John Mackey: Not So Wacky After All
The original Whole Foods Market. Austin, Texas
John Mackey, co-CEO of Whole Foods, did a couple of interviews this week with NPR’s Steve Inskeep (the second one, which ran this morning, is the more interesting–I’ll post a link when it’s available). The recent Mackey buzz is centered on his new book, Conscious Capitalism.
In so many ways Mackey is a conundrum: a libertarian vegan who, in this interview (second part), calls Obamacare “fascist” and rails, as he long has, against unions. With a multiplicity of strong opinions, Mackey inevitably offends a lot of people—people on all sides of the standard political spectrum. It’s hard to find anyone who sees eye-to-eye with Mackey on every issue. Personally speaking, this is one reason I admire him. He’s a moving target and, as we keep missing him, he keeps proving how valuable he and his company are to the American diet.
What comes through quite powerfully in the second interview, though, is something more universal and agreeable: Mackey cares deeply about personal health—and not just his own (his vegan diet even omits processed oil). He speaks eloquently and with sincerity about helping children in particular overcome their “food addictions,” particularly our addictions to sugar, salt, and fat. I will never forget, two years ago, when Mackey and I were on a panel at Texas State and, fearlessly (and in contrast to my studied diplomacy), he told a packed lecture hall of students that their diets were shameful and their health in decline. There was something almost preacher-like in his delivery and I recall being very impressed with the unabashed and urgent nature of his appeal. I wasn’t alone. Students were moved.
Whole Foods is, in these respects, a direct reflection of Mackey himself. It, too, is something of a conundrum: a publicly traded company with a social mission, a health food store serving both raw vegan food and a lot of junk, a company founded by a vegan but teeming with display counters of “welfare approved” flesh. Not unlike Mackey, it’s hard to find any socially conscious consumer without a strong opinion about Whole Foods. Some see it as “whole paycheck,” others as an oasis of sanity in a food desert, and yet others as a labor-abusing sweatshop. Whatever the truth or falsity of these claims, most people who hold them, when stranded in a strange city, seek out Whole Foods for a decent meal of real food. (In the interview with Inskeep, Mackey said he did this as well, to which Inskeep did a goofy guffaw and said, “sure, just go an eat in the aisles.”—I’m not a fan of that guy.)
Anyway, as I read Mackey, the rubber hits the road when it comes to choice. If there’s a unifying theme to his seemingly fragmented array of beliefs it is this: personal choice. Why does Whole Foods carry oreo-like cookies? Because we have a choice. Why does it have a meat counter? Because, as Mackey sees it, we have a choice. Why does he oppose federal legislation that structures how corporations offer health care? Because it restricts choice. Why does a country that is overweight and getting sicker have a fighting chance to save itself? Because we have a choice. Mackey’s idea of “choice” itself might at times border on its own kind of fascism. Still, on balance, he and his company have done more than any major food store in American history to help consumers make better choices. Not perfect, but not bad.
I love your blog! Ok – so…choice. Do we really have this, or do we have the illusion of choice? Food stamp program restrictions, National School Lunch program restrictions, cost of healthy foods vs the McDonald’s dollar menu, advertising influence, etc. etc. etc. And kids! Kids don’t have choices, they have parents, teachers, and schools to make choices FOR them, to make BAD choices for them. We are all (mostly) uneducated about the good choice vs the bad choice, uneducated about the alternative to the thing that makes us sick. I’d like John Mackey a lot better if you told me he would put WF’s charitable contribution dollars toward healthy lifestyle education.
James, you are terrific. I wish you had not granted this qualified but still apparent endorsement of Mackey up on your blog. He isn’t principled; he doesn’t believe in “choice” as you describe it. He’s a crook who tried to manipulate securities pricing and trading. He openly funds opposition to animal-protection measures as the #1 leading proponent of “happy meat” (related: I have never seen as many Heifer Project itches in one place in my life as at a WFM store). His evangelism to students at your university was nothing but self-serving. Mackey is no hero — not by any stretch. He deeply believes in one kind of choice: Mackey’s. And are you sure he’s vegan, as he advertises?
Points all well taken, and in some ways affirmative of several points I make. I am completely sure Mackey is vegan–I know this from first-hand knowledge. Thanks for the comment.
JM
John Mackey is a plant-based eater – NOT a vegan.
James thanks for this article. I too, share most of your admiration and reservations about this guy and Whole Foods. I abhor Libertarianism and those parts of him I cannot abide. However, in the food desert that is most towns and cities, Whole Foods can be an oasis. And I am happy he advocates veganism.
