Michael Pollan: I’ll Still Shop at Whole Foods

August 28th, 2009 at 5:00 pm by Michael Pollan | 79 Comments |

John Mackey’s views on health care, much as I disagree with them, will not prevent me from shopping at Whole Foods. I can understand why people would want to boycott, but it’s important to play out the hypothetical consequences of a successful boycott. Whole Foods is not perfect, however if they were to disappear, the cause of improving Americans’ health by building an alternative food system, based on more fresh food, pastured and humanely raised meats and sustainable agriculture, would suffer. I happen to believe health care reform has the potential to drive big changes in the food system, and to enlist the health care industry in the fight to reform agriculture. How? Because if health insurers can no longer pick and choose their clients, and throw sick people out, they will develop a much stronger interest in prevention, which is to say, in changing the way America feeds itself. When health insurers realize they will make thousands more in profits for every case of type II diabetes they can prevent, they will develop a strong interest in things like corn subsidies, local food systems, farmer’s markets, school lunch, public health campaigns about soda, etc. So Mackey is wrong on health care, but Whole Foods is often right about food, and their support for the farmers matters more to me than the political views of their founder. I haven’t examined the political views of all the retailers who feed me, but I can imagine having a lot of eating problems if I make them a litmus test.

79 responses so far

1 ConArtist // Aug 28, 2009 at 2:20 pm

It would behoove you to promote a vegetarian diet instead of moderating your views to things such as, ‘humane treatment’ of animals. Vegetarians dodge off more diseases than their omnivorous peers, live healthier and are exponentially more environmentally friendly. There are an abundance of reasons to become vegetarian, I’m happy that many of my conservative friends have made the conversion.
Politically speaking, the backlash (if successful) would do more harm than good, this is certain. And it’s nice to know that with your clout your steering people toward a healthier, more sustainable approach to food.
2 rbottoms // Aug 28, 2009 at 2:37 pm

I can understand why people would want to boycott, but it’s important to play out the hypothetical consequences of a successful boycott. Whole Foods is not perfect, however if they were to disappear, the cause of improving Americans’ health by building an alternative food system, based on more fresh food, pastured and humanely raised meats and sustainable agriculture, would suffer.

I appreciate you comments an interest in the subject, but the definition of success for the boycott for any sensible person isn’t that Whole Foods disappear.

Success is that we find an even wider circle of sources for foods grown with sustainable methods and meats produced with less impact on the environment coupled with elimination of the harmful drugs used in factory lots.

Success is not that we examine the politics of every single purveyor of our groceries, but that when we become aware that certain businessmen have power within the GOP that is enhanced when we give them our money that it is sensible to stop doing so. (Like Dominoes and Walmart).

I am working on an iPhone application called Quakewood, it’s goal, in keeping with my definition of success, is to help people contact the very same suppliers that Whole Foods uses directly, so that we can purchase from them without going through Mr. Mackey’s stores.

The internet and social applications like Facebook and Twitter (which provides the engine that makes Quakewood function) give us the ability to go direct, to find local producers and support them.

What we are doing is sending a message, well two messages actually.

The first one is fairly simple: Don’t insult your customers, especially left leaning ones by calling their ideas socialism. The Thatcher quote was a slap in my face, and a slap at Obama. So I have decided to take my money elsewhere.

The second one is that the world has changed significantly since Whole Foods came into existence with sources of information and means of communication that did not even exist back in 1978. There is no real reason I have to shop at Whole Foods to find vegetables, meats, and produce grown in an organic manner.

I can seek out and find progressives of like mind, give them my money and further the causes I believe in. If at the same time I can reduce the money Mackey has to donate to the GOP by even one dollar then I have done myself and people like me some good.

Please don’t let Mr. Frum and others like him convince you that the destruction of Whole Foods is our goal. Not at all, we’re just sending a message, or two.
3 liv&win // Aug 28, 2009 at 2:38 pm

Which is why I think you should start using the term Health Reform rather than health care reform or health insurance reform. Health Reform encompasses health care, financing and healthy lifestyles.
4 Michael Pollan denounces Whole Foods boycott :: The Ethicurean: Chew the right thing. // Aug 28, 2009 at 2:49 pm

[...] feed me, but I can imagine having a lot of eating problems if I make them a litmus test.” (New Majority) Home / Digest, Markets / Michael Pollan denounces Whole Foods boycottSHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: [...]
5 liv&win // Aug 28, 2009 at 2:52 pm

The internet and social applications like Facebook and Twitter (which provides the engine that makes Quakewood function) give us the ability to go direct, to find local producers and support them.

rbottoms says one thing and then contradicts himself. Going “direct” is great for foodies, but not for medicine. Why don’t you practice what you preach rbottom. Find “progressives” like you, buy some land and practice your ideals. Hey, I like that idea. I will do the same. Let’s meet in 20 years and compare outcomes.
6 rbottoms // Aug 28, 2009 at 3:23 pm

Going “direct” is great for foodies, but not for medicine.

And were exactly did I mention medicine? You must be one of those people who have the ability to read what isn’t actually written.

Find “progressives” like you, buy some land and practice your ideals.

I write software, and last time I checked you can’t grow a Twitter client like a potato or a beet. My ideals are better community, through better communication, and responsible capitalism (doing well by doing good). Both ideals being put into practice right now, thanks.
7 Iris Puffybush // Aug 28, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Nobody is boycotting Whole Foods because what Mackey is THINKING, we are boycotting Whole Foods because of what Mackey is DOING. Mackey tried to influence health care reform. In the middle of a national debate Mackey picked a side. He chose sides in a public fight. He picked the side that, as he writes in the op-ed, will leave millions of Americans uninsured and dependent on charity. You think a bunch of ex-hippy organic farmers are more important than 40 million uninsured Americans????? Encouraging farmers to produce $4 heads of lettuce is more important than saving the lives of American men, women and children that die every day because they don’t have access to health care???? DESPICABLE!!!!

And another thing, after a couple of chapters, Omnivore’s Dilemma was DULL! DULL! DULL!! I dare you to ask any of your friends if they were able to get past more than a third of that book!!
8 rbottoms // Aug 28, 2009 at 4:17 pm

NM Exclusive: Michael Pollan Denounces Whole Foods Boycott

Has Mr. Pollan has suffered the same hyped up headline-itis that Mr. Mackey did as well?

I don’t consider what he wrote a denunciation. Is a disagreement automatically considered a denunciation? Worth a follow up question to him I think.
9 liv&win // Aug 28, 2009 at 4:35 pm

rbottom, before I go on, how do you do those large quotes. that is really cool.

Going “direct” is great for foodies, but not for medicine.
And were exactly did I mention medicine? You must be one of those people who have the ability to read what isn’t actually written.
Well, going direct in health care is exactly what we’ve been discussing, which you appear to have dismissed. So, I took what you said over here, and what you said over there, and came to a conclusion. Pretty simple really.

My ideals are better community, through better communication, and responsible capitalism (doing well by doing good). Good rbottom. sounds good to me. Now tell me, how are you going to do that without controlling my life. How are you going to do that and expand my freedoms? How are you going to do that and reduce the cost and size of government? Seriously. let’s explore your ideal community. If it free and respectful and low cost, count me it.

