Whole Foods

Now might just be the best time to shop at Whole Foods

by Michelle Minton on August 14, 2009 · 1 comment

in Odds & Ends

That is if you find the usual crowd of holier than thou, environment-angelical, yuppie-types slightly annoying to navigate through while you purchase your organic produce and cage-free eggs. The aisles might just be a little less crowded since the Wall Street Journal published CEO, John Mackey’s op-ed on health care reform on 8/12.

“While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction-toward less government control and more individual empowerment”

That was the statement that launched a thousand smart cars in the opposite direction of Mackey’s supermarket. Perhaps the most inflammatory thing Mackey proposed in his article was the idea that health care is not a right. Perhaps this is why the 5000+ facebook users joined the  “Boycott Whole Foods” group (no I am not linking to the group–find it on your own if you want to join).  Or perhaps it is because Mackey had the audacity to express any difference in opinion from the ‘great one’

“Whole Foods is NOT a company that cares for communities and they have built their brand with the dollars of deceived progressives. No more. My $ will no longer go to support Whole Foods’ anti-union, anti-health insurance reform, right-wing activities.”

Thus screeches the description of the group. All because of the op-ed that they believe exposes Mackey’s belief that “healthcare is a commodity that only the rich, like him, deserve”.

I wonder if most of the members of the group have actually read the article in which Mackey suggest 8 actions that the US government could take. These suggestions include equalizing tax laws so individual-owned health insurance could, like employer health insurance benefits, be fully tax deductible. He also suggests repealing laws that prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines, reforming medicare, and revising tax laws to allow people to give charitable donations that are tax-deductible for those without health insurance.

Yes, it his crazy ideas about letting consumers of medical care and insurance (including his own workers) retain the right to choose what kind of care and insurance they want that drove the angry boycotter to declare:

“Whole Foods has the right to cheat and lie and be as hateful and selfish as they wanna be.We also have the right to starve them of our $.”

Indeed you do. Personally, now this lot has decided to stop clogging up the aisles, I will selfishly enjoy shorter lines at checkout while I give a lot more of my $ to Whole Foods.

*I did not link to the facebook group for purely selfish reasons. I like Whole Foods and, while I relish the idea of shorter lines, I do not want to aid in an effort to “starve” the business into bankruptcy*

More alternatives to Obamacare

by Fran Smith on August 12, 2009

in Healthcare, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

company-about

Lots of commonsense suggestions to rein in health care costs that won’t bankrupt the country in John Mackey’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today. Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, points to eight steps to health care reform that involve less government intervention and greater individual choice, while driving down costs.

Mackey’s recommendations are similar to those of Gov. Bobby Jindal and those of  Susanne Lomatch as outlined here.

Also enjoyed this quote framing Mackey’s article:

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people’s money.”

—Margaret Thatcher

Danger: Reusable Grocery Bags

by Angela Logomasini on June 15, 2009 · 1 comment

in Environment

Writer Michael Shaw recently produced a very interesting blog post and article on reusable grocery bags. Most of us might think the only really big drawback of such things is remembering to keep them handy. Whole Foods apparently didn’t anticipate too many drawbacks of such bags, when they banned the convenient plastic bags and began pushing reusable ones in addition to offering paper bags. CEI pointed out the drawbacks associated with paper.

But Shaw points out the unintended problems associated with the reusable bags that can arise from a public health perspective. They become breeding grounds for bacteria and other potentially dangerous agents. He notes: “In a report released on April 21, 2009, entitled ‘A Microbiological Study of Plastic Reusable Bags and First or single-use Plastic Bags,’ findings indicate that reusables are a breeding ground for bacteria and pose public health risks—food poisoning, skin infections such as bacterial boils, allergic reactions, triggering of asthma attacks, and ear infections. It is noted that in the control group (single-use plastic bags and first-use reusables), there was no evidence of bacteria, mold, yeast, or total coliforms.”