Luckily, I live in San Francisco where we have tons of small, “mom and pop” whole foods markets that are cheaper and more in line with my values. I also frequent Farmers Markets, and also luckily, in California we have many of them open year round. This is not to say I don’t shop at Whole Foods occasionally (they carry the new Beyond Meat “chicken strips” that are fantastic, although like most meat substitutes, overpriced) and I occasionally eat from their food bar. But in general, I prefer to patronize smaller, more local stores and get veggies and fruits from CSAs, FMs and my own backyard when I can.
People living within a capitalist neoLiberal system seem to always want to have it all, especially when their own circumstances allow them leisure, no small amount of luxury, and an inbred sense of entitlement; I am glad that commenter Lori recognized and qualified that she already lives in San Francisco.
The result of such narrowly and privileged “liberal” mindsets is that, when something within said system comes along that does “make a difference” and set change into motion, pessimism, negativity and overwhelming judgement and critique blind people and narrow perspectives to a tight grip of fatalism and the condemnation of “all or nothing” thinking. Which is no strategy at all.
Everyone has an issue with capitalism, but no one has a viable alternative, and most seem to be savouring its benefits quite willingly and comfortably.
I’ll have to admit to not quite being sure of your point, but I do feel sure I need to remind you that there are many forms and versions of capitalism with varying degrees of success and failure. Working towards improving a system, and criticizing elements that aren’t working as well, doesn’t seem to purport fatalism or “all or nothing” thinking. Is wanting to improve a system (that by all accounts is producing larger and larger inequalities each year) wanting to “have it all”?
I feel lucky and grateful that living in California makes my choices for healthy food, and veganism, easier. My intention to support local, small farmers and businesses stems more from my experience working with people in poverty. A few years ago I lived in Alabama. It was extremely important to support the growing local economy and local farmers there, much more than it is here.
On the other hand a few months ago, I had to spend a month in Springfield, MO (Ozarks area). I would have died for a Whole Foods market there. The food choices were abominable, the poverty striking and not much going on in the local scene that didn’t involved meat and animals. One does have to wonder though, would a Whole Foods even be viable in a place where poverty is the norm?
@Franz. The first 2 paras of your post are the most intelligent comment of today. The last para is a little more problematic where it states “no one has a viable alternative”. Still well summarized about the fallacy of “choice” under neoliberalism. Eric Fromm’s Escape From Freedom should also be mentioned here and perhaps Herbert Simon’s work as well.
I’d love to savor the benefits of capitalism, but I can’t find any place that actually practices it.
FYI, just saw this.
“Whole Foods founder and CEO John Mackey says he regrets comparing Obamacare to “fascism,” but remains critical of the president’s health care reform law.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/whole-foods-fascism_n_2496603.html?ir=business&utm_campaign=011713&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-business&utm_content=Title
‘Government-controlled health care’. Oh dear, shame we’re all dying like flies here in Australia from GCHC and can’t muster the feeble energy required to comment on this nonsense.
yeah, same here with us poor people from Switzerland
Just to be clear, I only posted it because I thought the backpedaling so quickly was interesting. And btw, I support a single-payer system in regards to health care.
Don’t forget, Whole Foods PROMOTES the consumption of meat with Meatopia, Best Butcher contests and the like:
http://www.humanemyth.org/happymeatopia.htm
Thanks, Mary. My sense is that most readers know full well that WF engages in these disgusting promotional displays. I suppose what I’m interested in exploring is Mackey’s apparent contradictions, and doing so apart from a black/white, good/bad dichotomy. But your reminder is important.
jm
John Mackey, vegan? This is someone who calls for and profits from the perpetual breeding, confinement, exploitation, and slaughter of millions of animals!
It is frustrating enough when this type of Orwellian perversion of language is found in mainstream media, but when it is used by a historian who seeks to educate others about veganism, it is inexplicable.
To note that Mackey is a vegan and that he is co-CEO of a shareholder controlled company that sells animal products is to note a troubling conflict. It is not an “Orwellian perversion of language.” Please watch your own language.
JM
Stating that choosing to exploit animals; promoting the exploitation of animals; and profiting from the exploitation and slaughter of millions of animals, is vegan is indeed analogous to stating: “War is Peace” and “Freedom is Slavery” (“Nineteen Eighty-Four”, George Orwell).
MCT (would love to have real name to address),
I want to push this dialogue with you, because you are touching an important concern of mine. My big thought is that Mackey provides an opportunity to explore how the degrees of separation between personal choice and public persona allow for contradictory behavior. If we simply and summarily dismiss JM as a hypocrite who speaks Orwellian we miss this opportunity. Do you see my point? What you are doing is easy—you are spotting an inconsistency and dismissing JM outright. SO MUCH of vegan discourse indulges in this habit of dismissiveness. But where does that get us in terms of making sense of why we behave the way we do? Plus, the problem with seeking purity is that none of us is pure.
