The Pollan-Mackey debate

Was it just me, or did the “debate” between Michael Pollan and John Mackey last night hardly seem like a debate?  My friends and I all agreed afterwards that it was more like a mutual admiration society between “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” author and the CEO of Whole Foods.

Even the Berkeley audience, which swelled to 2,000 people to fill the largest auditorium on campus, was uncharacteristically polite, hissing only once when Mackey suggested that most Americans were doing better economically than in previous years.

Let’s dwell on that one point for just a second, because as far as I was concerned, it was the one place where Mackey miserably failed. And considering he had the floor the majority of the time, that’s a pretty good record.
A question came from the audience as to whether Whole Foods and the access to organic food was elitist in that it was not easily accessible either in price or location to poorer people. Mackey cited the fact that Americans are used to spending only eight percent of their disposable income on food, while in Europe, that figure is much higher. He also said that economically, most Americans are doing much better than they have been.
Perhaps that is true. But many of us who live near poorer neighborhoods (and here in Oakland, most of us do) are very aware of the poverty in our own backyards. I recently heard a statistic that West Oakland has over 40 liquor stores, and only one grocery store.
Mackey also wasn’t so kind to his main rival, Trader Joe’s, but in his 45-minute Powerpoint presentation that began the evening, he managed to impress even Pollan by announcing several initiatives that Whole Foods is involved with, a handful of them being announced publicly for the first time.
These include investing money in people around the world to help preserve their artisan food traditions and bring them to the global market; inviting farmer’s markets to take place in Whole Foods parking lots; loaning $10 million yearly in grants to small, local farmers; going into partnership with Fair Trade and the Rainforest Alliance to ensure the quality of certain products; and lending micro loans to businesswomen in countries where their food is sourced.
Mackey also talked about how Whole Foods is working with the USDA to institute a system in which organic food would be rated, with five stars meaning that the farm has the highest standards when it comes to all the important issues: everything from its environmental practices to how its workers are treated. He envisioned this system first being used in Whole Foods, but then being adopted by everyone, so consumers could know just how organic their food was, and the difference between say, organics at Whole Foods as compared to organics at Wal-Mart.
Mackey kept stressing the point that although Whole Foods had higher standards than any market out there, and had done more to promote awareness about these issues to the general public than anyone else, he felt he could always do better. Several times he said things like “we’re not where we could be,” and when he didn’t know the answer to a question, he admitted it.
He also kept stressing the point that “big isn’t necessarily bad,” in the organics world.
In the discussion that followed Mackey’s presentation, the two men showed an easy banter that showed a great deal of mutual respect.
As Mackey reiterated in the beginning of his talk, and then again later, “Your book had a big impact on me, and caused me to do a mission-check. It was catalytic.” And later, he added, “Your book helped make Whole Foods more conscious.”
During the dialogue, Mackey asked Pollan what his vision would be, and Pollan admitted that he liked being the journalist, in that he didn’t have to present one. While he posed the question at the beginning of his book, “What should I eat?” he claimed to not really have the answers either.
A few of the things he did say was a food system less reliant on corn, where grass replaced all the corn grown for livestock in this country; and where there was more transparency in the agricultural business (again, he complimented Mackey for being so willing to not only answer but face his critics).
Mackey told Pollan that in a way, his book only confused people further about what they should eat, by showing how every time a person reaches for an avocado, they have to weigh the numerous factors: organic from Chile or locally grown but conventional and other such choices.
“Anyone who is struggling with this is halfway there, if they are even thinking about these issues,” Pollan said. “Wherever you come out on this is better than where we are now.”
There were a lot more interesting exchanges – and humorous ones too, including a moment where Mackey accused Pollan of being directly responsible for a drop in his stock prices – but that is enough from me, especially since so many others were watching via webcast. Contributors, feel free to supplement my post in however you see fit.

Print This Post Print This Post

4 Responses to “The Pollan-Mackey debate”

  1. Alix Says:

    Interesting that this article about the decline of Whole Foods appeared in today’s NYTimes dining section…I posted before I saw it:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02.....ref=dining

  2. Gluten-Free By The Bay Says:

    It’s not just you… It was a total lovefest, while we expected a smackdown

    I really don’t think there’s any real decline happening with Whole Foods, btw. They are doing really well and will only continue to grow.

    It’s kind of amazing how little attention is paid in these philosophical discussions to the issue of hunger and poverty and food access. At the same time, as I wrote in comments on another blog, is it realistic to expect the CEO of a Fortune 500 company to have a critical analysis of poverty and food access and world hunger? They are a retail company after all, and retail is based around the concept of providing product to people who can pay for it. I would expect analysis of this from Pollan, not from Mackey… I hope that in the future this philosophical food ethics stuff can be combined with the work of economic justice and food access organizations. When Mackey responded to the question about money and choice, I don’t think he was thinking of people who truly cannot afford this kind of food when he answered the $$-related question, I think he was thinking of middle-income people who choose to prioritize other things and say they can’t afford it when in fact they are just unwilling to spend more than 8% of their budget on food and prioritize it over other luxuries. Which shows where his head is.

    BTW I got your e-mail and will respond as soon as I get a minute!

  3. Ben Murane Says:

    I want to short-change the elitism charges against Whole Foods and most high priced organic goods within the past few years — Mackey explained that until demand outgrew supply recently, prices were lower than normal goods. When demand is high, as the burgeoning local/organic market is now, the result is unsurprising: higher prices. If Mackey’s assertion is to be believed, then the only way to bring down prices is to do what Whole Foods is already doing: buying more product from abroad and helping increase the number and size of producers.

    And let it not be assumed that America is not richer than it was last year, or the year before, or the year before. 9/11 and the internet bubble burst included, Americans are still getting richer quicker than the rest of the world. (All of us starving nonprofit professionals notwithstanding.)

    But just so nobody thinks I’m not paying attention to the income inequalities in America, the food expenses number used by Mackey was “percentage of disposable income,” which means money left over after basic expenses, including basic sustainance. Which, if you are truly poor, is zero and has already priced you out of the picture.

  4. Sarah Rose Says:

    I’m also thoroughly impressed by this announcement:

    Whole Foods has established a $30 million venture capital fund to make equity investments in artisanal food companies. This presumably comes on top of a $10 million fund set up for farmers last year.

    It’s no PR charity giveaway, that’s about 20 pct of annual profits.

    It means they and their board and their shareholders believe investing in the organic/local/sustainable/fairtrade space will a) return $30 mln back within a few years and b) yield substantially more on top.

    We won’t know the nature of the investments. I suppose the fund could stick all its money in higher-margin “artisinal” pre-prepared foods, every dollar spent could be about competing with Trader Joe’s. But it’s still a hopeful indicator.

    The most successful IPO of 2006 was Chipotle – and while it’s fastfood and its largest investor was McDonalds, the chain is a serious purveyor of natural and organic ingredients.

    If sustainable food can marry morals to the bottom line then it really might just change the world. At least a little.

Leave a Reply



Advertise on The Jew & The Carrot