Horizon

Back when Rainbow Grocery's dry goods depts. were boycotting Israel we had to shop at the Whole Foods in Pacific Heights. It's really really different up there. There are Jaguars in the garage and everything costs at least a dollar more. Which is a lot considering that Rainbow Grocery already sells cheese and coffee for as much as fourteen dollars a pound. What depresses me most is the possibility that there may be rich people who shop organic simply for the sake of their own health, while continuing to invest in the factory-farm companies that make the chemicalized pap eaten by the rest of the country. Since organic food is what Pacific Heights likes, what if the folks up there were to work on giving everyone else access to organic food too?

You're assuming that these affluent patrons are objectively correct that their taste for expensive organic foods leaves them markedly healthier than their cheap pap-eating peers, a claim yet to be substantiated, m'lud.

Since organic food is what Pacific Heights likes, what if the folks up there were to work on giving everyone else access to organic food too?

Why on earth would it be their responsibility to impose their tastes on anyone else?

I said give access to, not require to consume. Nobody's making people eat strawberries and cream here.

Well, I can't speak for anyone at Pacific Heights, but I'd be happy to swap half the organic produce at my Whole Foods for access to the fresh cracklins at Nick's Grocery in Port Arthur. Why do oil workers always get the best food? Is it the Nomex?

I'm sure the cracklins at Nick's are to die for, but wouldn't they be just as good or better if made from healthier pigs? I realize a few feed additives are nothing compared to the concentrated full-time toxicity of oil work, but every little bit helps, right?

I'm sure the cracklins at Nick's are to die for, but wouldn't they be just as good or better if made from healthier pigs?

Farmer Knows Best, eh?

Martha, it seems like we're talking about two different theories of the desirability of organic goods, and dancing around a third. Some people pay more for organic foods because they percieve them to be healthier, as you imply with your statement about "healthier pigs". Some pay more because they find them tastier or more attractive, as you acknowledge with your statement about "what Pacific Heights likes. Finally, some people pay more for organics as a status marker, irrespective of any other percieved benefit.

As Alan points out, the jury is entirely out on the first theory. If it weren't, I suspect a reference to Wigan would be appropriate here from one of us, but let's just table it.

What I find more interesting is -- absent the health theory -- your resentment at wealthy people eating food they like, that you (or people you identify with) don't have everyday access to. Nothing at all unusual about this, and I could probably list dozens of things the wealthy have I'd like, myself. But what obligation do the consumers of Pacific Heights have to "giv[e] everyone else access" to what they like?

Should they be forced to subsidize expansion of everyone else's stores, so that they'll have enough shelf space to carry goods that they previously decided wouldn't sell? Perhaps they should simply subsidize organic profits -- every dollar someone in PH pays for an organic rutabaga goes to a matching program for organic sales at a non-PH shopkeeper?

Does this obligation to expand accessibility (once we've defined what that is) apply to everyone with access to foods not universally available, or is this limited to the wealthy? The reason I ask is that there are a number of foodstuffs that I'm forced to import myself from Appalachia, because I simply have no access to them in Texas for love nor money. Some sort of food redistribution system might very well benefit me, as I'd be able to get vacuum-packed ham trimmings and cured pork jowls at my neighborhood grocery, rather than packing the stuff in luggage whenever I visit family.

Even if I were to grant a health argument, I'm still not so sure that organics are always preferable. Sure, I bought four bunches of organic green onions to throw into a gumbo today, but they looked much larger and nicer than their counterparts, and the price differential was only forty cents a bunch. On the other hand, I prefer large chicken breasts, which I understand come from generally unpleasant farms and some frightening selective breeding. I'd prefer to be able to make that choice myself. The profit motive of fancy-pants grocers like Whole Foods lets me make that choice. (And besides, they're local-boy-makes-good around here.)

There's this habit among conservative economists of sneakily substituting the idea of hedonic preference for the idea of necessity. Rental housing analogized to ice cream, for example. I'm not talking about taste here, I'm talking about consumer protection standards. Organically grown food are in fact better for human health, and a large number of rich people know enough to maintain their own health by eating such foods. It is wrong for the same people who eat organic food because they care about their own bodies to keep on investing in companies that exercise a much lower level of care for the health of the general public. If you think I'm being a snob about this, then so was Upton Sinclair when he criticized the use of aniline dyes in the foodstuffs of his day. There is nothing populist about claiming that bad food is good enough for the average Joe.

Organically grown food are in fact better for human health

Says who?

Isn't Whole Foods actually broadening the base of who can get and afford organic goods by driving an increase in the market? Sure, it isn't cheap, but it's a lot easier to buy natural beef now than it was 10 years ago, and Whole Foods was the primary driver of that change.

