Pollan Denounces Whole Foods Boycott

Foodnerd is being a little optimistic.

Do you really think people will forego their plates of $8.99 nachos at TGI Friday’s even if Whole Foods suddenly became affordable? Some people either like crappy food or they don’t know anything better. It’s not all about the money.

Foodnerd is being a little optimistic.

Do you really think people will forego their plates of $8.99 nachos at TGI Friday’s even if Whole Foods suddenly became affordable? Some people either like crappy food or they don’t know anything better. It’s not all about the money.

Foodnerd is being a little optimistic.

Do you really think people will forego their plates of $8.99 nachos at TGI Friday’s even if Whole Foods suddenly became affordable? Some people either like crappy food or they don’t know anything better. It’s not all about the money.

I think the affordability issue is itself a bit of a canard. Processed food and cheap restaurant food is in general *more* expensive than cooking from real ingredients at home. So if people’s food choices were really just about maximizing food intake per dollar, we’d see a lot of cooking with non-organic produce & grains, and relatively little meat. That’s the cheapest path to sustenance, which is why it sounds like the diet of indigenous peoples around the world.

But that’s not what we see. Instead, we see people minimizing their *time* input into eating, and therefore buying lots of processed & prepared food. People minimize their time input, I imagine, because they feel busy & frazzled and put their time priorities elsewhere (TV, internet, commutes, video games, etc.) Caring about food and where it comes from as Pollan, Waters, etc. advocate is in large part a call to spend more time on food, not just or primarily to spend more money. (However, Alice Waters’ The Art of Simple Cooking has many simple, cheap, and deliciously artful dishes.)

Yes, the $ matter. But there’s a time issue that for most Americans looms must larger. And that’s a question of priorities, not ability. For the vast bulk of Americans, the question is more about whether you want to make food a priority or not, rather than about whether you can conceivably afford to eat healthy or not.

I think the affordability issue is itself a bit of a canard. Processed food and cheap restaurant food is in general *more* expensive than cooking from real ingredients at home. So if people’s food choices were really just about maximizing food intake per dollar, we’d see a lot of cooking with non-organic produce & grains, and relatively little meat. That’s the cheapest path to sustenance, which is why it sounds like the diet of indigenous peoples around the world.

But that’s not what we see. Instead, we see people minimizing their *time* input into eating, and therefore buying lots of processed & prepared food. People minimize their time input, I imagine, because they feel busy & frazzled and put their time priorities elsewhere (TV, internet, commutes, video games, etc.) Caring about food and where it comes from as Pollan, Waters, etc. advocate is in large part a call to spend more time on food, not just or primarily to spend more money. (However, Alice Waters’ The Art of Simple Cooking has many simple, cheap, and deliciously artful dishes.)

Yes, the $ matter. But there’s a time issue that for most Americans looms must larger. And that’s a question of priorities, not ability. For the vast bulk of Americans, the question is more about whether you want to make food a priority or not, rather than about whether you can conceivably afford to eat healthy or not.

I think the affordability issue is itself a bit of a canard. Processed food and cheap restaurant food is in general *more* expensive than cooking from real ingredients at home. So if people’s food choices were really just about maximizing food intake per dollar, we’d see a lot of cooking with non-organic produce & grains, and relatively little meat. That’s the cheapest path to sustenance, which is why it sounds like the diet of indigenous peoples around the world.

But that’s not what we see. Instead, we see people minimizing their *time* input into eating, and therefore buying lots of processed & prepared food. People minimize their time input, I imagine, because they feel busy & frazzled and put their time priorities elsewhere (TV, internet, commutes, video games, etc.) Caring about food and where it comes from as Pollan, Waters, etc. advocate is in large part a call to spend more time on food, not just or primarily to spend more money. (However, Alice Waters’ The Art of Simple Cooking has many simple, cheap, and deliciously artful dishes.)

Yes, the $ matter. But there’s a time issue that for most Americans looms must larger. And that’s a question of priorities, not ability. For the vast bulk of Americans, the question is more about whether you want to make food a priority or not, rather than about whether you can conceivably afford to eat healthy or not.

I’m as against lifestyle environmentalism– which leaves polluting and unhealthy systems intact by giving a select few the ability to opt out– as much as the next lefty.