Responsible capitalism? Cool. Can we have a discussion on that? Love to engage.
10 sinz54 // Aug 28, 2009 at 4:41 pm

Michael Pollan sez: “Whole Foods is not perfect, however if they were to disappear, the cause of improving Americans’ health by building an alternative food system, based on more fresh food, pastured and humanely raised meats and sustainable agriculture, would suffer.”

First of all, that’s interchanging cause and effect. Whole Foods didn’t cause Americans to become interested in organic products, they just rode that wave to profitability. In my area, even the main supermarkets are all well-stocked with organic produce, organically grown meats, a zillion varieties of dietary supplements, etc. That would all continue even if Whole Foods went out of business. If there’s a continuing demand for organic products, entrepreneurs will find ways to meet that demand–as long as the Government doesn’t hinder them from doing their business.

Secondly, in a free market, one has the right to purchase or not purchase from any store you want, for any reason you want. There’s nothing wrong with boycotting a store because you don’t like the politics of the owner. Or because you feel the owner ridiculed your cherished beliefs.

As I’ve said before, the organic foods movement is vastly overhyped. But hey, it’s not the only line of products sold in America in which hype boosts the price beyond rational levels.
11 mycelf // Aug 28, 2009 at 4:50 pm

While I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Pollan’s encouragement to abstain from the Whole Foods boycott, I think his rationale misses the larger point. The question of a boycott really has nothing to do with health care or food, it has to do with voicing an opinion.

Mr. Mackey’s WSJ opinion piece agrees with the need for health care reform, but raises some legitimate questions about the current proposals on how to go about it. He does have some loaded statements about the potential for a descent into socialism, but all in all it is good public discourse. To call attempt to penalize a business because their CEO ‘takes a position’ is fundamentally undemocratic. Bullying people into keeping ‘unpopular’ opinions to themselves is the tactic of tyranny.

If you don’t like what Mr. Mackey says about health care, demonstrate the error of his argument, show a better solution, but don’t attempt to stir up the masses to silence his voice.
12 readk // Aug 28, 2009 at 4:56 pm

It is an economic democracy as well as a representative democracy. Spend your money where you will. But consider how you felt when The Dixie Chicks interjected themselves into a national debate and were treated to similar tactics.

Boycotts are the same as shouting down a speaker at a town hall meeting. Neither is a good idea.
13 rbottoms // Aug 28, 2009 at 5:16 pm

rbottom, before I go on, how do you do those large quotes. that is really cool.

Use BLOCKQUOTE tags.
14 rbottoms // Aug 28, 2009 at 5:29 pm

Boycotts are the same as shouting down a speaker at a town hall meeting.

So King’s Montgomery bus boycott was a bad idea? No, it was a good idea because it got the attention of those in charge. Liberals are a huge portion of Whole Foods’ customer base, a significant departure of them will be felt, but unlikely in any reasoned calculation to be a fatal blow.

But consider how you felt when The Dixie Chicks interjected themselves into a national debate and were treated to similar tactics.

I felt the boycott of the Dixie Chicks was a harsh reaction to what they said, but not out of the bounds of political discourse. If you get involved you will pi** someone of either way, it was brave of them to do it especially considering their audience base.

But this is in no way equivalent for this reason: The Dixie Chicks never said that their audience were warmongers for supporting the Iraq war or that the soldiers were for pighting it, they said they disagreed that the war should be fought in the first place (and were called traitors for their trouble).

Mackey on the other hand indicated by virtue of his use of the Thatcher quote that he though we, the customers who are supporters of Obama’s position, were socialists.

I’m not one, neither is Barrack Obama. Having been duly insulted I voted with my feet to go elsewhere.

He seems to find solidarity with members of the GOP who have this opinion of Obama and his approach to health care reform:

Conservative media figures are blasting Democrats for trying to draw political gain from the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. But on Thursday, it was one of their own — former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — who went there.

The 2008 Republican presidential candidate suggested during his radio show on Thursday that, under President Obama’s health care plan, Kennedy would have been told to “go home to take pain pills and die” during his last year of life.

Even more slander from the right…
15 sinz54 // Aug 28, 2009 at 5:40 pm

mycelf sez: “If you don’t like what Mr. Mackey says about health care, demonstrate the error of his argument, show a better solution, but don’t attempt to stir up the masses to silence his voice.”

They’re not silencing his voice. He can set up a website or blog just like folks who are much less wealthy, and say whatever he likes. I’m sure the Wall Street Journal would welcome any more of his ideas too.

They’re just silencing his profits.
16 rbottoms // Aug 28, 2009 at 5:42 pm

So, I took what you said over here, and what you said over there, and came to a conclusion.

Albeit, the wrong one.

My ideals are better community, through better communication, and responsible capitalism (doing well by doing good). Good rbottom. sounds good to me. Now tell me, how are you going to do that without controlling my life.

Rather a lot to expect from a Twitter application on the iPhone. I know Steve Jobs has a lot of influence, but come on.

Responsible capitalism? Cool. Can we have a discussion on that? Love to engage.

Sure, let’s start with insurnace companies get to make a buck, but they don’t get to deny cancer treatment because someone didn’t mention a rash they once had, can’t jack up rates on businesses to force them to drop their plan because one member of the pool has an expensive disease, and they cannot use pre-existing conditions to deny coverage.

This year, he went public with his concerns, testifying before a Senate committee investigating the insurance industry.

“I knew that once I did that my life would be different,” he said. “I wouldn’t be getting any more calls from recruiters for the health industry. It was the scariest thing I have done in my life. But it was the right thing to do.”

Mr. Potter says he liked his colleagues and bosses in the insurance industry, and respected them. They are not evil. But he adds that they are removed from the consequences of their decisions, as he was, and are obsessed with sustaining the company’s stock price — which means paying fewer medical bills.

One way to do that is to deny requests for expensive procedures. A second is “rescission” — seizing upon a technicality to cancel the policy of someone who has been paying premiums and finally gets cancer or some other expensive disease. A Congressional investigation into rescission found that three insurers, including Blue Cross of California, used this technique to cancel more than 20,000 policies over five years, saving the companies $300 million in claims.

As The Los Angeles Times has reported, insurers encourage this approach through performance evaluations. One Blue Cross employee earned a perfect evaluation score after dropping thousands of policyholders who faced nearly $10 million in medical expenses.

Mr. Potter notes that a third tactic is for insurers to raise premiums for a small business astronomically after an employee is found to have an illness that will be very expensive to treat. That forces the business to drop coverage for all its employees or go elsewhere.

All this is monstrous, and it negates the entire point of insurance, which is to spread risk.

And btw, it’s rbottoms, not rbottom.
17 sinz54 // Aug 28, 2009 at 5:44 pm

Right now, there are thousands of outraged older conservatives who are canceling their memberships in AARP, in protest against AARP’s support of ObamaCare.