Being a (mostly) free market capitalist, I think
increased demand will increase supply and eventually drive down prices. I don't think you'd be able to affect the same kind of change through legislation, at least not as quickly.

Martha: Organically grown food are in fact better for human health

Alan: Says who?

Whole Foods is happy to make a profit off the reputation that organic foods have without regard to the accuracy of the health claim. See, for example, their position on Wind Power, which frankly ackowledges that no environmental benefit whatsoever will come from what is really a clever marketing move.

There's this habit among conservative economists of sneakily substituting the idea of hedonic preference for the idea of necessity.

And there's a habit among grassroots liberal commenters of identifying a problem and deciding that a third party should be forced to fix it.

Seriously, how would you propose that the PH Whole Foods consumers remedy the lack of access to organic produce in other places? Mandatory organic-only zoning? Some kind of non-profit organicmobile?

As Sara points out, before the WF store opened in PH to serve those well-heeled consumers, what kind of access did your amorphous "everybody else" San Franciscan have to organic produce? Has that access improved or declined since the WF moved into Pacific Heights?

Sure, Whole Foods does increase public access to organic food, and it's public demand for organic food, not legislation or charitable effort, that has increased the volume and quality of organic foods available. But how does yr hypothetical well-heeled Whole Foods customer vote as a stockholder on a question like whether to bargain down producers of staple crops to the point where they can only break even by using heavy chemicals?

As for whether organically produced foods are healthier, I guess you can look up evidence as well as I can, and you can choose to believe it or not.

Interesting: a small organic food store opened in conservative Klamath Falls, OR this past summer and the founders cannily explained to the local paper that this is nothing new, it's just how our grandparents ate. In an area with a depressed farm economy, they put a big emphasis on buying from local producers -- including beef from a grass-fed herd that has not added new beasts since before Mad Cow days -- and it seems like they may do OK in local public opinion.

As for whether organically produced foods are healthier, I guess you can look up evidence as well as I can, and you can choose to believe it or not.

That's quite a climb-down from two bald assertions of fact earlier on. Of course we can 'choose to believe' what we want; I can choose to believe that I'm the Emperor of China, or that Coldplay are a decent band, or any number of other ridiculous things if I wish. But if I make repeated public claims about them then it's not unreasonable for me to be asked to back them up, and if my only response is the truth is out there but I'm sure you're too narrowminded to accept it then I wouldn't blame other people for not taking any of my future claims all that seriously.

Sure, Whole Foods does increase public access to organic food

So the presence of well-heeled WF consumers in Pacific Heights, has in fact increased the accessibilty of organic food to whomever you were grumping about, then. Moving on...

But how does yr hypothetical well-heeled Whole Foods customer vote as a stockholder on a question like whether to bargain down producers of staple crops to the point where they can only break even by using heavy chemicals?

I'm not sure that shareholder votes are they way people express investment morality anymore. For example, I own stock in U.S. Tobacco but not Phillip Morris, but have never voted in a UST ballot. My values are expressed through which stocks I hold, rather than what I do voting them.

There's a good argument to be made that this is completely ineffective, since otherwise attractive stocks are underpriced because of "moral" investors' aversion, thus they become more attractive for everybody else. But to the extent that Whole Foods shoppers can be judged by the intent of their investment decisions, I'd guess that they're more likely than the average investor to buy vehicles like moral or environmental funds.

I should note that the investment choice vs. shareholder voting comparison is probably due to a sense of powerlessness on the part of investors, rather than any sort of rational political computation.

Yeah, well, however they may happen to exercise political power over food policy, how do they in fact exercise it?

I put that badly. Try this instead: you're focusing on whether the exercise of shareholder power in my example is realistic. The question the example was intended to address is broader: to the extent Whole Foods customers have power to influence national food policy as citizens, not just as consumers, what are they doing to create a farm policy that emphasizes public health as opposed to production-at-all-costs?

So the presence of well-heeled WF consumers in Pacific Heights, has in fact increased the accessibilty of organic food to whomever you were grumping about, then. Moving on...

There are a lot of Whole Foods stores, yes. But they're expensive, they're not in all towns, they market to an elite, not to everyone. They help create demand for good food grown in the old-fashioned ways, but they also treat this good food as a luxury for an elite. When does everyone get to eat vine-ripened tomatoes or meat from chickens that were raised in hygenic enough conditions not to need constant dosing with antibiotics?

Personal trainers are a luxury for an elite too. I'm sure the retention of one makes a marked difference to your overall health. Should the government be in the business of subsidizing personal trainers to the masses as a civil right?

