Printable View
Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, whose net worth exceeds $100 million, is a fervent proselytizer on behalf of “conscious capitalism.” A self-described libertarian, Mackey believes the solution to all of the world’s problems is letting corporations run amok, without regulation. He believes this so fervently, in fact, he wrote an entire book extolling the magnanimous virtue of the free market.
http://www.alternet.org/food/whole-f...le-ripping-you
Pretending that they are more "health" oriented when they lean more towards gourmet for privileged folks is one thing I will throw out. I do remember quite well that many of the products they were carrying in the earlier part of the last decade contained MSG in them, and they were making me and my family rather sick [[stay away from the spinach dip from the deli).
After reading this, I'm glad I don't shop there.
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on Whole Foods [[Never been in one). That being said, I don't see how anyone can take the above article seriously. Perhaps this is the standard that Fox news is comparing itself to when they declare themselves "Fair and Balanced". :confused:
I try to eat whole and unprocessed foods when I can/ where I can: brown rice, organic veggies, fresh fruits and vegetables, non high fructose drinks. It's a concept and attempt beyond that store.
Having said that, WFoods does offer some products I can afford, but not many. The profit factor, was never something I assumed to be absent from this company all together. And eventually they will get hit by class actions on some of their items. And those items will be removed from the shelves or corrected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zacha341
True
and true.
I’ve never set foot in a Whole Foods, and never will
If you shop at Whole Foods and care whatsoever what I think, don’t fret. I’ve heard from lots of people that it’s a really nice store with fancy cheeses, amazing bakery items, and a wide selection of ready-to-eat vegetarian options. That’s fine my friends, go nuts [[do they have really good nuts, too?) In my opinion, Whole Foods helps promote the pretentious, judgmental false dichotomy that non-GMO and organic foods are somehow healthy and wholesome, while regular old food is junk.
This company that grossed more than 14 billion dollars in fiscal year 2014 — almost the same revenue as Monsanto, although Whole Foods is growing faster — devotes an entire section of its website to how “Values Matter.” This is an extensive section that self-righteously implies that Whole Foods upholds and sets the standards for food consumption morality, and that all other grocers are merely followers. Whole Foods shoppers get to bask in the trickle-down effect of these so-called “values.” I would never have believed that Whole Foods actually had a “Values Matter Anthem.” Alas, this pompous anthem truly does exist.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.or...of-the-decade/
Being natural and organic are a rare commodity these days, and I would hope by process of deduction that most folks would hit upon that and do all that they can to uphold such scarcities [[yet, keep in mind rat feces and cochineal can be considered natural and organic by definition). That being said, I don't trust GMOs, nor do I trust Monsanto [[or the Ted-talks that protect them, while pretending to appeal to wealthy "liberals"). Worse still, is all the efforts being taken by such GMO producers to squash any criticism of GMOs as "hysteria". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-b...b_4808997.htmlYes, my family recently got a call from the "Coalition for Safe, Affordable Food" soliciting them.
It only confirms things I went on about over a decade ago about how huge companies will make contrived satellite subsidiarity "research consulting firms" that back up biased evidence in favor of the company to the detriment of the consumer. One can site research from something stupid like Concerned Citizens for Health stating MSG and sugar are not a threat to health, but unless you are an accountant with access to their records, you wouldn't know how directly connected Concerned Citizens for Health [[which I made up) are with Nabisco or Hershey [[also, you aren't going to find the Food Network disparaging food. It's bad enough there are little health food shows on their channel, and you got butterballs like Paula and Guy giving folks bad ideas, but when you got weasel-faced, manipulative, Sophist jerks acting like "food detectives" claiming MSG poses no detriment it severely pisses me off!). This is what cigarette companies [[many backed up by Republican supporters) were doing in the '90s when they were put on trial and bald faced lied to the whole country that they felt cigarette smoking posed no health hazards.
That's funny, I hear you! While I shop at WF on occasion -- I most CERTAINLY don't need their "values". I have my own!! If I go the their web site I'm primarily seeking specials/ coupons or details on items. I simply want more venues of shopping and for their lacking sometimes WF'd offers me good options [[I like their Alaffia skin care and bath products, and some of their deli and buffet items and a few veggies when they're on sale!).
I don't require a righteous feeling relative to shopping, food snobbery, and food fascism. Or any further dictates relative to commerce as I shop. I seek the best foods I can per my budget. I'll not be made to feel less sophisticated or 'progressive' for not shopping solely at WF, especially where they come up short on their purity of 'whole' - ness claims!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MizMotown
They've even sold asparagus 'water'! Can't wait to fork over $5.99?
http://magazine.good.is/articles/ridiculous-asparagus-water
Not exactly in my price range or preference, with a couple of exceptions, one is the breakfast bar; this morning I grabbed 6 slices of bacon for .98 cents and a roll for .50 cents. The breakfast bar is by the pound and cooked bacon has very little weight. Bacon lovers enjoy
^^^ Now that's a deal! And I do like some of the cooked items at WF and by the pound is a grand option for some items as you mention!