I don’t see much of a difference between that action and the boycott of Whole Foods. AARP’s endorsement of ObamaCare won’t matter to AARP’s core operations. But there are lots of conservative members of AARP who don’t want to subsidize AARP’s political stance on this issue.
18 LCM // Aug 28, 2009 at 6:02 pm

It must be nice to argue about whether or not to boycott Whole Foods; part of this flap sounds a little chi-chi to those of us who have no Whole Foods anywhere nearby, but whatever. With that in mind, though, I’m a little unsure about the cause and effect of some of Mr. Pollan’s points. First of all, why is health care reform needed before insurance companies are spurred to encourage preventive care? Why is this issue not already being addressed through incentives and the like?

Frankly, we don’t *need* Whole Foods to ensure that we eat better. We already know the drill: eat less meat, less sugar, more vegetables, cut out the sodas. People who shop carefully at their local grocery store can already find plenty of decent food. Our own cultural quirks and agricultural incentives encourage us to do the opposite, however. Fixing this problem will take a greater awareness (and willingness to change) on the part of consumers and a push from the insurers. In short, there’s nothing stopping us from doing this now. Is there some later date at which the insurers would like to save money?

It’s too bad that Mackey is getting all this grief, but he went a little off-message as a representative of Whole Foods and outed himself — and by implication Whole Foods — as Just Another Corporation. Ooops. Branding and message are important; that’s why a cheap bookcase from Wal-Mart (made in China) is low-class and an equally cheap one from IKEA (also made in China) is chic. He forgot for a minute that people don’t just want good food at Whole Foods, they also want to feel that they are part of something special.

Mackey had some good points to make, and missed some huge ones, but his remarks didn’t sound like the view from someone with extensive knowledge of the natural foods industry — and maybe they should have. He could have pointed out that eating well is a win-win for everyone but that cheaper food might not be as cheap as it seems. He could have brought up the issue of government price supports for corn and the like instead of pointing out that no one has a right to health care. He could have talked about the disincentives for healthier food that are built into our system instead of reminding people that they need to be careful about the health care dollars they spend. (I think we already know this, thanks).

In short, he has every right to express himself, but he had taken the time to discuss the food industry in general he could have made a lot of important, big-picture points that aren’t being discussed much and that’s a shame. Who else will discuss the food industry in depth?
19 liv&win // Aug 28, 2009 at 7:04 pm

Sure, let’s start with insurnace companies get to make a buck, but they don’t get to deny cancer treatment because someone didn’t mention a rash they once had, can’t jack up rates on businesses to force them to drop their plan because one member of the pool has an expensive disease, and they cannot use pre-existing conditions to deny coverage

Great. Ok. I agree. All of these are prohibited behaviors and are punishable under current law. There is also current law which did away with pre-exisiting conditions, guaranteed coverage, guaranteed renewal of coverage and limited the rate of increase to +/-10% of the average risk rate (filed and approved by the state). So where does that leave us? I say, get a study on California’s AB1672 and take that to your home state. EXCEPT insist that it apply to individual coverage and groups of 2-100 employees. As I said, this legislation was a partnership between government and industry. There were very rational reasons for some of the insurance industries behavior. There was some very greedy aspect too. As an aside, UNUM went through some crap regarding disability insurance a few years back. Same thing, denying coverage based on pre-exisiting conditions and other such BS. The funny thing (to me anyway) was that their scheme was the brain child of a couple executives who were trying to maximize their bonuses. Another case of one bad apple. Anyway, they were all convicted. Their insurance licenses revoked, they were fined, the claims were paid, and more importantly, as a part of the settlement, they had to dramatically liberalize their policies and rates. So, I guess, in the end, consumers won.

What’s next rbottom (sorry about the rbottoms it was my mnemonic memory deal…our bottoms)
20 liv&win // Aug 28, 2009 at 7:09 pm

“sinz54 // Aug 28, 2009 at 5:44 pm

Right now, there are thousands of outraged older conservatives who are canceling their memberships in AARP, in protest against AARP’s support of ObamaCare.

I don’t see much of a difference between that action and the boycott of Whole Foods. AARP’s endorsement of ObamaCare won’t matter to AARP’s core operations. But there are lots of conservative members of AARP who don’t want to subsidize AARP’s political stance on this issue”

I think that there is a difference between people voting with their wallet and union organized protests. Where is my union? I need a union. Lets start one for conservatives.
21 mycelf // Aug 28, 2009 at 7:12 pm

sinz54: “They’re just silencing his profits.”

Not really. The intention of the boycott is to coerce his employer into punishing Mr. Mackey for voicing his dissent.

Say the boycott works and Whole Foods Markets, Inc sees Mr. Mackey’s foray into public discourse as detrimental to interests of its shareholders and as a result they fire him. Where is the benefit in this?

Perhaps he will think twice before voicing a dissenting opinion.
Perhaps others in the public eye will think twice before voicing dissent.

Why should anyone, CEO, entertainer, soccer mom, construction worker, etc be ‘punished’ for contributing constructive dissent to public discourse?
22 sinz54 // Aug 28, 2009 at 7:45 pm

mycelf: Let me repeat:

Mr. Mackey won’t be punished in any way. Whole Foods, that publicly-owned corporation, will be punished.

If the shareholders of Whole Foods decide that Mr. Mackey’s comments are not consistent with the corporation’s mission, then they should fire him.

Here’s a precedent:

Back circa 1990, as the Cold War was winding to a close, one of the vice-presidents of Raytheon (a major U.S. defense contractor) gave an interview to the media in which he said that now that the Cold War was ending, the U.S. could and should make major cuts in defense spending. And he said that in his capacity as a VP of Raytheon, not as a private citizen on his own time.

When the CEO of Raytheon heard about this, he promptly fired that VP.

And there was nothing wrong with that either.

When you’re a salaried employee, you are expected to comport yourself in a professional manner at ALL times. And that includes not bad-mouthing your employer or its mission or its customers. If you do, expect that there will be consequences.
23 rbottoms // Aug 28, 2009 at 7:55 pm

I think that there is a difference between people voting with their wallet and union organized protests.

Except the union, which ever amorphous one you are referring to, didn’t organize the boycott. I certainly consult anyone before deciding I wasn’t going to shop at Whole Foods anymore. I fired off an email with my sentiments and then shortly thereafter found out there was a Facebook group dedicated to a boycott which I (and 15,000+) joined.

The union activity was first announced a couple of days ago. A case of finding a parade and getting in front of it I wager.

As I indicated in my original post, Facebook, Twitter and other social networking and shopping software makes Whole Foods unnecessary to a lot of people and as such we will be able to find the same products elsewhere or even directly from the same source that provides them to Whole Foods through various sources (including Quakewood once approved by Apple).

In short, a new progressive ecosystem has spawned from Mackey’s intemperate use of a quote from Margaret Thatcher.