But I’m not sure that providing organic foods to wealthy people makes Whole Foods evil. Or that low-income consumers aren’t able to shop smart and find a few deals there. The biggest problem with Whole Foods business practices in my mind is that it doesn’t do nearly enough to sell local food. In some ways I think local is just as if not more important than organic.

In places like Seattle where we have better options (like Madison Market) we might be better off without Whole Foods. But there are a lot of places in the heartland where the supermarket scene is extremely dire. I don’t see how having Whole Foods in those places is so bad. That’s no reason not to boycott its owner’s politics. But in the grand scheme of things, I think there are much worse corporations.

I’m as against lifestyle environmentalism– which leaves polluting and unhealthy systems intact by giving a select few the ability to opt out– as much as the next lefty.

But I’m not sure that providing organic foods to wealthy people makes Whole Foods evil. Or that low-income consumers aren’t able to shop smart and find a few deals there. The biggest problem with Whole Foods business practices in my mind is that it doesn’t do nearly enough to sell local food. In some ways I think local is just as if not more important than organic.

In places like Seattle where we have better options (like Madison Market) we might be better off without Whole Foods. But there are a lot of places in the heartland where the supermarket scene is extremely dire. I don’t see how having Whole Foods in those places is so bad. That’s no reason not to boycott its owner’s politics. But in the grand scheme of things, I think there are much worse corporations.

I’m as against lifestyle environmentalism– which leaves polluting and unhealthy systems intact by giving a select few the ability to opt out– as much as the next lefty.

But I’m not sure that providing organic foods to wealthy people makes Whole Foods evil. Or that low-income consumers aren’t able to shop smart and find a few deals there. The biggest problem with Whole Foods business practices in my mind is that it doesn’t do nearly enough to sell local food. In some ways I think local is just as if not more important than organic.

In places like Seattle where we have better options (like Madison Market) we might be better off without Whole Foods. But there are a lot of places in the heartland where the supermarket scene is extremely dire. I don’t see how having Whole Foods in those places is so bad. That’s no reason not to boycott its owner’s politics. But in the grand scheme of things, I think there are much worse corporations.

@3: I don’t think Whole Foods is evil–as I said in my earlier post, I LOVE shopping there. It’s a total foodie playground. I just think Pollan’s premise ignores class completely–to pretend Whole Foods is going to change the food system when the problem with the food system is that poor people don’t have access to nutritious, affordable food is either blind or disingenuous.

@3: I don’t think Whole Foods is evil–as I said in my earlier post, I LOVE shopping there. It’s a total foodie playground. I just think Pollan’s premise ignores class completely–to pretend Whole Foods is going to change the food system when the problem with the food system is that poor people don’t have access to nutritious, affordable food is either blind or disingenuous.

@3: I don’t think Whole Foods is evil–as I said in my earlier post, I LOVE shopping there. It’s a total foodie playground. I just think Pollan’s premise ignores class completely–to pretend Whole Foods is going to change the food system when the problem with the food system is that poor people don’t have access to nutritious, affordable food is either blind or disingenuous.

There’s an interesting discussion of the John Mackey issue on last week’s culture gabfest from Slate, which is available for free on iTunes. Stephen Metcalf identifies a problem at the heart of the food politics movement, namely the rift between consumer choice and politics. Recommended for anyone following this story.

There’s an interesting discussion of the John Mackey issue on last week’s culture gabfest from Slate, which is available for free on iTunes. Stephen Metcalf identifies a problem at the heart of the food politics movement, namely the rift between consumer choice and politics. Recommended for anyone following this story.

There’s an interesting discussion of the John Mackey issue on last week’s culture gabfest from Slate, which is available for free on iTunes. Stephen Metcalf identifies a problem at the heart of the food politics movement, namely the rift between consumer choice and politics. Recommended for anyone following this story.

Pollan’s talking himself in circles. In his latest book, In Defense of Food, he makes a point to emphasize the importance of Farmer’s Markets and localism.

His belief is that by shaking hands and creating a relationship between producer and consumer, you’re creating a bond that would discourage a farmer or butcher from doing anything that would adversely affect your health. Whole Foods in no way does this.

