Attention Whole Foods shoppers: Everyone hates you

My profile of a Whole Foods shopper might be different.

Older customers that have put any and everything in their mouth for decades, now desperately trying to make up for it in the autumn of their lives, with a major illness possibly prompting their urgency.

 

Veggies and fruit are washed in my house with soap to avoid infectious diseases. I wonder how much pesticide remains after the washing.

I'm happy to say that the entire issue of ingesting antibiotics, hormones, etc from meat is neatly side-stepped in our vegetarian home.

 

It's called off topic thread drift in online discussions, irrelevant change of subject in regular conversation.

 

It's certainly wrong, tend to be younger, college crowd, lots of tats and small kids.

 

We buy a lot from Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, and farmer's markets. The last time I went to Safeway I used my discount card - it took a while for their system to recognize it, and it said "reactivating card". Must have been over 6 months on their "inactive" list...

On a recent vacation trip, we visited several friends that my wife grew up with. So we're all the same age (mid 60s), but we clearly live in different cultures. These friends worship meat, and curse the Medicare "donut hole". We've been near vegan for about 20 years, and haven't seen doctors in years. They've got two knee replacements, a hip replacement, diabetes, arthritis, and a monthly drug bill that hits the donut hole. We don't run marathons any more, and our half-marathon times are getting slower. My supplement bills are expensive, but look cheap compared to what I saw of medical care & drugs.

We're not a totally vegan family. The dog gets Whole Foods grass fed hamburger most days.

 

So you are saying you know the demographics at ALL Whole Foods?

I know what I saw - not saying it's typical of all stores.

 

No more than you do.

Speaking of these stores in Albuquerque, I see a diverse group, or at least multiple sub-groups. I think it is pretty easy to say that the group(s) that shop for food are for the most part not the groups that buy stuff in little bottles. Dyed hair is unusual, and Walmart type obesity really unusual.

Stereotypes aside, more than commune living, high on drugs, unshaved flower children find it reasonable to avoid pesticides.

 

somewhat off topic, but I guess the whole thread is meandering anyway ...

The newest Whole Foods here in Austin, THE HOME OF WHOLE FOODS , opened next to a CostCo. The free charging station is in front of the Whole Foods, btw. It is interesting to watch how many folks come out of the CostCo, drop off their shopping at the car, and then go into Whole Foods. There is just a little bit of product overlap but I noticed that the CostCo has been adding more organics, albeit in bulk packaging.

 

A good look at who WFM shoppers are. Probably still pretty accurate, even if from 2006.

http://andeeknutson.com/studies/Shoppers%20and%20Products/9_WhleFdsMktShpprSummary_2006.pdf

 

The survey on Page 7 indicates a consumer perception of more nutrition with organics. I don't think WFM is going to spend much to clarify the issue, especially as they continue to add "nutritional supplements" to the shelves.

 

I am definitely not the target audience of WF for 'supplements,' but then I realized my wife and I take supplements every day: both of us eat a daily vitamin; she eats calcium+Vit D, and I eat Niacin. We buy the supplements at Costco, and I don't see WF competing with Costco on price.

The point is that the marketing study is too general in lumping supplement ingesters all together.

 

Chuckle. You saw what you "know".

 

^ OK, so all Prius drivers fit the same stereotype - too?

 

That is what the original poster would have you believe. People who are intelligent with a sense of responsibility drive Prius AND buy organic food and these actions are disparaged by poster as pointless and futile. We see the argument in society between the "greed is good" group, those who think we are only responsible for our own self interest vs those who think we have also have responsibility to society and our fellow citizens.

 

Not true. I see all types and age range at our WFM. Even Suburban driving, non-ecological minded Texans.

 

Thinking outside the processed-foods box — health and safety advantages of organic food — Opinion — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine

To illustrate the difference, researchers at the University of Washington published a paper in Environmental Health Perspectives that documented a tremendous drop in organophosphate pesticide contamination in the urine of children after just three days on an organic diet. This is hard science that did sway the Stanford investigation’s conclusion.

Scientists have also recognized that we must take into consideration the disproportionate quantities of food that children consume relative to their body weight, especially of certain fruits and vegetables that have been found to be highly contaminated with synthetic chemicals. Furthermore, their study failed to look at the cumulative effects of contamination in many different food items in one’s diet. Again, children, for developmental reasons, are especially at risk.

 

And we expect them to care for us when we get old? Ha Ha.

 

Stanford's Monsanto Ties Cast Doubt on Organic Food Study - DeathRattleSports

Stanford University is one of the best in the country but there are also conflicts of interest that the mainstream media has not reported closely on. For example, consider that George H. Poste is a Monsanto board member and also a Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution (wide-ranging think tank) at the same university, as well as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. His ties to Monsanto and influence at the university should be investigated, but it seems as if outlets such as the Post and New York Times, which ran a column essentially calling organic food consumers “cult members,” have already made up their minds about what the study supposedly represents.

There are also questionable ties to former big tobacco “scientists” as well as Cargill, which has given several millions to Stanford and has a big financial interest in stopping the organic and GMO-free movements.

With the timing of the study coinciding with one of the biggest food freedom votes in many years, the California Prop 37 for GMO food labeling, these and other conflicts of interest must be examined in full detail.

And with Monsanto, Cargill and other interests working behind the scenes at Stanford, it’s safe to say the recent organic food study should be taken with a huge grain of salt, especially considering that it runs contrary to the many other studies that affirm better nutrition from organic food grown in more rich soil that hasn’t been assaulted for years with chemical pesticides.

 

Nice find about the Stanford conflict of interest.
Hate to think of what Whole Foods' connections might be though .
Their CEO is a libertarian A-hole,who took out a full paid ad in the NYT trying to kill healthcare reform.
Thus my nickname, A-Whole Foods.

 

Stanford hires Donald Rumsfield and Condolleeza Rice and still believes their institution retains any credibility ?