I’ve long felt that, at their heart, large corporations most closely resemble the old Soviet Union (or the New Russia). As much as their leaders (even those featured in business magazine articles on "the best 100 companies to work for") may profess their openness to diverse views, in the end, these executives are dictators, much like Vladimir Putin. That means they are first and foremost about control—controlling the flow of news and information from within, and insiders who may stray too far from the company line, such as through independent blogs, and who are tossed aside like so much trash.
I let Whole Foods convince me that a corporation could be otherwise, naively so. I had read interviews with John Mackey in which he said that, unlike other companies, Whole Foods’ first obligation wasn’t to investors, but to its customers and their health. It sounded too good to be true. I guess it was.
A guy like Mackey, if he really practiced what he preached, would at least say something, even to admit he doesn’t yet know the real situation, but is investigating and will get back to us customers as quickly as possible.
When I posted something about the Whole Foods situation on Free Republic, a libertarian-orientednews site, lots of people there were quick to remind me of my naivete. But several individuals also pointed out the difficult legal and regulatory atmosphere public companies operate within today, what with shareholder suits and regulatory actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Maybe John Mackey is overly concerned about legal action, if he were even to suggest there may be problems with Whole Foods products, as several readers indicate. I suppose that’s a possibility, but is it a valid excuse? Not for a company that says it places the interests of its customers first.
I appreciate the encouraging reaction about this matter from The Ethicurean (look under “Commentary”). It understands the poor PR exemplified by Whole Foods.
What to do to register a protest with Whole Foods? Unfortunately, the only language executives like Mackey most clearly understand is revenues, as in reduced revenues from dissatisfied customers. The problem in applying this approach to Whole Foods is that they have established something approaching a monopoly in the health food grocery arena. The best alternative is probably that suggested by Dave Milano—searching out “SmallMarts.” I won’t be boycotting Whole Foods, since that’s not practical, but I will be doing my best to reduce the revenues I leave there, by doing even more of my shopping at Farmers’ Markets and co-ops going forward.
***
As a followup to the posting about my mother’s intimidating doctor, I called the Sarasota County Medical Society yesterday and told the director about my mother’s experience. “Oh my!” was her initial reaction. She hadn’t heard of any other similar situations, she said.
But before I could give her the name of the doctor, to file a complaint about unethical practices, she said, “The American Medical Association’s code of medical ethics states that a physician is free to choose his patients." She then read to me directly from the AMA’s principles of ethics: “…a physician in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, is free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.”
So I suppose that as unethical as such practices might seem to patients, the doctors have got themselves covered.
So I don’ think that particular tenant of the thical code applies.
MDs do get to fire their patients, I’ve done it a few times as well. To dismiss them because they aren’t doing well and look for other answers is a whole other category. Because it isn’t benign, it has health consequences if you are successful in intimidating them into not seeking a second opinion.
The MD gets to fire her, but in doing so for the reasons stated he has jeopardized her health care and given bad medical advice (don’t get second opinions). That isn’t ethical. He has not treated her, and is trying to block her from getting help through a tactic that may appear to be within his purvue. He has not acted with her best interests in mind and since second opinions are part of acceptable routine medical practice he is providing improper medicine. I know he said a specialist was OK with him, but he was refusing a review by a peer – another general practitioner. He can’t both say that his level of work is sufficient and deny that another MD who is the same is not.
It may not be worth the bother and the hassle to pursue as there is this convenient loophole to quote, but I don’t accept that it answers the charge or addresses the offfense.
I meant to stay clued-in to the public discussion between Pollan and Mackey but somehow it slipped by me. But my recollection (at least from reading TOD not long before Mackey’s public displeasure at criticism of WF in the book) was that Pollan’s book (TOD) suggested that Whole Foods, now that it is so large and much more centralized, is perhaps as much as part of the problem of centralized, industrial food as any of the other conventional food commerce giants. I don’t recall a global warming issue. I also remember the book making a very pointed issue of the "pastoral literature" used by WF & the "natural foods" industry (in packaging, store decor, promotions, etc.) to suggest wholesomeness, old-fashioned farming, verdant pastures, etc. to customers, when reality is actually quite far from that and often much closer to the industrial farming model. In a series of public written communications (emails?) Mackey protested that Pollan got it wrong about WF in TOD and Pollan eventually arranged a face-to-face event. That is about the point where I lost touch with what happened. But I think the stripping of the Emporer’s clothes in TOD was something Mackey had to address.
But I am not sure how much damage to WF was even done by TOD. Most people I know who shop at WF and similar stores, are very much like shoppers at conventional stores in that they don’t really *want* to know more about their food and how it is produced. They get a great sense of doing the right thing by shopping at WF, etc., and it is discomforting to think that all might not be well (and that other efforts might need to be made). I only personally know of one person who has changed some shopping habits at WF due to now knowing that some things at WF are only marginally different from the conventional grocery stores.
Personal health is a process. We are all at different phases of what we perceive to be healthy. We also all have busy lives and many families are either single parent or both parents work. From what I could see, Whole Foods sure makes life easy for anyone who wants to eat healthier than what the typical grocery store has to offer. How I wish I had a Whole Foods Store near me. Fifty miles is a bit far to drive for grocery shopping.
to local WF store buyer’s choices being handed over to regional/corporate management. In other words, all stores must sell the same items, no matter what the local consumers need or want.
Now, I buy the majority of my groceries from two local coops and a local natural foods store, milk and eggs from FFC, and locally grown grass fed beef from a small specialty market. In the summer I frequent the Ann Arbor & Ypsilanti Farmers’ Markets for fresh produce. Buying local is a lifestyle that I ‘wholely’ embrace!
Once in a while I go to Trader Joe’s, now in the old WF location, but most of their goods are packaged so I usually only buy nuts, and the rare bag of their gourmet (yummm…) potoato chips…
On the subject of Michael Pollan, he was interviewed on NPR’s "Here and Now" today, talking about the link between farm subsidies and high-fructose corn syrups in the American diet.
http://www.here-now.org/shows/2007/05/20070507_2.asp