Oh, and it's thick cutQuote:
Originally Posted by Zacha341
Feelings on Whole Foods aside, frankly GMO foods are junk. For example, to make corn resistant to bugs, GMO corn is modified so that a pesticide is part of the corn. How could anyone think this is healthy to eat, especially for the long-term? I never eat any corn product unless it is non-GMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by MizMotown
Holy cow, time to grab the popcorn and watch the fun.
In this corner - anti-capitalist progressive absolutists who base their shopping habits on lousy news pieces from the left's equivalent of WorldNetDaily and Rush Limbaugh.
In this corner - hippies and hipster greenies crusading against Monstanto and big agriculture who selectively believe science when it comes to global warming but not GMOs.
FIGHT!
P.S. - we bought all our baby food at Whole Foods, they carried the same brands at cheaper prices than Meijer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
haha, is that so? I guess the 26 countries that ban GMOs are selectively believing the science too... if you grab the popcorn I hope it's GMO-free :-)
You really don't want to drag politics into a scientific discussion. A dozen or so countries still have bans on witchcraft. Politicians and science don't mix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Downtown Lady
Here you go:
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7947695/gmos-safety-poll
How about at least labeling products with GMOs? Let the buyer decide. The GMO producers don't even want us to have labels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
OK...? Just because I mention other countries does not mean I am referring to anything political.
Thanks for the pap article, it was decidely not helpful. Please note that since GMOs have only been around in the US since 1982, it is not possible that any studies have been done on what the effects are of eating GMO products over the long-term, say 50 to 60 years or more.
And here you go... please enjoy these lovely pictures of tumors caused by GMOs, brought to you by science:GMO crops being considered safe is based on 90-day animal feeding trials, nothing more. Where was the safety study confirming the long-term results?
Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early
http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GM...an_damage.html
Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and GMO corn implicated in shocking new cancer study
" 'This research shows an extraordinary number of tumors developing earlier and more aggressively -- particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts.' said Dr. Michael Antoniou, molecular biologist at Kings College London, and a member of CRIIGEN, the independent scientific council that supported the research.
The peer reviewed study, conducted by a team of researchers at the University of Caen, found that rats fed a diet containing Roundup-resistant GMO corn, or given water containing Roundup at levels permitted in drinking water, over a two-year period, died significantly earlier than rats fed a standard diet."
http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/home/topi...e?redirCanon=1
Anyone saying there is no science here is either being lazy or fraudulent.
You can do that now. I have produce in my fridge with a No GMO label on it. Same with "organic" produce. I don't think anyone should be able to prevent anyone else from labeling things as such. I know Monsanto would love to, and they are slimeballs for that reason. But that has nothing to with GMOs themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pam
You are saying that when a country's government bans something, that is not a political action? OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Downtown Lady
A study finding the vast majority of scientists saying GMOs are safe is not helpful? Isn't that the same line of reasoning global warming deniers use?Quote:
Thanks for the pap article, it was decidely not helpful.
From a paper that was withdrawn by the publisher because the line of rats they used were prone to tumors to begin with?Quote:
And here you go... please enjoy these lovely pictures of tumors caused by GMOs
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...orn-to-cancer/
This study is kind of famous for it's awfulness. They used the wrong kind of rat, they didn't control for many other external factors, they got some basic statistics wrong. A group of EU scientists were going to try to reproduce his findings and he backed out when he found out they were going to use several different types of rats and tightly control their diet and other environmental factors - IE do a proper study. I wonder why.
Here's a multi-study review doing just that, including multi-year and multi-generational studies, from three years ago. Must have slipped under your radar:Quote:
GMO crops being considered safe is based on 90-day animal feeding trials, nothing more. Where was the safety study confirming the long-term results?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78691511006399
Oh my goodness, that "study" was a poll! The word poll is even in the link you provided. Surely you know the difference between a poll and a study, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
Thanks, you forgot to mention the part in that link where the authors refused to withdraw their paper as they stood behind their work:Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
"Séralini and his team stand by their results, and allege that the retraction derives from the journal's editorial appointment of biologist Richard Goodman, who previously worked for biotechnology giant Monsanto for seven years."
It does sound good! Pity I will not shop there, I have heard that the owner is a real d0uchecanoe. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zacha341