Assignment One

Q 1a) What are the different motivations that drive Americans to make their food choices, according to Samuel Fromartz (author of Organic, Inc.) and Michael Pollan (author of Omnivore's dilemma) and the course pack articles?

Samuel Fromartz sought, "...fresh and flavorful foods, which could be prepared quickly, barbeque and Indian foods being exceptions." (pg xiv Organic Inc.) Clearly, Samuel enjoyed cooking and constantly explored the various textures and tastes capable of being enjoyed by the human palate. This is an indication that Americans are driven to select foods based on their taste. He also noted the success of large conglomerate chains (I.e. Wal-Mart) and acknowledged that many people are simply driven by price. However, I believe, Samuel developed a particular interest, or sense, or value system that made clear what 'he believes' drives Americans [or what he believes 'should' drive them] when he stated, "Something was driving this market and Whole Foods had tapped into it. It was the alternative supermarket not just for foodies but for the health conscious, for mothers concerned about what their kids were eating, for anyone who was uneasy about the conventional food system and all of its familiar brands." (pg xvii) He also stated,  "The focus on yield also ignores the larger cost of chemicals to the environment, communities and health - measured in size of the size of the ozone hole over the Antarctic or the potential impact of drifting pesticides on a nearby school. These so-called external costs, which society must bear, don't show up in yield studies." (pg 34) Samuel indicates that Americans are driven by taste, by economic and regional realities, and are, or should be, driven by the potential impacts food choices have on health, family, society, and the overall environment.

Michael Pollan covered nearly every potential motivation towards a food choice particularly well. His book title is well thought and self-explanatory, "Omnivore's Dilemma". His first line, "What should we have for dinner?" is also phrased well and leaves nothing to question regarding his direction. Pollan is succinct and captures the various food drivers right from the beginning and from nearly every perspective. He summarizes it, "But for omnivores like us (and the rat) a vast amount of brain space and time must be devoted to figuring out which of all the many potential dishes nature lays on are safe to eat. We rely on our prodigious powers of recognition and memory to guide us away from poisons (Isn't that the mushroom that made us sick last week?) and towards nutritious plants (The red berries are the juicier, sweeter ones). Our taste buds help too, predisposing us towards sweetness, which signals carbohydrate energy in nature, and away from bitterness, which is how many of the toxic alkaloids produced by plants taste. Our inborn sense of disgust helps us from ingesting things that might infect us, such as rotten meat. Many anthropologists believe that the reason we evolved such big and intricate brains was precisely to help us deal with the omnivore's dilemma. ... which things nourish and which things poison... The human omnivore has, in addition to his senses and memory, the incalculable advantage of a culture, which stores   the experience and accumulated wisdom of countless human tasters before him."

Michael Pollan leaves little doubt and jumps straight to the point in establishing what he believes drives Americans [or humans] towards a food choice. Isn't he stating that our very evolution has pre-programmed us to learn and recognize what is safe; what is harmful, aren't we are part of a bigger picture where 'the right choice' should already be built-in to our genes, our culture, into society, and that choices should be derived from something bigger than any one person.

In the article, "My Search for the Perfect Apple",  a dichotomy of choosing organic versus local, health versus community was presented. It seems that the author of this article highlights the issue of long-term considerations, understanding the chain reaction of choices and how they potentially affect the big picture, as well as further highlighting that there is not necessarily a path of complete good versus complete evil. Our choices are complicated and mixed. Choosing organic versus non-organic may offer a healthier alternative, but just the simple act of transporting organic items over long distances may offset many of the benefits that organic items offer.

From the various authors' or reading sources, I believe we were presented the following motivations or food drivers (not in any particular order):

• Taste
• Price or Economics
• Health
• Community
• Culture
• Accessibility/ Locality
• Environment
• Sustainability

 

Q 1b) Do you agree? What are the motivations that drive YOU to make YOUR food choices?