This, as usual, is spiralling out of control. As I'm sure everyone here knows, there are a lot of people in this country who are poor, live in bad neighborhoods, have no cars, and do not have easy access to such things as:

1) banks (but plenty of check cashing places which will give you a "payday advance")

2) grocery stores of any kind (though plenty of convenience stores which will sell you soda and snickers bars (and hot pockets if you're lucky))

3) police (when someone breaks into your house it just doesn't seem as important as when a house in the hills is burgled -- you are informed that there is no hope, that this is a natural consequence of your choice of neighborhoods, and you will never hear from them again)

4) anything other than a McDonalds, again if you are lucky

5) Effective public transportation

...and I'm sure we could add a few more to this list.

Yes, anyone who really wants to, and has a little change, can get to one of these places at a time, but unfortunately in exchange for that fare they are probably working 40 hours a week on their feet at said McDonalds.

Whole Foods and organic food is not the issue. It would make our society safer and happier as a whole to try to plan our environments in such a way that people in all neighborhoods have reasonable access to necessities like banks, and likewise that the markets for the rather predatory businesses which thrive in their absence should be reduced or eliminated.

Is this all that controversial?

You can't negate one need by noting that other needs exist. All the needs exist, and the ones you name are all results of the particular form of injustice known as redlining. Lack of access to food grown/raised without pesticides, hormones, etc. is likewise a major consequence of redlining. The need in redlined neighborhoods for more and better-stocked grocery stores is another, more generic way of expressing the fact that poor people tend not to have easy access to healthy foods. And as long as people need a better choice of groceries, they may as well have a full choice, not just a partial selection of stuff deemed "good enough" for a poor neighborhood. As proof that higher standards are possible, see the West Oakland "People's Grocery" project, which is improving access to healthily grown food for people in a Bay Area neighborhood that, despite the demolition of the Cypress Freeway barrier some sixteen years ago, is still suffering from lack of banks, grocery stores, and other basic services. The People's Grocery truck doesn't settle for selling groceries; it sells fruits and vegetables that actually look and taste good.

Actually, I'm surprised at the meagerness of your argument. The idea that factory-farmed vegetables are good enough for the poor because at least they're better than liquor-store Fritos reflects exactly the sort of condescension that the majority of folks in this argument shop seem to enjoy projecting onto the straw "Left."

Actually, I'm surprised at the meagerness of your argument. The idea that factory-farmed vegetables are good enough for the poor because at least they're better than liquor-store Fritos reflects exactly the sort of condescension that the majority of folks in this argument shop seem to enjoy projecting onto the straw "Left."

Sorry, I just don't know what you mean. The straw left advocates luxuries like organic foods when even an ordinary Safeway in the neighborhood would be a gigantic improvement. Or perhaps we're talking past each other?

Erm, let me try this again:

- Most of the rest of this discussion coterie seems to enjoy accusing "the left" of condescendingly telling poor people what is good for them.

- Here, I contend that you are condescendingly telling poor people what is good for them by presuming that factory-farmed food is good enough for their purposes and that they have no need for "luxuries" such as pesticide-free produce.

Harrumph. With that I'm going to bed. It's one in the morning.

Martha, do you think that the food that you purchase is pesticide-free?

But they're expensive, they're not in all towns, they market to an elite, not to everyone.

Again I put the question to you: compare the access to organic vegetables by "everyone else" before and after a snooty Whole Foods you dislike was built in a snooty neighborhood you dislike: Has access to organics improved or not?

[T]o the extent Whole Foods customers have power to influence national food policy as citizens, not just as consumers, what are they doing to create a farm policy that emphasizes public health as opposed to production-at-all-costs?

To the extent that my generalizations about WF customers based on several dozen shopping trips over the last decade should carry any weight at all, I suspect that the average WF customer would be far more sympathetic to any political opinion you'd espouse than opinion I would. Compared to the average patrons at a grocery in the same neighborhood, I'd be reasonably sure that the ratio of Sierra Club members, Kucinich voters, and Unitarians is far higher at Whole Foods. At minimum, the people doing WF marketing apparently believe that their patrons are motivated by a desire for environmental protection and social justice.

They help create demand for good food grown in the old-fashioned ways, but they also treat this good food as a luxury for an elite.

Are you actually arguing that Whole Foods' marketing is insufficiently proletarian? I'm sorry, but this does about as much good for the poor as sipping tea from a saucer and believing that pronouncing aitches is what forestalls achievement of a socialist utopia.

You know, I'm curious how many participants in this discussion eat organic themselves, whether that be occasional experimenting with organic produce, intentionally shopping organic when possible, or avoiding non-organic food as unhealthy/potentially harmful.