Never occurred to me, but it seems like a quite obvious problem! And he points to a study showing that periodic washing of the bags isn’t sufficient to remove the germs. The inability to anticipate such pitfalls is yet another reason why regulators should allow consumers to make their own choices—lest they want to be held accountable for the problems! Although, no one ever does hold them accountable–and that is an even BIGGER problem!

Photo source:  U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Shen-Chia Chu

Save the Economy, Save the Environment

by Angela Logomasini on May 15, 2009

in Agriculture, Environment, Private Conservation

Whole Foods profit has fallen 32 percent, reflecting changes in consumer demand during economic hard times. It appears that organic food becomes a luxury item that must be dispensed with when times get hard. Despite the fact that organic food isn’t necessarily any healthier or better for the environment than conventional food, many people view it as environmentally superior and are willing to pay more for it—but only up to a point. There is a lesson for environmentalists to learn here. Wealth creates the will and the ability to pay for environmental amenities.

For example, when people have more spare change, they donate more to conservation groups that can privately manage lands to help save species. Wealth creation also means demand for better, cleaner energy sources. Despite what many greens seem to think, modern fossil fuels used in wealthy nations represent an environmental improvement over burning wood or things like animal dung as is done in developing nations.  In fact, rudimentary fuel sources create serious air pollution problems that have made respiratory illnesses a major cause of death in poor countries. Wealth also means the development of technologies that enhance our ability and will to control emissions, provide proper disposal of wastes, and purify drinking water. (For more on how poverty is bad for health and the environment  see here)

Ironically, most environmental activist groups seem to think that wealth creation—and profits—are the cause of environmental decline. Hence they fight these forces, opposing things like privatization of water because someone might make a profit. But their policies leave the world poor and lacking in things like clean water. And they also fight a main engine of growth: free trade. The failure of genuine environmentalists to understand this fundamental reality about wealth undermines their own cause because wealth depleting policies harm the environment.

Unfortunately, environmentalists not only misguided ones. Environmentalists fight wealth in the name of the environment, and lawmakers fight wealth in the name of the economy, as our stimulus policies reveal.

See CEI’s Environmental Source for more information on environmental quality issues.

GM-Chrysler Merger Likely Blocked by Antitrust

by John Berlau on December 19, 2008 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Features, Odds & Ends, Politics as Usual, Regulation

During the negotiations for the multi-billion dollar bailout being announced today, an option again apparently came up that might have gone a long way toward strengthening General Motors and Chrysler’s viability that wouldn’t have cost taxpayers a dime — a merger between the two of them.

But also once again, the idea was quickly shot down. The companies didn’t give a reason, but more than likely it was the hurdles of antitrust rules. The Detroit News recently quoted an antitrust expert saying that even in their current dire straits, a merger review would take at least a year, and even then it may not pass muster, because of the supposed “dominance” of the combined company of the light truck market.

But artificially dividing the auto industry into this type of market — when the recent oil spike clearly showed the consumers will substitue passenger cars for light trucks — shows how outdated antitrust rules are. Another example of the absurd nature of antitrust rules — in this example, impeding healthy companies creation of more jobs — is the Federal Trade Commission’s ridiculous holdup of the Whole Foods-Wild Oats merger in which the agency’s “market dominance” analysis deliberately exluded competition the combined organic grocer faces from retail giants like Wal-Mart and Safeway. Here is the post I previously wrote about that in Open Market.

So before another dollar of taxpayers’ money is spent by the Bush or Obama administration (and it’s getting harder and harder to tell the two apart), antitrust rules should be suspended for GM and Chrysler and sensible overhauled for the rest of American companies. This and other deregultory actions that would clear government roadblocks to a recovery — such as those detailed in CEI vice president Wayne Crews’ study “10,000 Commandments” — would be the best “stimulus” of them all.

Antitrust liberalization may avert need for bailouts — outdated laws deter efficient mergers from GM-Chrysler to Whole Foods-Wild Oats

by John Berlau on December 14, 2008 · 3 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Mobility, Politics as Usual, Regulation

In early 2007, the economy was humming along and General Motors was considered to be in the process of a turnaround. To help stabilize itself, the company was considering buying its smaller, money-losing rival Chrysler.