And Pollan’s never been especially sensitive to the plight of the low income eater. One of his principle beliefs is we should spend MORE money on food. He thinks we’d eat less if we had to pay more per bite.

Not too helpful for a low income mother with a family of four to feed. They may already be eating less.

Pollan’s talking himself in circles. In his latest book, In Defense of Food, he makes a point to emphasize the importance of Farmer’s Markets and localism.

His belief is that by shaking hands and creating a relationship between producer and consumer, you’re creating a bond that would discourage a farmer or butcher from doing anything that would adversely affect your health. Whole Foods in no way does this.

And Pollan’s never been especially sensitive to the plight of the low income eater. One of his principle beliefs is we should spend MORE money on food. He thinks we’d eat less if we had to pay more per bite.

Not too helpful for a low income mother with a family of four to feed. They may already be eating less.

Pollan’s talking himself in circles. In his latest book, In Defense of Food, he makes a point to emphasize the importance of Farmer’s Markets and localism.

His belief is that by shaking hands and creating a relationship between producer and consumer, you’re creating a bond that would discourage a farmer or butcher from doing anything that would adversely affect your health. Whole Foods in no way does this.

And Pollan’s never been especially sensitive to the plight of the low income eater. One of his principle beliefs is we should spend MORE money on food. He thinks we’d eat less if we had to pay more per bite.

Not too helpful for a low income mother with a family of four to feed. They may already be eating less.

1. Losing the ACCESSIBILITY that Whole Foods is providing people to good produce and more natural food products is not productive when it comes to health care. Ultimately, Mackey’s voice on this issue just isn’t that important one way or another…certainly not after the backlash. This just isn’t worth it.

2. Not all, but some significant portion of people who are fat are fat because they fail to do the things that people that aren’t fat do. Exercise. Eat healthy. Eat less. Let’s not be condescending here…people who can afford to eat good food make dumb decisions too, just like poor people, and ‘re-education’ isn’t the solution. Accountability is. There’s equity problems, but those extend beyond this issue, and if our solution to it is to give everyone lettuce instead of incentivizing healthy lifestyles, we are not going to end up with the results we want.

This is obviously a bigger picture thing than just this post, but calling the notion of personal responsibility a “canard” belies a lack of interest in…. personal responsibility. When people make bad decisions that cost us, they should pay for them.

How do you feel about cigarette taxes? Or even smoking bans?

1. Losing the ACCESSIBILITY that Whole Foods is providing people to good produce and more natural food products is not productive when it comes to health care. Ultimately, Mackey’s voice on this issue just isn’t that important one way or another…certainly not after the backlash. This just isn’t worth it.

2. Not all, but some significant portion of people who are fat are fat because they fail to do the things that people that aren’t fat do. Exercise. Eat healthy. Eat less. Let’s not be condescending here…people who can afford to eat good food make dumb decisions too, just like poor people, and ‘re-education’ isn’t the solution. Accountability is. There’s equity problems, but those extend beyond this issue, and if our solution to it is to give everyone lettuce instead of incentivizing healthy lifestyles, we are not going to end up with the results we want.

This is obviously a bigger picture thing than just this post, but calling the notion of personal responsibility a “canard” belies a lack of interest in…. personal responsibility. When people make bad decisions that cost us, they should pay for them.

How do you feel about cigarette taxes? Or even smoking bans?

1. Losing the ACCESSIBILITY that Whole Foods is providing people to good produce and more natural food products is not productive when it comes to health care. Ultimately, Mackey’s voice on this issue just isn’t that important one way or another…certainly not after the backlash. This just isn’t worth it.

2. Not all, but some significant portion of people who are fat are fat because they fail to do the things that people that aren’t fat do. Exercise. Eat healthy. Eat less. Let’s not be condescending here…people who can afford to eat good food make dumb decisions too, just like poor people, and ‘re-education’ isn’t the solution. Accountability is. There’s equity problems, but those extend beyond this issue, and if our solution to it is to give everyone lettuce instead of incentivizing healthy lifestyles, we are not going to end up with the results we want.

This is obviously a bigger picture thing than just this post, but calling the notion of personal responsibility a “canard” belies a lack of interest in…. personal responsibility. When people make bad decisions that cost us, they should pay for them.