At most, I'd fall into the first category. My reaction upon realizing I'd picked up organic green onions on Sunday was to swear, then compare color, price, and quantity with the non-organic onions, then shrug and leave them in my cart. I have plenty of organic options around, including at a perfectly ordinary neighborhood grocery, but still only make an organic purchase a few times a year.

Martha, do you think that the food that you purchase is pesticide-free?

Nothing's perfect. No reason not to start somewhere.

Now, for the umpteenth time, OF COURSE ACCESS TO ORGANIC FOODS HAS INCREASED, I never said it hadn't. I said that access was unfairly distributed across the population, didn't I. The total amount of money in the United States has also increased but that doesn't particularly help you, me, or people who sleep under bridges.

One of the nice things about being homeless in San Francisco, incidentally, is that there are dumpsters in the Produce District, if you know where to look, that contain wilted or otherwise unsalable organic produce, so in that sense, yes, Whole Foods has increased the access of poor people to organic food. Not the sense I'd prefer of course.

Ben, wrt who would agree with what in your WF branch, I don't doubt that is true in Austin but I am talking about San Francisco, where alternative lifestyle is frequently used as a substitute for humane politics, and I am talking about a Pacific Heights elite supermarket with a garage full of Jaguars. It's not what you are imagining. The magazines in the racks up there are half home improvement, half alternative health, with a soupcon of Buddhism.

Nothing's perfect. No reason not to start somewhere.

That isn't the point I was making at all. I mean, do you think that the organic food you eat is pesticide-free?

The total amount of money in the United States has also increased but that doesn't particularly help you, me, or people who sleep under bridges.

Good grief.

You honestly don't think it matters that the absolute quality of life for almost all Americans has risen quite dramatically over the last half-century, even if the distribution of overall wealth has become less equitable?

-Nothing's perfect. No reason not to start somewhere.

That isn't the point I was making at all. I mean, do you think that the organic food you eat is pesticide-free?

No, that is the question I answered. May as well start somewhere. Reduced pesticides is better than full-on pesticides.

You honestly don't think it matters that the absolute quality of life for almost all Americans has risen quite dramatically over the last half-century, even if the distribution of overall wealth has become less equitable?

Are you sure it has? And if so, has it risen since, say, 1960?

Are you sure it has?

Martha, if an undergraduate asked me that in class I would have to assume that they were kidding. I'm going to be generous and assume the same with you. If (God help us) you're serious, then the US Census Bureau would be a good place to start.

In which:

The year 1968 marked the lowest level of income inequality the Census Bureau has measured for both families and households. Figure 3.5 illustrates the change in one measure of income inequality since 1967 for households. Overall household income inequality increased roughly 9 percent between 1967 and 1992, with a great deal of that change occurring in the 1980s. Inequality was unchanged between 1993 and 1997.(1)

Right. Note that 'relative income' is something different from 'absolute income.' Which means that that quote has precisely bugger all to do with the point at hand.

Even an increase in median income doesn't tell you how bad things really are at the bottom. We did not have pervasive homelessness even in 1946.

Ah: you said "the last half-century," so I'll add that AFAIK there wasn't pervasive homelessness in 1956 either. Shouldn't a country be judged by what it does to the worst-off?

... Martha, never mind. There comes a point when it doesn't really matter whether you're trolling or if you really believe this stuff. If I have to labor this hard over the groundbreaking claim that the great majority of Americans are in absolute terms better off than they were fifty years ago, when many had only had regular electricity service for a few years, never mind more elaborate advantages of modernity, then we're never going to get any more interesting questions.

Martha, is it better for two people to drive beat-up Honda civics, or for one of them to drive a Jaguar and the other a nice Scion?

How many in each example are taking the bus?

Precisely zero. No third alternative — two people in equality of condition versus two people in better, but unequal conditions.

It's never that simple. It seems like the neighbors who had similar cars might get along better but you never know.

You know, I'm curious how many participants in this discussion eat organic themselves, whether that be occasional experimenting with organic produce, intentionally shopping organic when possible, or avoiding non-organic food as unhealthy/potentially harmful.

I tend to avoid organic, but I do favor free-range fancy meats because I suppose the animals have happier lives before they die. I'm sure someone around here will at least attempt to disabuse me of this fantasy if anyone is still reading. I would welcome that.

The magazines in the racks up there are half home improvement, half alternative health, with a soupcon of Buddhism.

This is true. Add yoga magazines and also the wonderful, wonderful Adbusters.

You know, I subscribed to Adbusters for a few years in the late nineties. Amusing that you should bring them up in this thread, as one of the things that drove me nuts about them was their utter ignorance of non-left anticonsumerist movements. Dropped my subscription after being disappointed in their content after 9/11.