How does one agree or disagree? When I was young I liked sweets: candy, cake, cookies, strong fruits, etc.  I had a sweet toothe and my taste drove me towards these items. As I have aged, my tastes have changed and I now, generally, find most candy to be - too sweet - and not something I would choose to consume. Taste is clearly a major driver for me: I will not ever eat anything that does not taste well. I cannot eat certain quiches, or certain soups, or any of a number of foods that just taste bad. However, I really do enjoy or even crave most foods: I like breads, cheeses, meats, lettuce, peas, corn, cabbage, pizza, wine, crackers, rice, fish, etc. For me, taste comes first.

Do I do anything more than simply make choices based on taste? The answer is - yes, I do! I know that some foods give me gas, some give me heartburn, some cause me to gain weight, and certainly some are dangerous and could kill me. I do consider all of these and other aspects. I am likely to make choices based on some personal "comfort level" or personal point of view rather than published health standards. I cannot avoid addressing gas or heartburn, but I can ignore many published opinions on making 'the right choice' and I would be dishonest if I did not admit that I am not always making choices based on sound medical opinion. I do care about my health needs and do make some adjustments, but do not adhere to strict control. I may try to find crackers that are fat-free, yet still ensure that they taste good. I may choose to eat multi-grain or whole grain breads, or fiber products versus white bread or simply choose white rice because I believe they are 'healthier'. I may add vegetables and fruit to my meals even when I really don't seem to crave them -- I do this because "I know better" (or at least think I do).

To date: I have not purchased food based on a community aspect. I have not purchased "union" food and avoided 'non-union', or 'organic' versus 'non-organic', or based my selections on a particular business model such as a cooperative where I would likely be making choices to reflect a specific consideration of the overall community.

 

Q 2a) Do you think the film "Super Size Me" is hopeful or pessimistic about the future of food? Why, specifically?

My initial reaction is that the film is overwhelmingly pessimistic. The film begins by identifying America as the "fattest" nation in the world; we are number one! The film eludes to an older nation (50s & 60s or earlier) where most families enjoyed home-cooked meals and slowly, over-time,  was over-whelmed or taken-over by industrialization and corporate greed. It more than infers a doom & gloom related to fast food and industrialization.

The film was inspired by a lawsuit where two young women aged 14 and 19 were severely overweight and were suing McDonalds under the premise that McDonalds pushed or significantly inspired them to eat at McDonalds every day and that doing so is "unreasonably dangerous" to one's health. It inferred that their severe weight and poor health was directly due to McDonalds.

I wonder how anyone could consider the film optimistic?

The film indicated that all fast-food is dangerous, that corporations and politicians care more about profits than children, or families, or overall health. After Morgan took the 30 days McDonalds challenge, he gained 24-1/2 lbs, his cholesterol went from 168 lbs to 230, his body fat increased 11-18%, and all three doctors indicated that his liver and overall medical stats were flat-out scary and leaned towards severe health decline, or even a risk of death. The film was simply shocking and scary.

I intend to blog further on the film - deeply. The film raises crucial and important points, but also does so at the expense of solid science and solid principles. It was, in my opinion, purposefully generating hype and certainly will gather people together who already have the same common beliefs, but also risks pushing away those that could easily identify the films obvious flaws. For example, Morgan didn't just eat McDonalds food, he 'stuffed' himself. On his first first day, he was forcing food down, he was sick, he was throwing up: he did not just eat and enjoy a McDonald's meal. Is that realistic or even fair way to evaluate any food? Further, his nutritionist noted each and every week that he was eating 200+% of the caloric intake that should be typical, or suggested for a person of his size and weight.

The film produced significant evidence that most nutritionists would agree that  McDonalds food is simply not 'balanced', and does not provide a complete or appropriate, or well-rounded diet. However, should anyone expect the meals to be complete and balanced?  Maybe, we should - that is a great point to consider.

On the other hand, who expects someone to remain healthy eating any form of food to the point of a 200+% caloric intake? I do believe that Morgan knew that he didn't just eat "fatty" McDonalds food, he knew he ate far too much, he ate "super-sized" proportions. He put his body in shock. Therefore, for me, the film was pessimistic: he and the others involved likely intended to scare, intended to shock, and intended all viewers to be worried about the current industrialized and corporate-based America. There was little, if anything, in the film to suggest a trend towards hope or a trend indicating positive change.