How do you feel about cigarette taxes? Or even smoking bans?

This article irks me. First of all, I’ve read Michael Pollan’s books and I’ve seen him speak. I don’t think his fame is getting to him. Nor do I praise him blindly. Simply put, he’s done more to promote positive change within our food system than this foodnerd fellow could achieve in a lifetime.

While I’m not a mother of four with a tendency to stop at McDonald’s on the way home, I think foodnerd is putting these people into some kind of victim category which suggests they are helpless and not capable of changing their behavior. If people want to improve their health and not pay premium prices for whole foods products, it requires *work*. Yes, a slight change of lifestyle and the initiative to spend less time watching TV and playing video games. I’m sick of this victim attitude. I do agree that there is a shared obligation to promote these kinds of changes, but people need to put forth the effort.

This article irks me. First of all, I’ve read Michael Pollan’s books and I’ve seen him speak. I don’t think his fame is getting to him. Nor do I praise him blindly. Simply put, he’s done more to promote positive change within our food system than this foodnerd fellow could achieve in a lifetime.

While I’m not a mother of four with a tendency to stop at McDonald’s on the way home, I think foodnerd is putting these people into some kind of victim category which suggests they are helpless and not capable of changing their behavior. If people want to improve their health and not pay premium prices for whole foods products, it requires *work*. Yes, a slight change of lifestyle and the initiative to spend less time watching TV and playing video games. I’m sick of this victim attitude. I do agree that there is a shared obligation to promote these kinds of changes, but people need to put forth the effort.

This article irks me. First of all, I’ve read Michael Pollan’s books and I’ve seen him speak. I don’t think his fame is getting to him. Nor do I praise him blindly. Simply put, he’s done more to promote positive change within our food system than this foodnerd fellow could achieve in a lifetime.

While I’m not a mother of four with a tendency to stop at McDonald’s on the way home, I think foodnerd is putting these people into some kind of victim category which suggests they are helpless and not capable of changing their behavior. If people want to improve their health and not pay premium prices for whole foods products, it requires *work*. Yes, a slight change of lifestyle and the initiative to spend less time watching TV and playing video games. I’m sick of this victim attitude. I do agree that there is a shared obligation to promote these kinds of changes, but people need to put forth the effort.

@4: Nah I think your retort to Pollan was overstated in that it went after Whole Foods instead of Pollan’s overstatements. It didn’t take into account the fact that Whole Foods isn’t just a foodie playground. It is bringing change. Coops are better. But it’s doing something positive.

@4: Nah I think your retort to Pollan was overstated in that it went after Whole Foods instead of Pollan’s overstatements. It didn’t take into account the fact that Whole Foods isn’t just a foodie playground. It is bringing change. Coops are better. But it’s doing something positive.

@4: Nah I think your retort to Pollan was overstated in that it went after Whole Foods instead of Pollan’s overstatements. It didn’t take into account the fact that Whole Foods isn’t just a foodie playground. It is bringing change. Coops are better. But it’s doing something positive.

Speaking of Whole Foods. Former Whole Foods employee Jill Richardson, Author of Recipe for America, will be at Fx McRory’s this Friday night from 8:00 – 10:00 to speak and sign books.

Speaking of Whole Foods. Former Whole Foods employee Jill Richardson, Author of Recipe for America, will be at Fx McRory’s this Friday night from 8:00 – 10:00 to speak and sign books.

Speaking of Whole Foods. Former Whole Foods employee Jill Richardson, Author of Recipe for America, will be at Fx McRory’s this Friday night from 8:00 – 10:00 to speak and sign books.

I think FoodNerd is the one being a bit condescending and overly optimistic. People (even us poor ones) have free will. We’re not just mindlessly cramming our pieholes with the lowest hanging fruit on the dollar store tree because that’s what economic theory predicts we should do.

Stated another way: we don’t eat crap food (just) because that’s what we can afford.

Based on direct personal experience this summer, I can tell you the difference between a “crap food” diet (dominated by heavily processed foods) and a “healthy” one (dominated by raw materials) is about $25-$40/month for a single adult living in Seattle. (The figure depends on whether you were on a Cup-o-Noodle type diet or a Mickey-D’s type.)

