Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Natural Food, Unnatural Prices

By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted January 25, 2006.


Is it possible to eat well without breaking the bank? Our correspondent goes shopping at Whole Foods and comes away hungry.
012506_story
Natural Food; Unnatural Prices

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Stan Cox

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Roaming the parking lot of a San Antonio shopping center last month, my wife Priti and I came upon a Whole Foods Market. I couldn't resist hitting the brakes. For years, from our home in Kansas, we'd been reading and hearing about this king-of-the-hill among natural food retailers, and we wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

I found a parking spot between an Outback and a Prius. In moments, we had left the land of steel and asphalt behind and stepped into a world of biological wonders. The robust-looking bread, in all the right shades of toasty brown, was clearly far more than an inert sandwich-support medium; even the few lonely white-bread specimens looked good. The fruits and vegetables actually looked and smelled like fruits and vegetables. The bulk bins formed a solid base for the best of food pyramids. In the deli and packaged-food sections, it was an invigorating experience simply to read the labels.

The work day was just starting, and the employees, most of them anyway, were genuinely friendly and seemingly delighted with their lot in life -- to be young, healthy and working at Whole Foods. These "team members," as they're known in company lingo, have signed on with a major-league powerhouse. With 180 stores in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, annual sales of $4.6 billion and profits of $160 million, Whole Foods recently moved into the Fortune 500.

But then we started looking around for something to buy. As we stared bug-eyed at the lofty price tags, I wondered aloud what sort of income it would take to become a regular Whole Foods shopper. Priti had an idea: Why not give Whole Foods the Wal-Mart test?

Return of the cashier-shopper

Priti was referring to a June 2003 AlterNet article in which I asked this seemingly simple question: In view of Wal-Mart's vast range of merchandise and "Always Low Prices," could a family whose breadwinner worked at the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Salina, Kan., afford to supply its minimum needs by shopping there?

I'd relied on published studies that computed the cost of an "adequate but austere" life for a family with one adult and two children in Salina. The budget included only the basics: shelter, transportation, food, routine toiletries and medicines, and not much more. Housing and transportation can't be bought at Wal-Mart (yet), but almost all other necessities can be.

The bottom line: Our Wal-Mart cashier could not satisfy such a bare-survival budget even if she worked 40 hours per week, more hours than a typical Wal-Mart workweek. And as you might expect, in trying to keep the family within such a budget, I condemned them to an array of foods that were boring, unappealing, and not very nutritious -- and produced in ways that most customers would prefer not to know about.

But is that inevitable? Or is the nation's corporate food system capable of supplying people at all income levels with products of the quality we saw at Whole Foods?

Salina to San Antonio

I took Priti up on her suggestion, moving the hypothetical family from Salina to San Antonio, and having my cashier work and buy groceries at Whole Foods. I used the same list of foods -- a minimal, USDA-recommended "low-cost food plan" -- that I'd used at the Salina Wal-Mart.

Back at Whole Foods, we followed the same simulated-shopping rules, selecting the cheapest food in each food category and the cheapest brand of that type. Using those prices, I computed the monthly cost of feeding an adult female, a 12-year-old boy and a 4-year-old child.

At Salina's Wal-Mart, the bill had been $232, plus sales tax. At Whole Foods, the same basket of food cost $564. Texas has no sales tax on food, and Whole Foods employees get a 20 percent discount, bringing the cost for the San Antonio cashier all the way down to $451. That monthly price tag includes only the cheapest foods in each category, and none of the store's popular luxury items.

The starting wage for a cashier at Salina's Wal-Mart in 2003 was $6.25, which fell $146 per month short of meeting her family's survival budget. Whole Foods employees in three states told me that a starting cashier's wages tend to be between $7 and $8, but according to Whole Foods spokesperson Ashley Hawkins, a poll of all company regions showed a starting wage of $8 to $10.

Let's assume that the cost of nonfood necessities in present-day San Antonio is similar to Salina circa 2003 (although it's undoubtedly higher, and the San Antonio cashier might not have access to the full day-care subsidy that low-income Kansas workers get). A $10-per-hour employee determined to shop at Whole Foods could manage to do so. An $8-per-hour employee could meet the bare-survival food budget, but with nothing left over. At $7, she would miss the mark by more than the Wal-Mart cashier-shopper. The situation would be worse in a state like Kansas that taxes food sales.