I think that’s rather cool.
24 Dan // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:26 pm

What is the goal of the boycott?
1) Promote the passage of Obama’s health care reform plan? So, in some sort of Fantasyland, Blue-Dog Democrats, who naturally see Mackey as a thought leader, would hear a retraction of his comments, change their views on healthcare, and start supporting the bill. Really? Passage or non-passage of the bill has nothing to do with Mackey, and you know it.
2) Economically punish Mackey — the CEO sold about $1.4 million in stock after good quarterly earnings earlier in the month. He still owns about $30 million in stock. The idea that boycotters’ action could economically hurt him is utterly laughable. Would he potentially give less to his pro-animal, pro-vegetarian causes, etc. Possibly. If I’m a pinched multi-millionaire, that is one area I would look to cut back on.
3) Economically punish the *workers* of Whole Foods — if earnings do drop, Whole Foods would probably cut back on non-fulltime head count. Some part-time workers would most likely be out of a job. This is a realistic possibility, but I don’t think it the goal boycotters have in mind.

What is the metric to judge effectiveness of the boycott?
1) Number of fans on the Boycott Whole Foods page? So by this metric, the boycott has stirred about 1/10 of the passion of the ” I Dont care How Comfortable Crocs Are, You Look Like A Dumbass” group. Joining a group means clicking one button.
2) Stock price? When talking about financially hurting a company, this is a natural. But since WFMI closed at a 52-week high earlier this week, boycotters don’t really say much about it.

Alternatives
Pollan is right when he questions the litmus test of retailers. What do you know about Trader Joe’s Theo Albrecht? I don’t know much (other than he got into retail after being released from an Allied POW camp after WWII, which means he was a… oh, nevermind), other than the fact that one of the world’s richest men did not get there by giving more to workers than he kept for himself. Keep digging on all the retailers you buy from. Trust me, the ideologically pure will be eating nuts and berries.

And don’t get me started on protesters, who four years ago were righteously denouncing the wars of W, who can ignore that this week saw coalition casualties at an all time high. Did you know that more NATO forces have been killed in Obama’s Afghanistan escalation than in the entire first TERM of W. Of course, you must not protest the war while Obama has a domestic fight to win. Congratulations, Democrats of 2009, you have become Republicans of 2004.

I am a free-market, liberty-loving antiwar libertarian. I say go ahead and boycott whatever you want. But allow me to say that you are really throwing a muddleheaded, ineffective, vindictive tantrum. All because you hate that labor can be happy without being unionized (WF has low turnover and is constantly named one of the best places to work), or you were offended by a quote that accurately describes the problem with socialism.

Perhaps you need to grow a thicker skin.
25 liv&win // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:56 pm

Except the union, which ever amorphous one you are referring to, didn’t organize the boycott.

Perhaps. But I think they were very intrumental in getting it going, organizing it, giving it funding.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/26/unions-join-whole-foods-b_n_269895.html
26 liv&win // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:58 pm

so, rbottom, in addition to blockquote, how do I get the rebuttal paragraph to align left, no pun intended, like yours do?
27 rbottoms // Aug 28, 2009 at 9:02 pm

so, rbottoms, in addition to blockquote, how do I get the rebuttal paragraph to align left, no pun intended, like yours do?

It’s automatic.
28 rbottoms // Aug 28, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Perhaps. But I think they were very intrumental in getting it going, organizing it, giving it funding.

Another one of those conclusions? The boycott sprun up overnight, pretty much independently and formed around the Facebook page for the boycott because it was there.

What funding? A couple thousand tweets, emails and changes to Facebook selections. Cost: $0.00

You seem to have a hard time accepting that, if you pi** off a bunch of left-wing, liberals they are going to do something about it in rather short order. hence that bit about knowing your customer.

I have no idea what any union is doing on the issue, as it certainly doesn’t affect me since I have no burning desire to bag groceries or stock shelves. My real interest right now is in getting my iPhone app approved and making some money, since as I mentioned before I am a capitalist. This is more like Chic turning a bad experience into a disco hit than some massive union organized siege of the Whole foods corporate structure.

Mackey irked me, so I am buying my wife’s German bread and our Thanksgiving goodies elsewhere, that’s as far as it truly matters to me.
29 Dan // Aug 28, 2009 at 9:12 pm

liv&win

Mackey has always been outspoken about his antipathy to unions. The chain is not unionize, and from his point of view (which seems to be echoed by many workers), by not having to negotiate union contracts, he is able to pay employees better and provide better benefits. This philosophy may be debatable, but the pay, turnover, employee satisfaction at WF are in fact measurably better than they are at many union food retail chains. So unions don’t like WF.

Read the original CtW release: http://www.ctwinvestmentgroup.com/index.php?id=120
and answer me:

Why does a union investment advisory group have a position in an openly anti-union company? Would the pensions of the unions it serve be better invested in union companies? Answer: because they want to issue press releases pretending to be “concerned investors” so they can call for the ouster of Mackey, because he is antiunion.

Whatever your side, you have to admit that the release is a completely disingenuous lie.

I’m no genius, but I wouldn’t bet on a Mackey-friendly WF board removing a founding CEO as the stock is skipping along a 52-week high.
30 Saturday surveys: The Whole Foods - health care debacle | green LA girl // Aug 29, 2009 at 1:58 pm

[...] The Omnivore’s Dilemma author Michael Pollan won’t be boycotting Whole Foods (via Ethicurean): So Mackey is wrong on health care, but Whole Foods is often right about food, and [...]
31 liv&win // Aug 29, 2009 at 2:27 pm

dan // Aug 28, 2009 at 9:12 pm

liv&win

Mackey has always been outspoken about his antipathy to unions. The chain is not unionize, and from his point of view (which seems to be echoed by many workers), by not having to negotiate union contracts, he is able to pay employees better and provide better benefits. This philosophy may be debatable, but the pay, turnover, employee satisfaction at WF are in fact measurably better than they are at many union food retail chains. So unions don’t like WF

I read the original press release, thanks for posting that. I agree with your concusion.

rbottom: My view is that we are talking about guerrilla tactics versus traditional organizing tactics when we are discussing union involvement. When a union can twitter/email/robo-call (very inexpensively) every union member and sympathizer, I think we might at least agree that is significant participation.
32 liv&win // Aug 29, 2009 at 2:28 pm

rbottom: after blockquote, it doesn’t automatically left indent. I must be using the code wrong. Thanks for your help.
33 rbottoms // Aug 29, 2009 at 4:45 pm

When a union can twitter/email/robo-call (very inexpensively) every union member and sympathizer, I think we might at least agree that is significant participation.

In theory yes. In practice, I haven’t heard from them at all.
34 Apphouse50 // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:58 am

I keep wondering: how many of those who are critical of the WF boycott were similarly critical of the Domino’s pizza boycott over the the owner’s anti-choice stance? My strong suspicion here is that WF boycott opponents fear their ox getting gored. On the other hand, none of the progressives I know who supported the Domino’s boycott actually ATE that lousy pizza to begin with. It’s a lot easier to support a boycott of something you don’t use anyway.

Mackey could have shut his mouth, or stuck to voicing his healthcare reform views less publicly. Who asked him anyway? Was the world crying out to hear this anti-union CEO diss healthcare reform? Why call attention to the fact and tick off your progressive customer base? Was he reaching out to the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s? If so, he’s even stupider than I thought.
35 toolhater // Aug 30, 2009 at 3:03 pm

My boycott is not to meant to destroy Whole Foods. Instead it is to send a message to the Board, that the CEO’s words are damaging to the company and he needs to step down.

