While it is a reasonable policy question to ask whether the government should be subsidizing certain grocery stores and not others, much of the discussion indicates that many critics of Whole Foods have actually never shopped at a WF store.
Yes, Whole Foods is more expensive than the garden-variety grocery store. However, I have found that the produce and meat sold there is of a much higher quality than what I see in a typical grocery store. So I think you are getting as good a value as at a typical grocery store. For example, near where I live, the regular grocery store carries Pink Lady apples and the Whole Foods also carries Pink Lady apples. The apples available at WF are consistently better quality. They have fewer bruises, seem fresher, and taste better. Am I really "paying more" if I am getting a better product? Not really.
Americans are often concerned with eating the cheapest food available, but this really makes no sense at all because what we eat is crucial for our health. How many of us buy the absolute cheapest cars? The cheapest phones? The cheapest clothes? Most middle class people make room in their budgets for cable and internet, which can run north of $100 per month, and most of us pay for a cell phone, an expense that was complete absent from our budgets 20 years ago.
The growing epidemics of obesity and diabetes reflect the poor health outcomes that have come with a reliance on "cheap" food. All those who can should try to eat more fresh, [[lowercase) whole foods, and WF presents one such source for buying such foods. That is a good thing.
Finally, these kinds of stores are essential for attracting a young, educated, tax-paying workforce in the city. We should be encouraging things that will attract these people because they are crucial for the city's health in the next twenty-five years and beyond.
Bookmarks