Hawkins says Whole Foods' full-time turnover rate is 24.7 percent, so the above wages would apply to approximately one-fourth of employees. She says the companywide average wage is $15, and that health care, 401(k), stock option and stock purchase plans (after about 10-12 months' employment) have helped earn Whole Foods a place on Fortune magazine's list of the "100 best companies to work for" for the past nine years.


Digg!

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kan.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The bottom line is...
Posted by: adp3d on Jan 25, 2006 3:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...pay people more money, they can afford your product. It worked for Henry Ford. Also, when you pay more, your tax revenues increase, hence better schools, better infrastructure. Now I'm not all that educated, I never had a single economics class so maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that if you have better schools and better infrastructure you are in an upwardly mobile system.
Now, it seems to me that if your employees can become your customers and ultimately your stockholders(take care to diversify, lesson learned from Enron), then you have a strong, well run company and Fortune will be turning its spotlight on you. As I mentioned before, I'm not all that educated, I do not have a MBA, so what am I missing with this model?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The bottom line is... Posted by: Lizka
» RE: The bottom line is... Posted by: magistre
» RE: The bottom line is... Posted by: weronika
How about Trader Joe's?
Posted by: churchofone on Jan 25, 2006 3:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice selection, quality food and very good prices. Perhaps the writer can do an analysis on them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How about Trader Joe's? Posted by: bwbrenton
» RE: How about Trader Joe's? Posted by: badkitty53
» RE: How about Trader Joe's? Posted by: truly scrumptious
» RE: How about Trader Joe's? Posted by: felipe
» RE: How about Trader Joe's? Posted by: Bimbeot
» RE: How about Trader Joe's? Posted by: danjkelly2
And what about others?
Posted by: O.B.Server on Jan 25, 2006 3:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are there any merchandizers in the US that pay a living wage to cashiers, stockers, and clerks?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why not study Wal-Mart workers at Starbucks?
Posted by: anothername on Jan 25, 2006 3:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A business is allowed to choose its market (no pun intended). Whole Foods is not aiming for the Wal-Mart employee, but for a customer base that has disposable income. The same applies to Starbucks, where a Wal-Mart employee would be hard pressed to find spare money to sit and sip.

I have shopped at Whole Foods in several cities and have found it to be higher and lower priced than other stores in the same localities, as well as having some items that I could not find elsewhere. The problem is that organic (or any) food is overpriced for many people and that food locally grown is not always cheaper than subsidized California produce. (Take a look at how much water California demands from other states to grow its fruits and vegetables and you will see agriculture that is not sustainable.)

Where I live now I can find organic produce, both fresh and frozen, as well as toiletries that are free of animal products. However, they are sold in small local health food stores or local grocery stores and have a hefty price tag. Moreover, they are not in my neighborhood nor are they near where I work. That means a round trip on the bus and about an extra two hours to make that round trip. Where I lived before this, it was very difficult to find organic food and the price was even more outlandish than where I am now. I found the Whole Foods store that opened in that community to be cheaper than other grocery store chains.