I assume that the cost/person would decrease for a family b/c you’d be buying larger quantities, but let’s say it didn’t. Under your theory, the only reason poor people in Seattle are eating crap food is because they can’t afford to up their food budget by about $1/person/day. This is possibly true for a few families; but as a general proposition it doesn’t pass the smell test.

The truth is that what poor people (or, less condescendingly, people) can “afford” depends in large part on what is prioritized. An increase of $1/person/day on the food budget requires a decrease from the entertainment budget or the utilities budget or the transportation budget or some combination.

When you’re constantly bombarded with the message that all calories are good calories; and when it takes an extra expenditure of time and money to eat healthy then why would *anyone* with a limited budget spend the time/money to eat healthy?

My bottom line: Two of the biggest obstacles to healthy living (across all classes) are a general indifference toward food intake (all calories are created equal) and a lack of options for buying healthy food. WholeFoods and markets like them address both these problems. Boycotting them over a manufactured tempest in a teapot is shortsighted at best.

I think FoodNerd is the one being a bit condescending and overly optimistic. People (even us poor ones) have free will. We’re not just mindlessly cramming our pieholes with the lowest hanging fruit on the dollar store tree because that’s what economic theory predicts we should do.

Stated another way: we don’t eat crap food (just) because that’s what we can afford.

Based on direct personal experience this summer, I can tell you the difference between a “crap food” diet (dominated by heavily processed foods) and a “healthy” one (dominated by raw materials) is about $25-$40/month for a single adult living in Seattle. (The figure depends on whether you were on a Cup-o-Noodle type diet or a Mickey-D’s type.)

I assume that the cost/person would decrease for a family b/c you’d be buying larger quantities, but let’s say it didn’t. Under your theory, the only reason poor people in Seattle are eating crap food is because they can’t afford to up their food budget by about $1/person/day. This is possibly true for a few families; but as a general proposition it doesn’t pass the smell test.

The truth is that what poor people (or, less condescendingly, people) can “afford” depends in large part on what is prioritized. An increase of $1/person/day on the food budget requires a decrease from the entertainment budget or the utilities budget or the transportation budget or some combination.

When you’re constantly bombarded with the message that all calories are good calories; and when it takes an extra expenditure of time and money to eat healthy then why would *anyone* with a limited budget spend the time/money to eat healthy?

My bottom line: Two of the biggest obstacles to healthy living (across all classes) are a general indifference toward food intake (all calories are created equal) and a lack of options for buying healthy food. WholeFoods and markets like them address both these problems. Boycotting them over a manufactured tempest in a teapot is shortsighted at best.

I think FoodNerd is the one being a bit condescending and overly optimistic. People (even us poor ones) have free will. We’re not just mindlessly cramming our pieholes with the lowest hanging fruit on the dollar store tree because that’s what economic theory predicts we should do.

Stated another way: we don’t eat crap food (just) because that’s what we can afford.

Based on direct personal experience this summer, I can tell you the difference between a “crap food” diet (dominated by heavily processed foods) and a “healthy” one (dominated by raw materials) is about $25-$40/month for a single adult living in Seattle. (The figure depends on whether you were on a Cup-o-Noodle type diet or a Mickey-D’s type.)

I assume that the cost/person would decrease for a family b/c you’d be buying larger quantities, but let’s say it didn’t. Under your theory, the only reason poor people in Seattle are eating crap food is because they can’t afford to up their food budget by about $1/person/day. This is possibly true for a few families; but as a general proposition it doesn’t pass the smell test.

The truth is that what poor people (or, less condescendingly, people) can “afford” depends in large part on what is prioritized. An increase of $1/person/day on the food budget requires a decrease from the entertainment budget or the utilities budget or the transportation budget or some combination.

When you’re constantly bombarded with the message that all calories are good calories; and when it takes an extra expenditure of time and money to eat healthy then why would *anyone* with a limited budget spend the time/money to eat healthy?

My bottom line: Two of the biggest obstacles to healthy living (across all classes) are a general indifference toward food intake (all calories are created equal) and a lack of options for buying healthy food. WholeFoods and markets like them address both these problems. Boycotting them over a manufactured tempest in a teapot is shortsighted at best.