[Sosfbay-discuss] whole foods boycott side effects

[Cameron L. Spitzer]

>From: Andrea Dorey <andid at cagreens.org>
>Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:15:58 -0700
>To: Jim Doyle <j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net>
>X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1)
>Cc: sosfbay discussion group <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
>Subject: Re: [Sosfbay-discuss] whole foods boycott side effects

>Jim Doyle's [sic] rationale for continuing to shop at Whole Foods, much as  =
>I agree with his logic, will NOT keep me from boycotting Whole Foods.
>I am quite offended by the CEO's arrogance in proclaiming that a good  =
>Andrea

Nader has argued if you were serious about boycotting evildoers
you'd have to withdraw from the modern economy.  I think it's
a matter of degree.  You should withdraw from the parts that
offend you most.
I also think it's a mistake to think of Mackey as in control
of Whole Foods and its behaviors.  The situations in food retailing
and antitrust non-enforcement demanded that one company become
"the Walmart of organic groceries."  There was a strong vacuum from
that empty niche in the economy.  Whole Foods just happened to
get there first and Mackey just happened to be CEO.


>On Sep 9, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Jim Doyle wrote:

>> asdfadf
>>
>> John Mackey=92s views on health care, much as I disagree with them, will
>> not prevent
>> me from shopping at Whole Foods.

I believe the quote (below) by Jim is from Michael Pallan.
He has a point.  Insurance companies broke the unanimous
denialism among large corporations that the current climate change
is manmade.
Chink in the armor, whatever that means.

>>
>> When health insurers realize they will make thousands more in profits
>> for every case of
>> type II diabetes they can prevent, they will develop a strong interest
>> in things like corn
>> subsidies, local food systems, farmer=92s markets, school lunch, public
>> health
>> campaigns about soda, etc



Cameron