I find that the people who compare Whole Foods prices to their other grocery stores often are trying to compare apples to oranges (pun intended). Might as well put Bread & Circus in Massachusetts, Zabars in New York City, and other upper-scale grocery stores to the Wal-Mart test. They would not pass, either. This is nothing new. Decades ago, a local grocery chain where I was raised carried more expensive products at its stores that were near suburbs than what the same chain carried in its stores located in lower-income neighborhoods.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bread and Circus is now Whole Foods Posted by: truly scrumptious
From Consumer Reports: When it pays to buy organic
Posted by: dglasner on Jan 25, 2006 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Less than medical bills
Posted by: candara on Jan 25, 2006 4:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To compare Whole Foods to WalMart is insulting, at any level, in any way. I shop at Whole Foods wherever I live, and find them to be very reasonable...if you buy what's on sale that week. The writer didn't bother to mention that they have excellent sales that make their food affordable. I also sit in their eating areas a lot and eat the food I get from their delis and salad bars, etc. Guess what? I always see their employees sitting there, also eating their deli food. I usually shop late and am one of the last customers. This means I'm checking out with the employees, who (yes) are buying produce there. And they always make some comment about also liking one of the products I purchased (i.e. I love those organic choc. chip cookies, too). But, when people ask me why I pay so much more for organic food I always tell them that it's an investment in my future. Pay a little more for quality food now, and much less on med. bills in the future. I like supporting organic agriculture, plus in the short run, it's cheaper. I've tried switching to "regular" food. Guess what? I ate about 3x as much. I gained weight (40 lbs.), and it cost me more to buy that extra food. Healthy, organic food is more nutritious, so your body craves less. I'm all for any co-ops, etc. but I've never found one that's cheaper. How can they be? Until our gov't. subsidizes organic farmers like they subsidize the farmers who obediently use their corporation's pesticides, we will have to pay extra to be healthy. So, instead of picking on Whole Foods, and focusing on them, how about focusing on the real culprits. And get the organic farmers the support they deserve. BTW, I've been going to the same Whole Foods for 3 years now and they still have the same employees. So, I don't get the comment about employees only liking it there for 6 months.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Agree 100% Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
» RE: Less than medical bills Posted by: tussinup
» RE: Less than medical bills Posted by: apapmtz
» RE: Less than medical bills Posted by: Face Down in the Dirt
» RE: Less than medical bills Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: Less than medical bills Posted by: crusty
» True cost-true worth Posted by: nedwylie
More about profit
Posted by: tscox on Jan 25, 2006 4:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here are comments that I didn't receive in time to include in this piece. They are from from Dr. Joel Kovel, professor at bard College and author of the book "The Enemy of Nature: The End Of Capitalism or the End of the World". His comments expand on those of Brahm Ahmadi in the piece, on what happens when there's no choice but to put profit ahead of other considerations.

Stan Cox

From Joel Kovel:

"The aura of virtue that surrounds 'health-positive' and seemingly cooperative
ventures like Whole Foods tends to block out awareness of just how powerful
an effect is exerted by the macro-economy as it bears down upon firms and
subjects them to the great force-field of capital--subjects them, it should
be added, in proportion to how successful and large-scale they become.

I just bought an inexpensive keyboard from a local music store. The guy who
ran it is a musician, and, whether because he took a shine to me, or whether
he just didn't care that much about being a capitalist, he spontaneously
lowered the price and spent a lot of time going over the instrument with me.
He did something that no store manager at a place like Whole Foods can do
because the latter is just a cog in the machine, and because the firm has to
meet prevailing rates of profit, which means he can't muck around with the
price just because he feels a certain way that day and he can't afford to
not exploit labor, ignore "productivity" and the like. The Whole Foods guy
has got to deal with the prevailing rate of exploitation, which is the value
of labor power, an abstraction imposed by capital itself that forces him to
treat persons as things inorder not to fall behind in the great rat race."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More about profit Posted by: drone
» Uh... bad example. Posted by: Kneel
» RE: More about profit Posted by: jumperladd
» RE: More about profit Posted by: elizacoop
» RE: More about profit Posted by: Lizka
Chinese Proverb
Posted by: baad on Jan 25, 2006 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The stomach is a poor place for economy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chinese Proverb Posted by: mistawiz
Support local Food and Farm programs
Posted by: Lizmv on Jan 25, 2006 5:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Popping up in every city are organizations like Albany's Food and Farm. They are working to bring farmer's markets into the cities, especially the poorer neighborhoods. The farmers who are selling in the markets can even take food stamps! and the prices are always lower than supermarkets because the 5 or 6 "middlemen" are eliminated. This kind of program also puts the consumer and farmer into face to face contact where they build a real relationship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Join a Food Co-op - Mine Pays $9.50 Hour Starting Wage
Posted by: fifi on Jan 25, 2006 5:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't even consider Whole Foods a natural food store. It is a trendy gourmet foods store and horrendously overpriced. Salads in their deli sell for up to $15.00 a pound! Shopping there is like going to Zabars or Dean and DeLuca gourmet shops. Plenty of Whole Foods products are full of white flour, sugar and dubious ingredients. They don't have any commitment to organically grown foods - the vast majority of their groceries are conventionally grown with pesticides and GMO. Check out Whole Foods brand of products - NONE of those items have organically grown ingredients, and the price isn't any cheaper than name brand products. Whole Foods is notorious for its anti-labor practices. The owner is a
multi-millionaire, greedy and doesn't give a damn about the environment or his workers. I advise folks to join a natural foods co-op if they want organic food at great prices. Co-ops give a 10%membership discount - my co-op in Sacramento gives a 10% discount to disabled, seniors and very low income shoppers. My co-op in Sacramento buys DIRECT from organic farmers, eliminates the middleman broker - and sells organic produce CHEAPER than the supermarket. Whole Foods is the absolute worst example of a natural food store. Even Trader Joe's is a better place to shop than whole foods.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Brilliant Minds Posted by: jefhadist
» RE: Join a Food Co-op Posted by: TheJamea
» RE: $15 salads Posted by: crusty
» RE: $15 salads Posted by: badkitty53
Whole Paycheck...
Posted by: jefhadist on Jan 25, 2006 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's we we call the place in our area of Northern California. Whole Paycheck is a viable option for a certain range of incomes (just not low income) if you shop sales and stay away from those silly designer products, etc. but they don't seem to have that radical edge to them which actively tries to subvert/convert the dominant system. It's pretty much business as usual... capitalism style. The Sacramento Natural Food Co-op, in contrast, keeps certain basic foods: one bread, one grain, one juice, etc. at below market value costs as well as offering discounts to "members" and "member-workers" which brings the best food down to a more doable level financially as well as supports pretty much everyone to have some better choices. Bulk buying "clubs", CSA's, and "growing some of your own" are definitely the best options, if at all possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