JM
MCT (would love to have real name to address),
I want to push this dialogue with you, because you are touching an important concern of mine. My big thought is that Mackey provides an opportunity to explore how the degrees of separation between personal choice and public persona allow for contradictory behavior. If we simply and summarily dismiss JM as a hypocrite who speaks Orwellian we miss this opportunity. Do you see my point? What you are doing is easy—you are spotting an inconsistency and dismissing JM outright. SO MUCH of vegan discourse indulges in this habit of dismissiveness. But where does that get us in terms of making sense of why we behave the way we do? Plus, the problem with seeking purity is that none of us is pure.
JM
Whoops, my 12:04 am reply should have been posted as a part of this thread. Sorry.
Thank you, James. I welcome the dialogue and the opportunity to clarify.
Re: “real names”: I am not sure why posting under a conventional name (which itself is no guarantee that it is “real”) would matter more than posting under any identifier in a virtual forum such as this one. Some of us prefer to have a small measure of privacy on the internet. Consistency and content in what we write are far better indicators of who we are as individuals and how we think than any conventional signature.
You misunderstood. I am not “dismissing John Mackey outright”. I called you on perpetuating the myth that he is vegan because I think that, as advocates, we have an obligation to use the term accurately. It was not to dissuade you or any of us from exploring the dissonance between his public persona and private choices.
The meaning of the word “vegan”, however, is built on clear fundamental principles and using it to include the very values it rejects results in a meaningless and oxymoronic description. I don’t see pointing out this incongruity as “seeking purity” from someone. For me, it is a matter of ethical integrity.
None of us can live 100% vegan in a non-vegan world, but actively and by choice generating, promoting, and profiting from the perpetual cycle of breeding, confining, exploiting, and slaughtering billions of animals is not on the same scale as the unavoidable ethical quandaries and blips we live with every day.
I called out a friend who said she was vegan because she chose to ‘upgrade’ her car purchase to leather seats. Then she came back with how she was only a ‘dietary vegan’ and really didn’t care about how many animals where treated in fashion otherwise. All this was on a public forum.
I think the base term ‘vegan’ needs to mean something without qualification. If Mister Wholefoodshappymeatprofiteer chooses to call himself a dietary vegan, so be it, I can’t argue against that if all he shoves in his gullet is Spinach & Co. But I can’t accept as *fact* that he is a vegan vegan if he doesn’t at least try to live a lifestyle that eschews animal exploitation.
‘Vegan’ as a label resides in the power of vegans to define it. I think most of us feel that it requires not just fork & knife choices but a commitment to avoid or reduce any kind of suffering of sentient beings. If I’m hollering up the wrong banana tree here please correct me.
I wish the difference was as clear as you make it sound between “unavoidable ethical quandaries and blips” and direct profiteering.
Two scenarios to consider:
1) If WF did not sell animals there would be no WF—-this is a fact I learned from JM himself, with hard figures. WF helps a lot of people go vegan (I have no figures here, but let’s say hundreds of thousands). Ethical consistency on JM’s part would mean shuttering WF and making it much harder and less likely for people to stay and/or become vegan. Again, no numbers here—-but still, there is a trade off to consider. Add to this the fact that JM could not even get rid of animals from WF if he wanted to. It’s a publicly traded company. He is beholden to shareholders.
2) Twice a week, during a normal semester, I drive 50-miles round trip to San Marcos to work a job that pays not so well. I have been doing so for 13 years. I’ve killed countless number of animals during this commute. Not only insects that I never see. I can recall running over three tarantulas, two snakes (both hognose), at least five squirrels, and a turkey vulture (it ain’t New York City). These were, of course, all accidents. I could EASILY get another job within walking distance of my downtown Austin home, make more $$, and avoid my current commute and, in turn, the death it causes to innocent animal life. But that I won’t do because I like my job.
So, whose the greedier one here? Whole Foods JM or Eating Plants JM? Is my situation an “ethical blip”? If so, why? I’m genuinely interested in your answers. Whatever they are, I still think that you are failing to consider how inherited circumstances inevitably compromise the fantasy-like consistency we would like to see. On a gut-level, I also trust people who are inconsistent more than I do people who criticize well-intentioned people for their inconsistency. Nothing personal there. It’s just how I feel.
Our “movement,” as it were, has enormous compassion for animals but very little for each other. But that’s for a later commentary . . .
Again, thanks for your input here.
James I totally agree. I suppose on a blog such as this, where philosophical debates are often occurring, one is to expect these kinds of comments and debates, and value them even. However, when it translates over into the “real” world, that’s when we have to be careful about our attitudes and our messages. I can’t tell you how many times people who might be open to eating less meat or no meat have told me they’ve been “turned off” from the message due to the sanctimonious nature of vegans.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what the word “humane” means. I really like that you mention that our movement often lacks compassion for one another (and I’ve certainly been guilty of that at times). Surely humane and compassionate vegans need to extend these qualities to the human animal as well. If not, we’re bound to fail in our mission.