But it faced a stumbling block in the form of antitrust law. According to analysts looking at a potential merger, the government would consider a combined GM and Chrysler too big and powerful with the ability to drive competition out of the market. The Wall Street Journal reported in March 2007 that such a merger “would probably face difficulty gaining approval from antitrust authorities because it would give the combined entity a highly concentrated position.”

Today, with GM on the brink of bankruptcy, such a claim seems especially laughable. But even way back in 2007 it was clear that the Big 3 had more than their share of competition from foreign automakers. An analyst for Bear Stearns & Co. (boy, a lot has happened since the beginning of 2008!) told Bloomberg that while “barriers to entry in passenger cars are relatively low,” the merger might hit the rocks because of the dominant position such a company would have in the “light truck” category that includes sport utility vehicles, minvans and pickups.

And even now, with both companies hitting the rocks, the merger may still face antitrust troubles because of a possible dominant position in the light truck market. A recent article in the Detroit News cited an antitrust attorney who said that a merger “would face a review of up to a year by either the Federal Trade Commission or the Justice Department”. The attorney, Ted Bolema who was formerly with the DOJ, told the newspaper: “The two companies would control about one-third of the light-vehicle market. That’s getting up there in market concentration.”

But lost in such an analysis would be that the market for light trucks itself has shrunk due to the spike in gas prices earlier this year and general economic woes. People are are choosing passenger instead of light trucks for a variety of reasons. Thus, defining light trucks as a separate “market” — instead of as part of the overall market for automobiles — gives a skewed look at market concentration.

Unfortunately, this is not the only instance where our antitrust laws are stuck in “Reverse” with antiquated and static definitions of markets. The Federal Trade Commission, for instance, is still fighting organic grocery chain Whole Foods Market Inc.’s acquisition of competitor Wild Oats based on the dubious claim that such a combination would dominate, in the words of an FTC official, the “premium natural and organic supermarkets” market.

Wait a minute, the what market?!! The parsing of the FTC’s words tells the story. Even though as known by people who love organic food (and by people, like the folks writing for this blog, who think the organic’s claims of superior quality is greatly inflated), every supermarket and its brother has been trying to cash in on the organic food craze, the FTC is trying to reverse the merger based on an extremely narrow definition of a market. The FTC analysis deliberately excludes the competition Whole Foods and Wild Oats face from grocery giants like Safeway and well as the retail behemoth Wal-Mart, limiting the market to stores that only sell organic and natural food.

But this market definition flies in the face of reality. Consumer surveys done by Whole Foods and others show that Whole Foods and Wild Oats and the conventional grocers are indeed competing for the same buyers of organic food. As an article in Smart Money noted last year, “Shares of both chains suffered badly last year as conventional grocers such as Safeway (SWY: 22.82, +0.01, +0.04%) and larger retailers like Wal-Mart Stores (WMT: 54.63, -0.16, -0.29%) boosted their organic offerings, pushing same-store sales down at the specialized purveyors of pesticide-free endives, hormone-free goat milk yogurt and fresh made whole wheat pasta.” And in a tough economy, there is probably even competition between organic and the lower-priced conventional food.

The sad thing for both taxpayers and consumers is that if GM and Chrysler had been allowed to merge in early 2007, they may have had the efficiencies and economies of scale needed to ride the current credit crunch out, even with the other management problems. Thus, they would not be begging for a bailout now.

Of course, there was no guarantee that a merger would have avoided the catastrophe they face now. And Whole Foods will still likely be healthy company even if the FTC succeeds in stopping the acquisition. But irrational regulations that stop efficient mergers may indeed mean the difference between survival and bankruptcy for many companies in a tough economy.

So liberalization of antitrust law away from outdated definitions of markets may be one of the best economic stimulus plans of them all. And the best part is that this change won’t cost taxpayers a dime.