problematic premise
Posted by: kingfelix on Jan 25, 2006 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the writer's previous Wal-Mart article made sense, as the company continually heralds its prices as the lowest, and its goods are aimed at the poorest members of the economy. therefore, it does mean something in terms of matching the rhetoric against reality to study just how a low-paid Wal-Mart worker may live. but Whole Foods does not compete on price, it's business model is to serve only the better off, and so i think the premise here is flawed from the outset.

there are endless cashiers, salespeople, etc who work in upscale businesses and cannot afford to consume what they sell.

the morgan spurlock-style hands-on research is all very noble, but i could've told you in 5 seconds (as most people could) that the lowest-paid cashier at a Whole Foods can't afford to do all their grocery shopping there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Non-Sequitur
Posted by: Kneel on Jan 25, 2006 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm surprised at the people defending Whole Foods. Yes, maybe they treat you nice. Maybe some of the staff have been there for a while (and my friend Non-Sequitur did enjoy her time there, though she wasn't having to pay rent).

But then, we have to ask why they're so anti-union. Hmmmmm. Must be outside agitators! They're always coming around to stir up trouble among the happy and contented workers!

I do like the impossibly expensive food they carry, but lot of what Whole Foods does is flatter self-indulgent narcissists. (Like the Body Shop, where you can buy petroleum-based lip balm the lets you feel good about the rain forests.)

Whole Foods also profits off your desire to buy responsibly, as with the deceptive Fair Trade coffee bit (and the arms-industry linked venture capitalists backing and profiting off the whole thing).

As for the farmers, they're not getting the extra money you're paying for organic apples. They're getting squeezed by Whole Foods (not the apples, the farmers) so whole foods can pocket the difference, which is what they're all about.

I buy my veggies at a market in a parking lot. You have these things all over Europe, in cities great and small. I don't understand why there aren't more of them, why cities give some kind of break to a big whole foods but don't make available an area for markets that would be far more pleasant and benefit everyone.

Well, except the profiteering middlemen like Whole Foods. There wouldn't be much room for them.



As for these lists of wonderful companies to work for, I have no idea how they're selected. I had a long temp agency assignment at one - there was no childcare (nor much maternity leave) and weak benefits. As you went up the ladder, the company was overwhelmingly male, almost entirely the fair-skinned sort.