This is not the first time the CEO’s words or actions have landed the company in hot water.

Shop at Trader Joes, Henry’s and Farmer’s Market.
36 rbottoms // Aug 30, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Just had a wonderful note from Mr. Pollan himself.

I let him know the David Frum had worded the headline of the Whole Foods post by him as a denunciation of us boycotters rather than an illustration of why he disagrees with it.

He has asked New Majority to change the headline accordingly.

This is why I hang around here and on other conservative boards. What’s vitally important is how the debate is shaped and presented to the 2%. Pollan “denouncing” us is so much more sexy and colors the debate in a way much more favorable to Frum’s views than my own.

I live for moments just like this.
37 rbottoms // Aug 30, 2009 at 3:32 pm

On the other hand, none of the progressives I know who supported the Domino’s boycott actually ATE that lousy pizza to begin with.

I used to.

Though it will never top Chanellos pizza and lasagna, which if you’ve ever been stationed at Fort Bragg, you know as the best delivered pizza in the world.

I used to make part time cash working there.
38 gnarlynerd // Aug 30, 2009 at 3:37 pm

I was on the fence really, just because boycotts are an annoying inconvenience to participate in, however, Pollan’s remarks are just so silly that he’s pushed me over the edge. He should do a little more research into boycotting for one thing. It’s often the best and sometimes the only way to send a message to someone like Mackey. While it’s true that other food companies probably have similar views, they aren’t, as far as I know, making statements, nor are they presenting themselves, generally, as being somehow progressive. There are other issues in the world than fresh produce, eating well isn’t really a complete solution to healthcare (whatever the foodie-neurotics may think), and it does seem that even if Whole Foods disappeared, an unlikely scenario, some other entrepreneur would step into that niche of the market. Where do I go to boycott Pollan btw?
39 rbottoms // Aug 30, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Where do I go to boycott Pollan btw?

The issue for me isn’t boycotting Mackey (or anyone else) because he has views I disagree with. It’s because he insulted me with the Thatcher quote, and the nature of his participation in the debate in a manner that helps the GOP. Pollan has done neither.

If I picked my friends on whether they were Republican or Libertarian I’d find the landscape a little barren. Now, why any gay man or transgendered woman would be Republican is mind boggling, and since I think Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, we leave those discussions outside of our personal and business relationships pretty much.

Like maybe Mr. Mackey should have done.
40 skynachos // Aug 30, 2009 at 4:27 pm

I can’t think of a better non-violent, democratic, pro-capitalist way of exercising your freedom and power as a citizen than boycotting an organization whose leadership has publicly announced its complete opposition to your views on an issue of critical importance to everyone.
As a comparison, imagine for a moment what the content of the “conservative” responses would be had Mr. Mackey penned an op-ed about the importance of every woman having the freedom to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
It would no doubt make most of us thankful you can’t bring a gun to an internet forum.
41 Agrippina // Aug 30, 2009 at 5:53 pm

The problem with boycotting WF is that the people who will be most effected are the 54,000 employees and the thousands of farmers and suppliers.

Mackey’s ill-considered editorial will have no impact on the final form of the bill, rather the Gang of six Senators are the ones who hold are health care future in their hands.

Ignoring the many positive things that Mackey has done for the organic food movement, the environment and animal welfare due to a misguided and thoughtless editorial smacks of a circular firing squad, something that Democrats do exceedingly well.

Though a complicated and flawed man, Mackey has done more to promote sustainable farming and animal husbandry than any just about anyone in the country. He took health food and mainstream, which in turn increased the demand, which led to more organic farming. supplying 275 stores with food that has been grown and raised according to good sustainable practices, has been a huge boon to the organic food industry.

I’ve shopped at my local WF for years and I’ve become friendly with some of the staff there. Since Mackey’s editorial will have no real effect on the outcome of the health care legislation, it seems harsh to throw the baby out with the bath water, as it were. WF isn’t perfect but few corporations are.
42 janil // Aug 30, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Whole Foods is rife with products that are needlessly high in sodium and sugar, just like every other supermarket. Products grown by local farmers are few and far between, and the prices on most things are out of this world – could this be because they come from so far away and the shipping costs are exorbitant? Another thing I can’t understand about Whole Foods: If you brought your own bag there used to be a 5 cent rebate. This isn’t much, especially in light of how expensive everything in the store is and the fact that someone is getting really rich while many of us are scraping the bottom of our pocketbooks to pay for the food. A five cent rebate isn’t going to make a big difference either way, but the idea that you were being rewarded, however slightly, for trying to do the right thing is slightly encouraging. But then they began to ask people who brought their own bags to donate the 5 cent rebate to a choice of 2 charities through the use of wooden nickels. I would have no problem with that either, except that I never heard anyone ask people using paper and plastic bags being asked to donate 5 cents. In this way it became a punishment for bringing your own bag. When it started I began to be suspicious of the reasoning behind all of this and wondered if it was some kind of conservative-driven tricky little joke. When I first heard that Whole Foods’ CEO is against health care reform I thought maybe it was because he believed in prevention of disease through healthy eating and lifestyle, but that isn’t the case at all. For me it isn’t a boycott, just one more reason to shop elsewhere.
43 mike22 // Aug 30, 2009 at 6:12 pm

If Whole Foods loses market share do you think that someone else in the “organic” space won’t pick it up? Does organic food depend exclusively on Whole Foods? Not in my city.

Pollan’s whole statement appears to be based on equating Whole Foods with a certain market segment. I find that hard to believe.

Why is it EVER a bad idea to make it clear to corporations that they must refrain from egregiously bad behavior if they seek our custom?

The real truth, we suspect, is that Michael Pollan, though we admire him for his writings about food and biology, is no friend of the poor and the underinsured, and does not understand the life and death nature of the struggle now taking place for control of the healthcare system. I prefer to attribute his lack of interest in using dollars to communicate with someone like the CEO of Whole Foods to ignorance rather than malice.
44 rbottoms // Aug 30, 2009 at 6:13 pm

it does seem that even if Whole Foods disappeared, an unlikely scenario, some other entrepreneur would step into that niche of the market.

Who says one has to happen before the other? I am writing Quakewood because of the boycott, but it certainly no replacement for Whole Foods. It is a commercial endeavor that sprang up in response to a need: How do we find the good we want without Whole Foods.

We’re not going to dent a $2Billion dollar company, be we can seed a few $20,000 companies that can grow and prosper in the same space leading to greater employment among people who share our values. Can’t get any more capitalist than that.

Which, incidentally is why the Thatcher comment pi**ed me off so much.
45 Agrippina // Aug 30, 2009 at 6:15 pm

For those of you who assume that a boycott will force the board to ask Mackey to step down, it won’t happen. He’s the founder of the company and the board was hand picked by him. For instance, one member of the board is a co-founder of Celestial Seasonings. Do you really think that he’s going to fire the man who has given his company millions of dollars in business? Or that the former President and Executive Chairman of Fresh & Wild from 1999 until 2004, which was acquired by Whole Foods Market, will kick him off?