Hey James, just wanted to applaud your recognition of the harm caused by your roundtrip job. Maybe one day you’ll find something you love just as much that’s closer to home, or maybe not. For now, there’s a trade off to be made, and it’s wonderful to see you aware of that & considering it, even if it doesn’t ultimately change the choices you make. The awareness makes it more likely that, if an opportunity to improve the situation presents itself, you’ll recognize it & act on it.
Mountain,
I appreciate that. As you may know academic jobs have never been harder to get, so I consider myself fortunate to have one. Some have suggested moving to San Marcos. But with the social networks I’ve spent 20 years cultivating Austin, I’d then be traveling just as much, if not more, back to Austin from San Marcos. As you say, trade offs.
JM
hi james,
i just wanted to share sth with you that i always do before i travel. i pray for everyone’s safety and i build an imaginary light barrier on both sides of the road and ask the animals to please not cross it b/c i don’t want them to get hurt.
unfortunately it does not work so well with insects but i have never hit a land animal and i drive my car a lot, esp. in the wee small hours when lots of animals are active.
best wishes
edie
James: Sometimes the differences are crystal clear; sometimes they are more muddied. Both of your scenarios do harm to animals, but, in my view, they are not analogous in terms of ethical quandaries. Neither is an “ethical blip” in my books.
1) Whole Foods and essentially all grocery stores profit from hurting animals. My critique was about defining John Mackey as “vegan”, not about Whole Foods generating and profiting from the exploitation and slaughter of animals. That is what Whole Foods does. Where ethical integrity comes in is when Whole Foods and John Mackey, for that matter, market themselves dishonestly as “compassionate”, “respectful”, and “ethical” towards farmed animals. It is simply seductive marketing nonsense.
2) Our presence and our activities displace, stress, and kill innumerable seen and unseen animals on a daily basis. For those of us who strive to live as ethically as possible, it behooves us to navigate and negotiate these daily ethical dilemmas as best we can by making the choices that cause the least harm possible in the circumstances we find ourselves in by choice or happenstance. You have decided that keeping the job you like matters, so the ethical task is to find the least harmful way in which to do so.
I truly do not see someone making the choice to commute to a job, which causes the accidental death of animals as equivalent to someone making the choice to perpetuate, grow, and profit from an industry that is based on the exploitation and slaughter of animals. Don’t forget that all of the myriad of daily suppliers also accidentally kill innumerable animals on the way to Whole Foods. Neither situation is an “ethical blip”. The first is a business decision that requires hurting animals. No dilemma there. The second presents an ethical dilemma because the choice to commute to your job causes unintended harm.
We all live inconsistently, but if we do not strive to live as ethically-consistent as possible and hold the influential in the public sphere accountable when their words don’t match their actions, nothing changes and paradigm shifts do not occur. Again, I don’t see that as a theoretical quest for purity, but as a measure of ethical integrity. It is the very minimum we owe those for whom we advocate and claim to respect.
Wow, your ethical quandary is precisely the one that was so beautifully resolved in the Bhagavad Gita.
Well, this might be my own myopia speaking, but I do not see my job–or my commute to it–as an ethical quandary. If I did, being alive would be an ethical quandary, as I could find harm in virtually any action.
I meant quandary as in “a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives.” It is true that every action in Life comes with its own harm and therefore, we would be sitting still and meditating from birth to death if our purpose in Life was to minimize harm.
The Gita suggests that our purpose in Life is to act for the benefit for all beings, which renouncing the fruits of that act. It bestows total freedom for each individual to make their own choices under that guidance.
I am reminded of a Simpsons episode where Lisa is deflated by a “level 5 vegan”. Beyond diet, I think we should think of the term as aspirational or guiding, like christian or buddhist, where few people actually live like the christ or buddha but seek and weigh choices to be more consistent with the ideal.
Each of us operates in two (actually more) worlds, veganism, or ahimsa, being one of them which must accommodate, even as it might challenge and push against, the other(s).
In other words, if someone has one foot in veganism — or even near it — that’s good and to be welcomed. Where the other foot stands is another issue altogether. It is no reason to dismiss the person’s veganism, any more than someone’s veganism is a reason to dismiss their opinion about anything else.
Very nice. Thank you.
Mackey is a world class narcissist. His troubles with the SEC are reminiscent of Louis XIV and he should have ended up as Louis XVI.
By the way he is a true force of evil for promoting the normalization of climate change as the result of human agency in the Anthropocene. See 1/88 Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/18/whole-foods-ceo-climate-change-bad
This is the “choice” humans will have in the future, which is not what it used to be to paraphrase both Yogi Berra and Joerg Friedrichs