But it was an investment company during a boom period, so it made the list - a great company to work as long as you were greedy, male and didn't care about much of anything beyond your next bonus. Beyond that, I can't see what made it so great.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Non-Sequitur Posted by: truly scrumptious
A simple solution is available. Change the tax system.
Posted by: kiatoa on Jan 25, 2006 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rational behind what I'm saying takes some study to grok so before you disagree - do your own research. A very interesting guy from the late 1800's named Henry George looked in depth at poverty in a land of plenty (which is essentially at the core of the article) and concluded that the problem was land and the solution was to never tax human labour - only tax land. So the solution to the problem of the cashier not being able to live off the minimum wage is to tax land. The proof is left to the reader. Start at google with a search for Henry George. Or, if you prefer, don't do any research, apply your existing knowlege and reject the one tax proposal. I admit the later is the easier path. Enjoy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

groovy goods
Posted by: saywhat? on Jan 25, 2006 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as a business model whole foods has alot of flaws....they do offer stock options, health benefit plans (i think the 50/50 model), and profit sharing within departments. with that said they gouge the consumer and have little loyalty to there employees.

i know of one friend who worked there for over 12 years, became employee of the year, and was paraded for the accomplishment, then the following year was fired by his store manager for lending out his discount card...they had narcs in the stores watching the employees and i suspect , the customers....

not having a mar on his record until this time this man was stripped of all his employee paid stock options, and started with another employer with no health benefits and a starting wage of 8$/hour...the man is 53....


he tried to get his case looked at but the human resources dept and john mackey looked the other way...

the store manager who fired him has been on notice for treating segments of his staff poorly...one instance was where the latino staff filed a complaint...

whole foods also was the only grocery store in chicago who wouldn't stand behind a statement the UFW wanted. the UFW statement said that it didn't support sub standard working conditions on the part of the driscoll workers.

they also drove a number of independent health food stores out of business.

i support organic (know that the standards are slipping), so i buy at farmers markets and coops when i can, and independent fruit and vege markets where my greens are usually 1$ less per bunch than WF...

maybe the author can write another expose about costco....i don't know much about them, but they seem to have a happy staff

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: groovy goods Posted by: Bimbeot
» RE: groovy goods Posted by: saywhat?
Ex organic farmer
Posted by: brad on Jan 25, 2006 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a former organic farmer I must agree with the comment that the extra money paid at whole foods does not increase the ability of farmers to make ends meet while maintaining an ecologically sustainable standard. Conversly, Americans pay some of the lowest percentages of their income on food compared with the rest of the world. So, why all the fuss over the price? Other consumption desires must be addressed first before we attack food as too expensive. Local is the way to go, although not always available. The system that pushes all to the lowest possible level is truely at fault. A living wage and mandated ecological standards would do much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: x organic farmer Posted by: rothermelgirl
is waste factored into the prices?
Posted by: counterpoint on Jan 25, 2006 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being stingy I only buy what's on sale, and walk right past the overpriced new age feel good stuff they sell. (Growing up in Germany I knew farmers markets as places to get real fresh produce cheaply while meeting lots of folks; on visits it's a great way of catching up with old acquaintances).
I suspect part of the high prices are the vast assortment of perishable items they carry, much of which I've never watched being placed into anyone's shopping cart. Obviously we are paying for all the exotic stuff they have to dump, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hartsmartliving
Posted by: hartsmart on Jan 25, 2006 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can there be merit to high food prices? Definately! IF-- I repeat --IF --it brings about a new awareness, understanding, appreciation of food, a commodity sadly lacking in North America.
Learn to cook! Learn portion control, forgel about organics, go orgasmic for healthy fun exercise!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And it's not National
Posted by: LizFun on Jan 25, 2006 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've heard Trader Joe's has great deals. Wish we had one in Charlotte!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Subsidies in the wrong places
Posted by: levinson.eric on Jan 25, 2006 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We subsidized gigantic industrial farms that pump millions of gallons of chemical pesticides and fertilizers into our environment, as well as subisidizing insustainable meat and dairy production. We need to recognize that meat and dairy products are LUXURY items that few human beings enjoy, and certainly none at the level that Americans enjoy them. Yet, our government pumps billions in tax dollars into meat and dairy farming despite the incredible detriment they have on our environment and our health. If we ended these subsidies and focused that tax revenue on sustainable, organic farming, prices would be on par with what we pay for chemical-intensive farm produce.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Real problem
Posted by: JohnnyM on Jan 25, 2006 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You cannot point fingers at Wal-Mart or Whole Foods - they are simply very good at what they do, within the economic system.

You did, however, hit on the real problem. Wal-Mart looks after the investors first, the customers next, and then its employees. It's a circular system. It's a three-way chicken-and-the-egg thing (current wisdom says take care of the investors first - it's where the real money is made so you can't blame the CEO's).