While Mackey’s editorial was as misguided as they come, it will have little to no effect on the outcome of the bill. So why punish the employees and suppliers?
46 rbottoms // Aug 30, 2009 at 6:21 pm

So why punish the employees and suppliers?

So when something becomes outmoded or outdated it’s a bad thing to replace it?

Whole Foods had a monopoly based on information and size. Twitter, Facebook, and web commerce has eroded both of those advantages. The customers had inertia and goodwill.

Mackey’s comments removed both and created a flow of customers away from a perceived necessity in our lives: Whole Foods, to a realization that we could go around them, perhaps to find cheaper and better products. Remember, we’re limited to the store shelf size and physical plant of Whole Foods.

The shelf size of Quakewood will be infinite.
47 rbottoms // Aug 30, 2009 at 6:28 pm

BTW, two of the people working with me to build Quakewood actually don’t support my view of the boycott and are Libertarians.
48 Michael Pollan Says He Supports Whole Foods // Aug 30, 2009 at 6:29 pm

[...] farm and garden activist, Michael Pollan has weighed in on the Whole Foods controversy and boycott saying he disagrees with Whole Foods CEO John [...]
49 mike22 // Aug 30, 2009 at 6:57 pm

“So why punish the employees and suppliers?” A little less market share for WF means a little more somewhere else for someone else to employ the same people and buy the same products.

It’s just their bad luck that they chose to work for a corporation whose CEO doesn’t give a sh*t about lower income and uninsured and poorly insured individuals, and now people don’t feel like shopping in a store run by a creep like that. In the long run, they will find other work.

Let’s have a little faith in real capitalism, the kind driven by consumers making free choices in a market place, and a little less of the crony capitalism where CEOs tilt the entire health care delivery system to the advantage of their friends and fellow travelers in the upper income brackets.

WF is all about making buying choices based on systemic ethical issues, like how food is grown. They if anyone deserve to be judged based on their attitude toward other ethical questions, like healthcare.
50 Pollan Says No to Whole Foods Boycott | The Ruth Group // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:14 am

[...] Michael Pollan, [em>Omnivore's Dilemma, and other books] however, doesn’t think it such a great idea. John Mackey’s views on health care, much as I disagree with them, will not prevent me from shopping at Whole Foods. I can understand why people would want to boycott, but it’s important to play out the hypothetical consequences of a successful boycott. Whole Foods is not perfect, however if they were to disappear, the cause of improving Americans’ health by building an alternative food system, based on more fresh food, pastured and humanely raised meats and sustainable agriculture, would suffer. I happen to believe health care reform has the potential to drive big changes in the food system, and to enlist the health care industry in the fight to reform agriculture. How? Because if health insurers can no longer pick and choose their clients, and throw sick people out, they will develop a much stronger interest in prevention, which is to say, in changing the way America feeds itself. When health insurers realize they will make thousands more in profits for every case of type II diabetes they can prevent, they will develop a strong interest in things like corn subsidies, local food systems, farmer’s markets, school lunch, public health campaigns about soda, etc. So Mackey is wrong on health care, but Whole Foods is often right about food, and their support for the farmers matters more to me than the political views of their founder. I haven’t examined the political views of all the retailers who feed me, but I can imagine having a lot of eating problems if I make them a litmus test. [...]
51 Good news for opponents of Whole Foods boycott | Omnivore Atlanta // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:02 am

[...] of The Omnivore’s Dilemma and king of all things politically correct in the food world, has announced that he does not support the boycott of Whole Foods: John Mackey’s views on health care, much as I disagree with them, will not prevent me from [...]
52 mycelf // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:30 am

@sinz54 -
First, you’re comparing apples and hand grenades (literally and figuratively). (A I read your description) The Raytheon situation has an executive speaking about government policy that directly related to the company’s activities and in a way that could be construed as detrimental to the interests of the company — likely this was in violation of the terms of his employment. Based on this the company chose to take action.

By contrast, John Mackey is speaking about something that is at best tangentially related to the company. An unrelated public group is attempting to pressure the company into taking action against him.

Second, the existence of a precedent does not make the action right. Pause for a moment and ask yourself whether the US might not be in better shape if there was meaningful examination of and debate about the levels and focus of defense spending at the end of the Cold War. Perhaps the federal deficits would have been lower. Perhaps our military would be better equipped to handle insurgents and terrorists than tank battalions.

Both the Mackey situation and the Raytheon story exhibit attempts to silence the voice of dissent. In the case of Raytheon it was a despotic tactic of using authority and power to squelch the questioning voice. In the case of Mackey, it is terrorist tactics of attacking innocents in the hopes of persuading leaders to change. In both cases it is wrong.

I stand by my original statement: refute the arguments, show a better solution but do not try to silence or simply disregard the voice of dissent.
53 rbottoms // Aug 31, 2009 at 4:00 am

In the case of Mackey, it is terrorist tactics of attacking innocents in the hopes of persuading leaders to change.

Yes, I have perfected the deadly not-buying-bread device and have deployed it on behalf of the SEIU.

It’s wicked.
54 Pollan won’t Boycott Whole Foods | Vegan.com // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:17 pm

[...] at Whole Foods Market, despite his differences with Mackey on health care policy. (Thanks, Robyn.) Link. Spread the [...]
55 GastroNomalies » Blog Archive » Whoe Foods Food Fight Continues // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:25 pm

[...] Whole Foods food fight continues this week, with Michael Pollan defending the grocery giant as an integral part of developing an alternative food system: Because if health insurers can no [...]
56 Pollan & Me: Don’t Boycott Whole Foods | ecopolitology // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:07 pm

[...] Friday Michael Pollan weighed in, urging people not to boycott whole foods. He explained that Mackey may be wrong on health care but [...]
57 sapid // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:10 pm

Unless people take their dollars to the farmers market or to another source of local &/or organic food, boycotters are negatively effecting the effort of changing the food industry, as I think Pollan was trying to argue. In many areas, Whole Foods is the dominant player in that arena.

Mackey’s comments were very ill considered, I think, from a business sense, and I think a boycott, even a limited one, or a threat of one, makes that point at least, and has brought forward the message that many of WF’s customer’s feel very differently that Mackey on the issue of health policy. I found it ironic that Mackey seems to be doing right by his own employees and practices, but doesn’t notice that others aren’t, and that maybe his peers in the board room need a little guidance from the government to know what’s right.

Finally, wherever we shop, we rarely know the polical leanings of the leaders in that company unless those leaders stick their necks out to state opinions publicly, as Mackey did. In a way, it was courageous. I generally assume most business leaders are conservative Republicans, and I’m pleasantly surprised when I find otherwise. So, again, if you boycott WF, think about where you are going instead. Do you really know into whose alernative pockets you’re putting your money?
58 bsherman // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:31 pm

“By contrast, John Mackey is speaking about something that is at best tangentially related to the company. An unrelated public group is attempting to pressure the company into taking action against him.”

Not according to Mackey himself or the headline of the editorial. The headline states, “The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare.”

Also, you might have missed this snippet from the editorial, “At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments.”

So basically, Mackey is not speaking as a private citizen with a private view, he is speaking for all stockholders and employees of Whole Foods. Additionally, the only reason why he was given this giant megaphone to express his opinions is because of Whole Foods shoppers. It is perfectly reasonable for those shoppers to decide they want to take that megaphone away.

I doubt the boycott will be that successful, But if it is, the corporate board has the option of firing Mackey. If they choose not to and the boycott damages the company, then it is the board and shareholders that bear the responsibility, not the boycotters.

I also find it strange that you seem to be a proponent of consumers using their purchasing power to hurt agrobusinesses like Monsanto, ADM, etc. How is this boycott any different? It’s only different if you think that locally produced food is a more important issue than healthcare.

Also, there are plenty of options for buying local produce. You don’t have to go to Whole Foods. My impression from Whole Foods is that very little in the store is actually locally produced. So if locally produced food is important, going to a farmers market is much better than going to Whole Foods anyways.
59 bsherman // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:40 pm

“Why should anyone, CEO, entertainer, soccer mom, construction worker, etc be ‘punished’ for contributing constructive dissent to public discourse?”

I guess my answer to this would be the same as Mackey’s answer to all the uninsured or people like me who are underinsured, “Life isn’t fair. Tough luck.”
60 mycelf // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:44 pm

@rbottoms

One does not have read very many definitions of terrorism (and they do vary) to find the common threads of attacking innocents and the goal of coercion run through most, while the deployment of deadly devices is not nearly as universal.

Beyond that, I still have yet to see one intelligent response to what Mackay actually wrote. As far as I can tell his only sin was dissent.

“My ideals are better community, through better communication, and responsible capitalism ”

As long as said communication doesn’t include anything that pisses you off.
61 mycelf // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:01 pm

@bsherman

Where exactly does John Mackay say to the uninsured and under insured “Life isn’t fair. Tough luck”?

Beyond that my objection to stirring up mob action to silent voices of dissent has nothing to do with being ‘fair’. It has to do with being intelligent. Most people recognize the need for health care reform (including Mr. Mackay); however the issues are complex and would be best served by examination and debate from several sides rather than dogmatic adherence to party loyalty.
62 adele // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:03 pm

It’s all consistent: Whole Foods (healthy eating for those who can afford it); Healthcare (ditto). Pollan has done a terrific job at unleashing a revolution in food culture but it’s unfortunate that he thinks we’d regress our progress towards sustainable, healthy eating if we didn’t have Whole Foods. The very statement contradicts so many parts of his own writing. Like many I know, I eat well, locally and oftentimes, deliciously – but I don’t shop at Whole Foods and I doubt I ever will. Time for Pollan and the rest to come on down off their Whole Foods thrones, where they’ve been sainted and anointed. First and foremost, “real” food means food people can actually obtain.
63 minipage // Aug 31, 2009 at 4:25 pm

I think the boycott will not be successful because conservatives like me will begin to shop at whole foods because of his op-ed piece. I went there 2 days after I read the article and I will go back.
64 Michael Pollan on Whole Foods - Unlikely Words - A blog of Boston, Providence, and the world // Aug 31, 2009 at 7:44 pm

[...] shop there because I don’t like it. You know who else isn’t boycotting Whole Foods? Michael Pollan: So Mackey is wrong on health care, but Whole Foods is often right about food, and their support [...]
65 Michael Pollan on Whole Foods - Unlikely Words - A blog of Boston, Providence, and the world // Aug 31, 2009 at 7:44 pm

[...] shop there because I don’t like it. You know who else isn’t boycotting Whole Foods? Michael Pollan: So Mackey is wrong on health care, but Whole Foods is often right about food, and their support [...]
66 arlington3 // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:03 pm

What I don’t get is why people speak so much about Whole Food’s ‘liberal customer base.’ Here I am, a happy prolife conservative, with many prolife (=antiabortion) conservative friends, and we all shop at Whole Foods. Will happily keep shopping at WF. Would happily keep shopping at WF even if, as one rather expected, the ceo had come out all aflame for Obamacare. We are not all liberals in the WF aisles.
67 ashlash // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:49 pm

I love Michael Pollan’s contributions to our discourse and understandings about food today, and as such I value him as one of our most important public intellectuals. I disagree with him however in his stance on the Whole Foods boycott, and I think he frames the question incorrectly. The boycott is not about the political views of Mackey, it is about Mackey acting — involving himself in the larger public, political discourse in a way so as to influence the outcome of one of our most important political debates. And a boycott is on precisely the same register of action as was his — maybe not of the same status since we all cannot get ourselves published in the Wall Street Journal, but as he throws his personal politics into action we are also entitled to respond with our politics in response. Not to mention that Mackey’s using Whole Foods as a model implies its customers as well, since one would presume that we “vote with our feet” on Whole Foods’ business practices, and it is very important that we as citizens — not merely consumers — are able to contest that representation of us. In other words, as a customer of Whole Foods I am also a part of its culture, and I therefore have the right to contest official representations of that culture that are incorrect. Mackey threw his hat into the political arena and we are entitled to respond to him, and the recent announcement of one of Whole Foods’ chief investor groups calling for Mackey’s removal is exactly what he gets — not for having political opinions, but for trying to use the political capital that WE extend to him in ways that could have real political effects on our lives — it was a gamble for him to do that, and perhaps he has lost at that gamble.
68 The Local Beet: Chicago » Tell Troy Graves We Eat Local Fish (The Fishcake Movement) // Sep 1, 2009 at 8:32 am

[...] do not take my movements lightly. For instance, by the time I decided to boycott Whole Foods, Michael Pollan was telling me to go buy some 365 tortilla chips. Yet, when I tasted Graves’ local crabcake, ie., his whitefish cake, I knew it would be my [...]
69 Quarere Aude // Sep 1, 2009 at 11:24 am

Very disappointing. Michael Pollan comes across as a shill with very poor arguments. Rather than support a corporatocratic fool, let’s promote the ascendency of more enlightened suppliers (plural!). Certainly, a diversity of suppliers is a good in itself. The farmers will find a way to market in any event.

I will boycott Whole Foods. I encourage all consumers to examine the policies and the politics of all the suppliers of their goods and services.
70 bsherman // Sep 1, 2009 at 2:48 pm

“Beyond that, I still have yet to see one intelligent response to what Mackay actually wrote. As far as I can tell his only sin was dissent.:

Okay I didn’t think this blog was about a conversation about health care, rather whether boycott is an acceptible form of protest. You say it isn’t. But here goes about what’s wrong with his ideas.

Mackey’s idea #1: Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).

I own an high-deductible plan. I’m not necessarily against them, however they skirt responsibility in a number of ways. The $2500 deductible he mentions is only if you are single. If you are married it goes up to $5000. Additionally, after that deductible is met insurance only pays a percentage of the costs. What it means, if a person develops a health issue while they have insurance, they will have to pay roughly $10,000 per year to maintain health care (that’s even after the premiums are paid). Additionally, many HSA plans (like mine) have incredibly low caps on things like prescriptions. Mine is $2000 per year. That means if my prescription cost is $25,000 per year, I have to pay $23,000 regardless of my deductible.