NOTE: I intend to continue on this topic in a separate blog later.

 

Q 2b) Do YOU agree with the suggestions in "Organicize Me" about the cost of organic food?

This question challenges me. The article made suggestions? What suggestions? Did it point out any real direct cost comparison and actually make suggestions? I did find indicators that organic foods generally cost more (directly) than non-organic foods. For example, the author tabulated expenses and began with a 'non-organic' average expenditure on food of approximately $800 per month compared to the author's 'organic' month where he spent $1,372.51 - a 58% increase!

The article, in my opinion, did not indicate whether the extra spending was worth it, or whether the food costs were somehow offset by other costs (such as future health costs), or simply that the costs were  acceptable to enhance the community. I was disappointed with this article. "Supersize Me" was about eating McDonald's food for 30 days and measuring the health affects (if any). I expected a similar scenario for the "Organicize Me" article since the title was clearly directed at showing the organic equivalent. The article began appropriately with a similar premise of eating organic-only for 30 days and then quickly diverted into an entirely different topic of,  "What constitutes 'organic'?" and proceeds to identify the USDA definitions of organic, and conflicting local definitions, and on to compare a Wal-Mart or super-corporate version of organic, and - frankly - points out that there is a mess out there when it comes to simply trying to define what constitutes organic food. While all of that was interesting, it was like shoving a separate article within an article and was off-topic. To me, if one Just grabs the beginning and end of the article and pieces them together they would get the appropriate "Organicize Me" article.

The article did reflect that organic food (at least for the time being) is more expensive  - directly - than non-organic food, but didn't really seem to make suggestions about cost as much as it identified some cost facts relative to that particular scenario.

 

Q 3) In your own words, define a cooperative business structure.

The term, cooperative, implies a group where respective members help each other, support each other,  aid each other, and seek to get along for some common purpose. A key element is the notion that the collective needs of the group generally outweighs specific individual needs. Decision making is democratic and each member has one vote (no member has more voting power than another). Cooperatives likely consider broad community and environmental needs and consider a natural harmony where where mutual interdependence requires consideration of a larger system. Thus, many cooperatives likely have in common the notion that each of us are simply one element ,or are part of a bigger, more complex system where multiple interdependencies must always be considered. Further, long-term goals likely take precedence over short-term goals.

 

Q 4) What are YOUR first impressions of People's post expansion business model? Do you think they are running a strong business? Why or why not?

People's have taken the position of equal pay; well, not completely equal but all employees are paid based on a range: they have decided to support a living wage minimum (approx $10.50 ) and max out at just over double that wage.  I have a family with a successful business and an intimate understanding of the wages paid. People's living wage minimum is below the lowest paid wage (minimum) for my family business. Further, our business has numerous employees that greatly exceed the wage paid by People's. Therefore, the first thing that hit me is that our employees - all of them - would likely loose significant economic benefit if we adopted a similar model.

While I was at Peoples Food Co-Op, employees proudly noted that other businesses in the same industry (like Wal-Mart) typically pay below People's standards. Peoples' employees are proud to offer more than such organizations and I will admit that my family's business is in an entirely different industry. The SSA (Social Security Administration) lists the average US wage to be $38,651 (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html). Considering 52 weeks per year and 40 hours per week, the hourly rate would be approximately $18.50. Thus, People's wage range could be above or could below the existing national average depending, on actual figures for employees. Regarding the food industry, I personally believe Peoples pays above average; however, I am concerned that there is a direct assumption that all work is created equal.

It is ironic to me that so many members seem to be college students. Why did they attend college? Maybe they attended for pure self-improvement, but it is likely that most people would choose not to work so hard seeking a college degree, not to dedicate so much time, and not do whatever it takes to improve if their were no incentives beyond self-actualization. I am concerned:  isn't it healthy to provide economic incentive? Should all people be treated the same? How is hard work rewarded? Thus, my first impression is that the model may limit its workforce and fail to draw in talented, educated people who worked hard to increase their abilities with an expectation that they will gain some level of economic benefit.