The problem is with wall Street: You have "analysts" who say you should make "this" much money, and even if you are profitable if you don't meet your numbers your investors are displeased, they sell your stock and potentially you're in a downward spiral. If you stay private, you only need to take care of your employees and your customers; no third-party (depending on who invested in the company). The only people who make a killing in the stock market anyways are people who have money to burn in the first place, so it's a system that widens the gap between rich & poor. Therefore, the problem is systemic, and the only way to stop the greed, the corruption, and all the other problems, is to shut-down wall-street.

Since this will likely never happen, the spiral we're on will lead to a wider gap and eventual economic collapse. If I work at Wal-Mart but can't afford to shop there, who is going to shop there? If I work at Ford but can't afford their cars (or can't afford the constant maintenance they require :)), who is going to buy them? A smaller-and-smaller group...Of course, there's always the ability to sell overseas, curently China seems hot, until their economic system mirrors ours and we run out of countries...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it is civilization, stupid!
Posted by: cold2touch on Jan 25, 2006 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dawn of a Big Bang idea: economic and political disparity is essential to technological progress that drives development of civilizations. Non-agressive, non-predatory societies are static clans living in equilibrium with nature. Everyone is equal and contended, there is no major competition among members. Advanced societies strapped a whip behind members' asses and hung carrots before mouths and everyone is racing and stepping on everyone else, driven by fear, greed and envy. It worked while the Earth's resources could be plundered ad nauseam. But now, it's game over, Cheney's ideas notwithstanding. Back to caves, boys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reminds me of the terrible farm crisis back in the 1980s
Posted by: NDnative on Jan 25, 2006 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Mr. Cox for connecting the disconnected. The sad truth in all of this is if you want to be healthy, you get persecuted with higher costs just like truly hardworking employees get persecuted with layoffs while lazy and/or unethical employees actually get rewarded. I get the eerie feeling at times that honest to good working farmers are facing the same kind of persecution like the one Jesus Christ failed. Then again, so are we North Dakotans ever since Reagan shafted our state with the US-Canada "free" trade agreement back in the mid-80s followed by Clinton's NAFTA in the early 1990s followed once again by Bush's CAFTA last year with all the mostly destructive "free" trade agreements in these past 20 years. Just ask most farmers in MT and ND and throughout most of the rural north and they'll directly or indirectly admit how "free" trade has crippled their abilities to compete not only with Canada but to actually grow truly healthy foods in the midst of agri-business hostility. :(

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

*throws up hands*
Posted by: bettsoff on Jan 25, 2006 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's it. I give up eating. It's too complicated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: *throws up hands* Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
Thanks for this article; rural gardens
Posted by: zinnia on Jan 25, 2006 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for this article! Whole Foods bugs the heck out of me, and we shop at our local food co-op, and the farmer's market when in season. We also rent a garden plot from our local community gardening organization. Even though one of us is a grad student (and for a couple of years both of us were), we find these to be affordable ways to get locally-produced, sustainably grown, often organic foods. I want my money to stay here, rather than going to Texas where Whole Foods is based.

But, I do wonder about the statement at the end, about how most of the poorest counties in the US are rural, and the irony of the people living there being least likely to afford healthy food. Isn't this just based on income, though, and not taking into account that lots of rural people grow their own stuff, which wouldn't necessarily be "officially" accounted for? For example, my folks live in NW Minnesota, right smack in the middle of the Red River Valley, one of the most fertile places in the US and a big agricultural region. They always grow a huge veggie garden, and can and freeze stuff, and with friends and co-workers they share produce, sometimes trading for stuff they don't grow. So, their eating habits are not necessarily reflected in their lower-middle class income. Also, rural people might be more likely to get food from places that city people would be less likely to, like Hutterite colonies or similar groups that raise animals and will butcher them to order, so you can stock up your freezer. My parents do this, and their food costs aren't that bad - certainly not nearly as bad as the cost of the gas they use to get around their rural landscape.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Define priority
Posted by: mom'z the word on Jan 25, 2006 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By definition you can't have three priorities. Something always takes precedence over the other. If the priority is money then to make the stock holder happy the other two priorities, cost and wages, take a back seat. Any way you put it, when money is the priority there is only one choice. For fun I watch the stockmarket. Whenever it goes up I know some employees somewhere got screwed out of the money in either wages or benefits. Or the customers got screwed because the cost went up (to make a profit) which keeps the stockholders happy. Go figure. There is only so much money to go around. Where it goes and how it goes is all about priority, singular.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Whole Truth
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Jan 25, 2006 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, this was a good article. I go to Whole Foods only to buy a salad and an occasional bottle or two of German beer (Koestritzer), which is hard to find at some Los Angeles stores.
Yes their food is more expensive to buy but I wonder how long this trend of consumerism can benefit the country. A 12-ounce box of Honey Nut Cheerios at WF cost nealy $5 while at Vons it's about $3.50. Someone's getting skewered here.
What makes this scandulous is cereals, salads, soups, well, nearly everything IS higher at WF (same with Trader Joe's) than at a supermarket.
Another problem with WF is they will not allow any unionization. Work there at your own risk. Employees work w/o benefits. Most WF workers are under the age of 40, most of them college-age.
I know we all have choices where we spend our money, but why does the cost of eating has to be so high?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

