This original quote is ridiculous. Made by those who want to slide for being complicitous in a toxic system that they know is wrong. NO GAME COULD EXIST WITHOUT THE PLAYER. Anyway, whole foods has always had the eye on profit, not community, or they would not be so expensive. It is no surprise to me that the did indeed sell out.
The brevity of this "article" should be a warning sign.
This is really two different arguments: 1 - Cross contamination of crops, and 2 - Whole Foods selling conventional, non-organic products. It is unfair to draw conclusions based on information (in this case, a lack of information) on two separate issues.
1 - Cross contamination
This happens all the time with all almost all crops. You can not stop the insects in one crop from venturing into another crop without completely encasing the field. This is impractical.
Obviously the issue with cross contamination is very complex. This article does nothing to explain this complexity or why Whole Foods chose to "drop their opposition" ( I normally wouldn't use quotes here, but Anne seems to like them).
2 - Whole Foods sells conventional products
I worked for Whole Foods for over 4 years at 4 different locations in 3 different departments.
Yes, Whole Foods sells conventional products. This is not new information. The amount of 100% organic could not fill a grocery store larger than 15k sqft. In addition to selling conventional, Whole Foods promotes and actively supports organic growers and companies. This is evidenced by their first core value: Selling the Highest Quality Natural and Organic Products Available.
However, when it comes to produce, customers would rather have conventional than not at all. So there is one reason why. Another is that conventional is cheaper and some (not all) customers prefer the lower prices. Outside of produce, food manufacturers need reliability. Many organic farms haven't yet met the consistency needed by food manufactures. These are just some of the reasons. If pressed, I'll be happy to give more.
In response to the conclusion,
Yes, there is a difference between "natural" and "organic". This was news-worthy back in the 90's. There is also a difference between "no added preservatives" and "no artificial coloring/flavoring". There is also a difference between the sell-by date, use-by date, and best-by date.
I'd like to ask Anne if she knows the difference between "organic" and "certified organic". Does she know who these certifying agencies are? While the USDA has their standard, so do various states. California's standard is higher than the federal. So is it still organic if it meets Federal but not California standards?
What really makes this article worthless is the last sentence, "WFM and their main distributor, United Natural Foods, maximize profits by selling products labeled "natural" at premium organic prices". Again, a lot of attack with out much weight behind the accusation.
Go to http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/sourcing.php. If the customer is truly concerned about only eating organic, the labels on the products and shelves almost always give the customer the information they need. If not, a team member is usually easy to find and can almost always answer the question (good luck getting the same service at Safeway, Kroger, HEB, Walmart, etc).
I put my name on this response because I'm confident in this rebuttal. While Anne Landman might be fighting the "good fight", this 'exposé' doesn't really expose anything.
DISAGREED. By not opposing, they are as good as agreeing. Not acceptable. That's all Monsanto needs - a faction of the population who turns a blind eye and a deaf ear, and they have a toe-hold. Demanding non-GMO foods is not enough - we must demand and end to Monsanto's monopoly-
This original quote is ridiculous. Made by those who want to slide for being complicitous in a toxic system that they know is wrong. NO GAME COULD EXIST WITHOUT THE PLAYER. Anyway, whole foods has always had the eye on profit, not community, or they would not be so expensive. It is no surprise to me that the did indeed sell out.
What did Hippocrates do to you?
The brevity of this "article" should be a warning sign.
This is really two different arguments: 1 - Cross contamination of crops, and 2 - Whole Foods selling conventional, non-organic products. It is unfair to draw conclusions based on information (in this case, a lack of information) on two separate issues.
1 - Cross contamination
This happens all the time with all almost all crops. You can not stop the insects in one crop from venturing into another crop without completely encasing the field. This is impractical.
Obviously the issue with cross contamination is very complex. This article does nothing to explain this complexity or why Whole Foods chose to "drop their opposition" ( I normally wouldn't use quotes here, but Anne seems to like them).
2 - Whole Foods sells conventional products
I worked for Whole Foods for over 4 years at 4 different locations in 3 different departments.
Yes, Whole Foods sells conventional products. This is not new information. The amount of 100% organic could not fill a grocery store larger than 15k sqft. In addition to selling conventional, Whole Foods promotes and actively supports organic growers and companies. This is evidenced by their first core value: Selling the Highest Quality Natural and Organic Products Available.
However, when it comes to produce, customers would rather have conventional than not at all. So there is one reason why. Another is that conventional is cheaper and some (not all) customers prefer the lower prices. Outside of produce, food manufacturers need reliability. Many organic farms haven't yet met the consistency needed by food manufactures. These are just some of the reasons. If pressed, I'll be happy to give more.
In response to the conclusion,
Yes, there is a difference between "natural" and "organic". This was news-worthy back in the 90's. There is also a difference between "no added preservatives" and "no artificial coloring/flavoring". There is also a difference between the sell-by date, use-by date, and best-by date.
I'd like to ask Anne if she knows the difference between "organic" and "certified organic". Does she know who these certifying agencies are? While the USDA has their standard, so do various states. California's standard is higher than the federal. So is it still organic if it meets Federal but not California standards?
What really makes this article worthless is the last sentence, "WFM and their main distributor, United Natural Foods, maximize profits by selling products labeled "natural" at premium organic prices". Again, a lot of attack with out much weight behind the accusation.
Go to http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/sourcing.php. If the customer is truly concerned about only eating organic, the labels on the products and shelves almost always give the customer the information they need. If not, a team member is usually easy to find and can almost always answer the question (good luck getting the same service at Safeway, Kroger, HEB, Walmart, etc).
I put my name on this response because I'm confident in this rebuttal. While Anne Landman might be fighting the "good fight", this 'exposé' doesn't really expose anything.
DISAGREED. By not opposing, they are as good as agreeing. Not acceptable. That's all Monsanto needs - a faction of the population who turns a blind eye and a deaf ear, and they have a toe-hold. Demanding non-GMO foods is not enough - we must demand and end to Monsanto's monopoly-
ummm you can't compare Wal-Mart to whole foods.
Pages