Mackey’s idea #2: Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits

I agree with him on this.

Mackey’s Idea #3: Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

Would someone please tell me which state has the insurance that solves all our problems. There isn’t any such state. If anything this idea would make insurance worse than it is now because it would be a race to the bottom for the insurance companies. They would all move to the state that had the most lax regulations. Additionally, it would be exceedingly difficult for a consumer to navigate the health care laws of 50 states to know what the insurance companies legal obligations are. This has to be the worst idea I’ve heard on health care reform.

Mackey’s Idea #4: Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

Again, how would consumers research every single possible procedure the insurance company will cover before they buy the policy. Like Nostradamus, they would have to know what procedures they will need at some unknown future point and check to make sure the insurance company covers it. It’s a la carte insurance. Bad idea.

Mackey’s Idea #5: Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

While I agree there has to be some form of tort reform, it hasn’t been demonstrated that this significantly raises the cost of health care. There are much worse inflationary drivers than this.

Mackey’s Idea #6: Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.

I agree with this to some extent. That’s what HSA’s were supposed to do. With my HSA, I have a vested interest in reducing my health care expenditures. The problem with this idea is: even if the costs are transparent I’m powerless to do anything about it if I find the cost too high. My only choice is to refuse treatment which I do sometimes. Sometimes refusing treatment is a good idea, but it’s a gamble.

Mackey’s Idea #7: Enact Medicare reform.

I agree. The only people who don’t agree with this are republicans with their “Senior Bill of Rights”

Mackey’s Idea #8: • Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Why not. However, these donations are already tax-deductible. Making it easier is nice but would have next to no effect.

Okay now what does Mackey not even talk about:

He makes no mention of individual policy holders difficulty in acquiring insurance and the higher rates they pay. He makes no mention of rejection for pre-existing conditions. He makes no mention of insurance companies freedom to withdraw coverage if a patient becomes too expensive. He makes no mention of mandatory coverage. He makes no suggestions for those who can’t afford even an HSA. He makes no mention of medical bankruptcy, which I believe is our generations moral equivalent to the civil rights movement. The bottom-line is that his ideas will not address the real problems with our health care system. He simply wants to expand high-deductible insurance plans. Those who currently fall through the cracks would continue to do so.

My high-deductible plan is really just a gamble. I’m gambling that I won’t have a long term health problem which would cost me $18,000 a year to cover the deductible and premiums. I’m gambling that I won’t have more than $5000 per year in prescription drugs. I personally don’t feel that I should have to gamble my future financial security with an insurance company that will do everything in it’s power to avoid paying for my medical bills.

Now I have a particular vantage point, being a middle-class self-employed person. I think sometimes those with more money or those with jobs that provide health care don’t really have an understanding of what it is like if you don’t. We can do better than this as a country.
71 bsherman // Sep 1, 2009 at 3:05 pm

“Where exactly does John Mackay say to the uninsured and under insured “Life isn’t fair. Tough luck”?

Okay, I took liberty reframing what Mackay says. But he states, “how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter? ” and he makes no mention of how to cover the currently uninsured. I read this to mean, he’s fine with large segments of our population being uninsured. To me that’s “tough luck.”
72 bsherman // Sep 1, 2009 at 4:43 pm

“Most people recognize the need for health care reform (including Mr. Mackay); however the issues are complex and would be best served by examination and debate from several sides rather than dogmatic adherence to party loyalty.”

One place an examination and debate is not taking place is the editorial pages of WSJ. I stopped counting, but for the latest editorials on health care – 14 were against Obamas plan and 1 was for it.
73 truegangsteroflove // Sep 1, 2009 at 10:27 pm

This will not change my buying habits. I’m lucky to live in Madison, Wisconsin, where there are numerous alternatives to Whole Foods. Willy St. Coop is the best – less packaged, corporate, and dubious. I don’t like Whole Foods, never have. It’s like a big grin, saying we’re so nice, and we’re so great.

Madison’s other great alternative is the Dane County Farmers Market around the Capitol Square on Saturdays during the warm months. There are also many other farmers markets in the area on different days of the week.

Then there are the CSAs – Community Supported Agriculture farms, which supply organic produce to individuals and families on a contractual basis.

There are also farm stands in various parking lots, especially now that sweet corn, melons, and other crops are ripening.

Last, and least is Trader Joe’s, pretty much like Whole Foods. I don’t shop there much, unless I’m in a pinch, and in the neighborhood.

I almost forgot, there are also the standard grocery stores, which have some organic produce, and I can get fresh filtered water refills, using my own jugs, cheaper than Willy St.

As far as the Whole Foods CEO opposing health care reform, it’s a bit curious. Usually a reform opponent has a money incentive lurking in the background. Some supposed “ideologues” harbor deep resentments against ordinary people, including their customers. I know this from much personal experience. One former employer, a John Birch Society organizer, cursed his customers when he thought they couldn’t hear him, cheated me on wages, and worked me like a slave. Another, a fake patriot, considered his sons to veterans because they went to a military high school. The list goes on.

What “conservatives” might want to ask themselves in a reflective moment is what exactly they want. In health care, for example, is the present situation desirable? Is monopoly or oligopoly the way to go? Is high-tech, pharmaceutical medicine sustainable and the only approach to medical care, or is it, in effect, a religion? Should “alternative” methods, like acupuncture, naturopathy, bodywork, herbalism, aromatherapy, shiatsu, nutrition, and ayurveda be included in a meaningful health care system? So many questions, so few answers.
74 Notional Tomatoes « Mapping the margins // Sep 3, 2009 at 7:26 pm

[...] how to feel, then about Michael Pollan’s decision to ignore the Whole Foods boycott? Pollan is a well reasoned and researched author who manages to be both [...]
75 Quick Green Reads For The Weekend Volume 133. | The Good Human // Sep 4, 2009 at 10:31 am

[...] Pollan says: John Mackey’s views on health care, much as I disagree with them, will not prevent me from shopping at Whole Foods. I can understand why people would want to boycott, but it’s important to play out the [...]
76 InBerkeley » Whole Foods spotlights local suppliers // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:42 pm

[...] leveled a few years ago by Berkeley’s resident uber-foodie Michael Pollan (who, by the way, does not approve of the current Whole Foods boycott) with an advertising campaign that highlights its commitment to local [...]
77 Pollan, Mackey, Whole Foods and Single Payer « Single Payer Action // Sep 8, 2009 at 3:19 pm

[...] Pollan stepped right in it last month when he posted an item on conservative David Frum’s New Majority web site. [...]
78 More on the Whole Foods “Boycott” - Joshua Malbin // Sep 9, 2009 at 2:19 pm

[...] Joshua Malbin on Sep.09, 2009, under Politics Just now in my inbox from Food Democracy Now!: Michael Pollan, [has] argued that a boycott could have disastrous unintended consequences, as Whole Foods is one [...]
79 Party of 1 » Blog Archive » John Mackey: Wrong on Health Care, Right on Food? // Oct 3, 2009 at 8:26 pm

[...] of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, declined to go along. He offered these comments at website Newmajority.com: “John Mackey’s views on health care, much as I disagree with them, will not prevent me [...]