idiotic article
Posted by: pianojo on Jan 25, 2006 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has got to be one of the most idiotic articles I have seen in a long time.

As former owner, for 8 years, of a mom-and-pop natural food store, I can tell you that comparing Whole Foods to Walmart is utter NONSENSE. You cannot do such a thing honestly.

The natural foods industry is being corrupted by the sale of once fine companies to multi-nationals that then turn around and destroy the products they buy. Products that once had no sugar now have sugar. Products that once had no white flour now have white flour. etc. etc. There is a movement to even destroy the meaning of ORGANIC, i.e. to allow those companies that produce organic products to add chemicals and other crap and still call their products ORGANIC while continuing to charge high prices. Should this come to pass ORGANIC will be meaningless. The industry is being destroyed from the inside. And no one is saying or doing anything to stop the slide into disaster.

That said, even with this ongoing destruction, the products found in Whole Foods are still (as of today) hands-down nutritionally superior to anything found in Walmart or supermarkets. And it takes money and time to grow and produce organic and nutritionally superior foods. Period. Given also that these products are produced in smaller quantities than the food found in Walmart and supermarkets, prices will usually be higher, unfortunately. So, trying to compare the two types of stores is an exercise in futility.

However, if no one does anything to stop the destruction of the health food industry, once health food stores are on a par - nutritionally - with Walmart and supermarkets, then why bother to shop there? When that day comes, I for one will stop shopping in Whole Foods.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: idiotic article Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
» Right...up to a point Posted by: ABetterFuture
You get what you pay for....
Posted by: handyrae on Jan 25, 2006 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I shop at Whole Foods about twice a month. Yes, I agree that some of their merchandise is over-priced for what it is, but a lot is not. Just one tiny example--their lemons and limes. The lemons and limes at WF on average are twice as expensive as those at Wal-Mart, but as far as I'm concerned they're three times better. The ones from WF are twice the size and much, much fresher and juicier. So I happily pay the extra money knowing what I'm getting is better.

I remember reading quite a while ago that Wal-Mart sells produce that is grades below the top grade available. I don't know if that's true, but I've never been happy with the produce at Wal-Mart because it rarely seems to be of good quality. So yes the stuff might be cheap, but you get what you pay for.

And don't get me started on the meat at Wal-Mart. There isn't any of it that isn't overprocessed and injected with some vile "flavor" solution that leaves its taste and texture horribley unnatural. I call it Solient Green, because that's what it reminds me of. So yes, the price is low, but they'd have to PAY ME to eat it.

It's about trade-offs in life. I don't make a lot of money, but I can spend extra at WF which makes me happy (and healtier) because I don't own all the latest tech devices and have no problem driving a used Toyoto Echo which cost $10,000 and gets 45 MPH.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

monte
Posted by: mont on Jan 25, 2006 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Northern New Mexico and in the village I live in we have our own mostly organic store that sells for less than whole foods. Come on folks, whole foods is a corporation that maximizes profits. I felt like I was in a grocers disneyland on the only occasion I went there.
I also shop at Trader Joes and feel their quality is excellent while their pricing is substantialy less. I have a garden and chickens which helps a lot. I am quite old now and remember quite well the victory gardens we all had, even in the cities, during the second world war. I expect a faltering economy may help the return to saner ways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »]