The plans and ideas put forth in the letter from Whole Foods do sound wonderful. My only concern is that they hold true to these ideas. The history of large corporations with good intentions does not hold out.

Whole Foods growth goal for the next 10 years is to hold 20% of the world wide organic and natural food market. Some may see this as progress but as a farmer, I have seen this before. The danger is this puts Whole Foods in the possition of dictating what is organic and what it means.

Once again, we could be repeating what is already taking place in food retailing and that is consolidation, fewer options, lower quality and total control dictated by the retailer.

If Whole Foods follows through with what was stated in the letter, they could be in a possition to really boost local and sustainable food systems. If it is short lived and done half heartedly, then they could do more damage then good.

Brian Moyer Green Haven Farm

Yes, it is true Whole Foods must listen to the crowds clamoring for local food which, by the way, a UK study found can be better for the environment than organic.  But is WFMI really doing anything?
A closer look at Mackey's letter reveals he hired someone to be a spokes person, is offering loans to farmers, putting a new line in the buyer's job description, sticking a pamphlet on local foods in with 20 other pamphlets, and, maybe, allowing some stores to have a farmer's market on site.  That is a big maybe.
Walk into one of Whole Foods stores and you will find a different story.  The few, very few, local products I have found are pushed behind other products.  When you can find them, often the prices are higher than the organic.  Why?  Our local coop works with the farmers on pricing to assure success.  There are many different ways to accomplish this, but Whole Foods would prefer to markup local product to make it prohibitive.
It is unfortunate that we are criticizing WFMI for doing exactly what other retailers are doing.  We expect more from them because they claim to be more.  Usually they are, but in the case of local they fall short.

heather

This is a fascinating exchange, not yet over by any means.  John Mackey seems to be an intelligent and sincere and committed person, and I am happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But I very much hope Michael Pollan will remain in pursuit.  As a popular late president, whose face came close to being included with those of his illustrious predecessors on Mount Rushmore, is said to have said: "Trust; but verify."

We should not be unaware of the several reposts on Mackey's blog, mostly from doubters.  I submitted the following, which may or may not be accepted.  I am genuinely grateful that Mackey makes so much of Peter Singer.  But I do hear what Michael Pollan was saying, with the "window-dressing" argument.

So, from me to John Mackey:
<<
Thanks, John Mackey, for putting so much time and thought into this response to Michael Pollan.  I hope that your proposals will be effective and widespread; and I hope that you and Mr. Pollan will in time come to reach a fuller agreement over these matters of terrific consequence, to which you have both committed yourselves in your own ways.

I was particularly happy to see you praise so highly the work of Peter Singer and Jim Mason.  I too admire them greatly.  Their work deserves a wide readership, and I thank you for helping them reach it.

Related to animal rights (but not really the same, and needing to be distinguished) is an important biodiversity issue, the plight of many oceanic fish species, especially as adversely affected by fisheries.  I am not acquainted with Whole Foods' practices and policies regarding such endangered fish as swordfish and Patagonian toothfish ("Chilean sea bass"), and so have nothing to say to you on the subject at present.  But I agree with Michael Pollan that in order for your actions to remain consistent with your professed values (and you have set yourself an admirably high bar!), including a commitment to educate people toward making thoughtful and responsible environmental choices in the food they buy, you will need to be sure you are doing all you can in discouraging them from making very bad choices.

Best wishes.  And yes, Vive la re'volution!  Let us hope we are all soon persuaded of your full engagement.
>>

The humane food movement requires third-party verification. Standards are not enough. The humane standards for most animals have been developed by one organization, Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC). This Virginia-based non-profit contracts animal behaviorists to evaluate individual farms' adherence to established guidelines for what constitutes humane practices. Having had the chance to meet some of the HFCA people and buying meat products only from HFAC-approved sources, I have seen how the humane standards are now where the organic standards were fifteen years ago. Humane agriculture lacks clear standards and informed consumers must not assume that it is humane unless someone without a conflict of interest verifies their claim.

While I am heartened by this indication from WF along with the local producer initiative, they must work within the establish Certified Humane program or work to develop an alternate third-party verification system, because without this any branded humane care endorsement program will flounder due to the confusion it creates, look at the Free Farmed program - it is gone. Personally, I strongly endorse the HFAC "Certified Humane" program and hope a diverse good of producers will get on the bandwagon to streamline the mainstream acceptance of this standard.

AlexC, Consumer, Humane & Sustainability Farming Advocate

Thanks, AlexC, for these observations on the questionability of "standards,"  and on the need always for inspections by disinterested observers.

The subject of consumers' visiting local poultry farms, say, to check out those egg producers claiming their chickens are "free-range," and their eggs are "organic," has come up already in Grist discussions.  I for one, who am rarely able to travel much anywhere, would find such a visit difficult to make, as much as I appreciate how valuable it would be.  The lazy way out is of course to trust producers and marketers at their word.  And that is hardly the best solution, is it.

It seems as though a "critical mass" is just about here, regarding a demand for a trustworthy "Certified Humane" mark.  Hopefully Humane Farm Animal Care and their allies will show the way.

How can Bob Mackey ( of whom I met, and well i will be nice.) State that he is putting organic foods into the hands of thousands when the average person cannot afford to spend the money that they charge???????

thom Mcullough

Is David Roberts a staff writer for Grist?  
Normally, I like this website.  Who are you shilling  for, David?  

Whole Foods is a large, very rapidly -growing company with Anti-union practices and is very anti-local grower.  I almost never go into the stores because almost all the produce is from Imperial Valley, California, or Mexico or Chile.  "Food from 10,000 miles away" seems to be the Whole Food motto.  

My knowledge of Whole Foods stems from long-standing experience of my brother, who is a full-time, certified organic farmer.  He used to sell his own, locally-grown organic produce to a Whole Foods store in Midwest.  He no longer sells there.  His experience with Whole Foods was miserable.  The management of the store paid very little for the produce.  They set the price, just Like WALMART.    They eventually refused to buy his produce anymore, complaining that the produce was 'sandy' and made comments the 'too is large for our customers.'  

My brother stopped selling to Whole Foods years ago.  Too much trouble.  His farm is flourishing and he has found ample customers who buy directly from him, no middleman.  Fortunately, he did not suffer as much as his other organic grower friend did who were also selling to Whole Foods in the Midwest.  They no longer sell to WF either.  Whole foods cancelled one oral contract with one grower in the middle of the season.  Fortunately, both local organic growers got wise and will not sell to WF.  They won't consider going there.  

Whole Foods is basically a glitzy, anti-union palace selling California produce to: 1) folks who don't know much about local organic produce and 2) folks with too much money.  Among my community, Whole Foods is a sad joke.  

Final Word:  Join a C.S.A. or visit your local Farmers market.  Whole Foods and stores like them are just part of the Empire.  

Thanks, Fred, this is valuable.  And thanks, Patrick, for bringing up the anti-union matter earlier, which is very troubling.

In fact, the Whole Foods nearest to us is in the poshest new address in Manhattan (well OK, Tribeca will always have something better), the relatively new, ultra-glamorous CNN tower on Columbus Circle, poised strategically between mid-town and the Upper West Side.

The link to the "detailed letter to Pollan," in David's initial post, brings us to its blog reposts: strange conversation, with a couple of critics, but mostly people who think Whole Foods is the Answer to All Our Problems, one of whom suggests that Michael Pollan is a communist, and it is a curious coincidence that "Joel Salatin" looks like "Joseph Stalin."

So no, even though I liked some of John Mackey's words (and I can hardly believe our David is a "shill"; no, he is just as impressionable and optimistic as I am), I do not intend to make a point of shopping at Whole Foods.  And I look forward to hearing something by way of response from Michael Pollan.