Whole Foods, Veganism, and Beer
07 January 2007

Anyone who has listened to our radio show or read the blog here knows that we’re long-time critics of Whole Foods. And indeed, there’s so much to dislike about Whole Foods. From CEO Mackey’s near-pornographic love of unbridled neoliberal market capitalism as the great savior to his problems with unions to his promoting compassion while simultaneously selling dead animals, Whole Foods is a company that’s coopted an image of “ethics” and “compassion” to make money, expand suburban sprawl big-box style, and crush local natural groceries. Can someone remind me again why I’m supposed to love them?

Given this, it still came as something of a surprise to us to see an article that we wrote over a year ago linked in a recent article in Slate magazine about Whole Foods stock tanking. And though I don’t think our piece is particularly angry, we are linked as “angry vegans,” a particular kind of dismissal that satisfy the mind’s piece on the Slate article dissects nicely. Of course, as Satisfy the Mind points out, calling us angry for asking honest questions about the distinction between the marketing speak and the real treatment of animals serves as an effective (if cheap) way of marginalizing us and our concerns.

In any case, whenever we’re linked anywhere in the mainstream or non-vegan press, we inevitably get a variety of emails from our non-target audience that range from the polite to the insane. In this round, we only got a few, and fortunately, none of them were insane, though many of them did seem a bit confused and/or curious about ethical veganism. Some of them ask honest questions that could be answered by reading books about ethical veganism (and indeed, some of the questions are in-depth enough to require book-length answers), while others seem to want to goad us into argument by alleging that we’re fanatics (does wanting to see Anthony Bourdain eaten alive by predatory animals make me a fanatic? Well, hell, then I’m a fanatic1).

Seriously, though, some of the emails ask thoughtful questions and are from people who clearly care about animal suffering. They say that they don’t want animals to suffer unduly, but that they don’t mind eating them because the hierarchy of species is the “way of our world.” This, of course, ignores the logical consistency of making animals suffer unduly. If someone doesn’t want animals to suffer, a logical extension of this is that one should not want to kill them unnecessarily. Because eating animals or their products is not necessary for human health or survival, my argument would be that if you truly care about not creating undue harm, you should refrain from consuming animals and their products altogether. Gary Francione makes this argument most compellingly in his Introduction to Animal Rights and as far as I can see, there’s no compelling argument against it. It takes a moral and ethical position — that we should not cause harm to animals unnecessarily — and applies it consistently.

Another email raises this point:

“As for whole foods, your problems with them make me skeptical that you are very tolerant people. Whole Foods is not for vegans exclusively. They are very conscientious in catering to vegans. But they are a store for everyone. This makes you upset, it seems. So because Mr. Mackay is a vegan in a capitalist society he should court the ruin of the business he runs in order to enforce his ethical beliefs on others?”

I recognize that WF isn’t for vegans exclusively, but I’d debate that they’re a store for “everyone.” Instead, I’d argue that they’re a store for a relatively wealthy section of our population that happens to live in relatively wealthy suburbs, but that’s tangential to the point. What bothers me is not that they’re a store for everyone (I often shop at stores for “everyone”) but that they’re a store that falsely markets themselves as compassionate. It is this distinction between appearance and reality that disturbs me, and I think he’s making a buck on the back of the vegan movement, and — much more importantly — on the back of animal suffering. I see this as unethical. Most importantly, I don’t think someone who calls themselves a “vegan” should be in the business of selling and profiting from dead animals and animal products. Mackey need not force his ethics on anyone; instead, if he’s serious about preventing animal suffering, he should get out of the business of selling dead animals and animal products. I don’t believe that the logic of the market should trump all, nor do I believe that capitalism should be amoral, both of which seem to be implied above. I wouldn’t work in a business that depended on human slavery because of my objection to that institution, and similarly, I wouldn’t work in a business that depended upon animal slavery. Worse yet, I wouldn’t have a business that exploited slaves and then promoted itself as interested in compassionate slavery. I know, this makes me a fanatic. Oh well.

On a different theme, we also received this question from another correspondent:

“Is your veganism the result of environmentalism or simply your opposition to the use of animals, or both? Because it would seem to me that total veganism on a planetary scale (this must be the Apocalypse as imagined by Oscar Meyer) would cause (a) the exinction of some domesticated species, and (b) the requirement of large scale energy expenditures to move produce around to places where there is a short growing season. Understandably, some of the energy expenditure would be made up by the lack of animal industry, but still…it just ain’t natural.”

My veganism is primarily ethical, but the entire premise of this question is flawed. The person writing seems to think that somehow our food is localized, but this is nowhere near the case. We already use “large-scale energy expenditures” to move produce, meat, and dairy around the globe. The average food product travels thousands of miles before arriving on your plate. Granted, some people are trying (valiantly, I’d say) to relocalize our food systems, and I think this is smart — in fact, I belong to a local CSA, and try to buy locally when I can. But to argue that large-scale veganism “ain’t natural” because of the energy required to move products vast distances is a bit dishonest, if only because our current system uses such expenditures, including expenditures to move meat and other animal products long distances. And in any case, this is really a moot point: nothing about the argument above means veganism is impossible today, and even though I’m an optimist, I’m certain that a global vegan revolution is quite far off.

The same correspondent also asks:

“Bonus question: beer. Do you need to find special vegan beer? Does yeast count as an animal? If beer is not vegan then there is no hope of me becoming a vegan. “

Many beers are vegan. Some vegans avoid some beers because they’re filtered with animal products like isinglass. Others just drink whatever. Yeasts are not animals — they’re in the kingdom fungi.

In closing, I didn’t even get close to answering every question that came to us — I did a very selective answering here of what I saw as the most compelling questions. Nevertheless, I appreciate the contact from folks curious about veganism, about where we stand, and about how vegans might see particular scenarios. I wish we had time to answer them all, to dive into the particulars, and to have extended debates with people. If I ever plan to finish my current book, such debates are virtually impossible. But anyone curious about these issues should do some reading, open their minds, and think about whether there really is any logic to our needless exploitation of other species. If thoughtful people can be honest with themselves, I think they’ll come to the same conclusion that I did: that there is no “kind” exploitation, and that as sentient creatures, animals deserve better than what we’re giving them.

1 Calm down, compassion crew, “we’re-becoming-what-we-hate,” humorless email writers in waiting: this is a joke. I’d rather see him die of food poisoning. (I keeed!)

  Posted by Bob Torres    Permalink    Filed under:
Potentially Related Articles:

There are no related articles