Wage and economics is just one aspect, some may argue: a lesser aspect. I am impressed with People's emphasis on community. I am impressed with the efforts for sustainability, and for health. These aspects are difficult, if not impossible, to measure; yet, they are clearly a substantial aspect of the model. Certainly, the friendships, comradery, and support for others has significant value. It is a form of pay or reward and it is obvious that community emphasis boosts the strength of the business. I also have an immediate impression that this sense of community is similar to religious support. Much of the ideals and philosophies directly compare to what many churches offer, understanding the obvious differentiation that one involves an acceptance and understanding of god and another does not. Don't churches have a sense of community? Don't they seek to help others? Don't they look beyond individual needs as well?

Overall, I think People's business model is strong, but is simultaneously susceptible to changing political trends and likely would suffer the most harm in a depression/recession rather than in an economic boon. People's may be focused on community and emphasize support for those most in need, leading one to believe they would have the most support and most success in hard-times. However, as much as they offer support for the needy, monetary costs are high, and reserves seemed low. Long-term, I believe Peoples should consider multiple possibilities/ alternatives to overcomes high costs and ensure survival in hard economic times.

 

Q 5) What are some of the markers of people's brand identity? Can you identify how people's brand is marketed to its membership and the general population of consumers (in the store, newsletters and other promotional materials?)

People's identifies closely with community, and trust, and health, and sustainability. Their brand is the "common good" or even compassion. They emphasize equality and fairness. They offer a place to find fresh, organic, and. or local food. I sought in-store material and found several pamphlets/advertisements. *Note - most were, if not all, green/ environmentally friendly - a form of branding in itself. I also found their website and browsed through the content. The media I found emphasized the low costs associated to joining or becoming a member,  the refund opportunities if one chooses to leave, the discounts, etc. It seemed as though there is a discord or dislike for individual capital gains,  a noticeable de-emphasis on personal capital gains - another form of branding/ differentiating. A 'true' democracy system was highlighted (fairness), and even yoga classes were offered.

However, the obvious - HEALTHY, ORGANIC and/ or LOCAL FOOD was not emphasized - at least not enough for me. While I 'knew' what the business was about, all of that I obtained from word-of-mouth and from visiting the facility. The actual media did not seem to emphasize the organic, or local, or healthy aspects nearly as much as I expected.

What about investment opportunities - as in growth or expansion- versus cost savings or the obvious access to People's Food products? I found investment as a branding. Capital growth is funded from memberships fees, the $180 PeopleShare. Unfortunately, I think that the amount combined with the advertised six years time period to pay is a significantly limiting factor. The cooperative model is based on group membership that continually grows and prevents unequal voting - its a collective with no members gaining equity over others. In other words, the model shuns,  or avoids, or intends not to grow equity investment for owners. Thus, it seems that People's business model (from my limited one day exposure) could severely limit its potential growth. 

I understand the that individual capital should not grow based on the philosophy of the members, but maybe in the realm of Cooperatives, People's can distinguish itself and identify - specifically - another form of branding.  If Peoples intends to support a growing community, it will need capital to cover the costs associated with that growth. Expanding land, buildings, equipment, products and advertising -all cost money.  I believe Peoples could distinguish - clearly - the difference between capital gains for individual members versus capital gains for growth - for the collective.  If Peoples wants to help a broader community, if they want to expand, I suggest that they need to create a brand that uniquely identifies and accepts the very real capital requirements. I suggest seeking a branding where investment in the form of loans where investors get an interest rate of return is emphasized. Of course, direct donations should also be advertised and accepted.  Why should a member only be able to pay $180 for a People's share? Why not allow $500, $1,000, or even a million? If a member wanted to pay $500 with the understanding their benefits are still equal to the $180 membership - then why not? I suppose its back to a donation concept. Are donations - something not refunded encouraged?

I would like to suggest XX cents per dollar of revenue specifically targeted towards loan repayment to fund growth. Imagine if People's brand sought a simple rule of five cents per dollar towards growth. From this, could one predict expansion? Without this, how is expansion predictable?