague and fuzzy feelings. And yes I am being critical. And I think that this makes me a better consumer.
I would like to comment on the choice of the consumer...yes, we can buy popcorn locally and pay a bit more for it, or buy popcorn flown in from Iowa and pay less.
This very issue is why we have goods flooding our country from China. Try buying a pair of socks made in America! You can't do it. It is not the big bad companies that send jobs offshore...it is the demands of the American consumer, yes, you and me!
So Melissa, keep educating we consumers through your blog...then we can make a more informed choice, and perhaps be willing to spend a bit more for broccoli that is fresh, organic, and local versus cheaper from afar loaded with preservatives!
You Go Girl!!
I must post a comment inspired by “Eric’s” comments and your response to him.
Being critical of the food you eat is one thing (something I would say is a no-brainer), but being rhetorically vague about your ideas and using these vagaries to denigrate a business that's rhetorically clear on its positions is just shoddy.
Okay, so you want Whole Foods to take up a more socialist business model ("...I would like to see, is for Whole Foods to not only buy directly from local farmers, but to also host local farmers' markets in their parking lots."). Fine, but please gain some understanding of its business dynamics. You actually think that Mackey, a savvy business man and accomplished capitalist, is going to promote activities so that people can make money in his parking lots? I’d like to see that come to fruition.
You might be critical of Whole Foods method's and standards for defining their product, but you're not thinking critically about the issue. Whole Foods is a corporation, like Fred Myers grocery, Wal-Mart, and even Rite Aid, and accordingly, and by definition for a publicly traded entity, answers, if not directly, to the money trail of investors who support its continuance as a seller of goods and/or services. The "local" label, however Whole Food defines it to suite their sales figures, is a placation to and draw for environmentally conscious shoppers. If you want local food (local food by your standards or anyone else’s), then grow it yourself or enlist your friends, or join a CO-OP you trust. If you can’t grow in good conscious the foods you want locally, then either give them up or move to where you can grow them, if local consumables are your thing. You want the luxury items of a capitalist society without the hegemony that’s intrinsically attached to it.
Also, I wonder why you only address "Eric's" final point of contention with your post, especially considering it's the one that’s the hardest to refute. Mackey says that Pollan "sorta" cost the company 2 billion dollars, which is in no way explicit or definitive about how much Pollan's book ACTUALLY cost the company, as well as the fact that costing and losing are two completely different terms in the corporate earnings world. (Please see Whole Foods earnings, market share, and the economic decline that’s been occurring for the last few years to edify yourself: http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/IncomeStatement.jsp?tkr=WFMI&period=qtr) At most you might say that Pollan's derision of Whole Foods cost the company sales, but to say that it cost billions, unless Mackey produced metrics that specifically correlate specific content in Pollan's book with a "$2 billion" loss in sales, is quite opportunistic of you.
I question why you would sensationalize something using with your “vague and fuzzy feelings” in the hopes of educating people, or to, what you’re really doing, take pot shots at Whole Foods. Fine, take the easy jabs, but don’t do it under the guise of letting people know that, GASP, a corporation’s definition of local is contingent on them selling stuff.
Post a Comment