Whole Foods: the Temple of Pseudoscience.

msf74

There are many. But until Whole Foods gets rid of their prominent candy and chip aisles, I'm not going to buy that anyone really thinks that everything within is a "health item." There are many uneducated consumers. We need to worry more about them at McDonalds than we do at Whole Foods. But when fast food does it, it's just good business and giving people what they want. This is McDonald's mission values statement, fWIW:

Values in Action
From the start, we've been committed to doing the right thing. And we've got the policies, programs and practices in place that allow us to use our size and scope to help make a difference. Because what's good for us, is good for us all.

I now have every confidence that everything I purchase from McDonald's is the right thing and most definitely ethical. I can now surrender my beliefs about fair wages and vegetarianism because McDonald's is and always has been committed to doing the right thing.

Again, until corporations with a lot more impact on the average consumer are taken to task for every product they contain on their shelves, this is just an easy grab to put down a store based on it being acceptable to judge places that are alternatively known as "Whole Paycheck." Whole Foods can get in line behind McDonald's, Walmart, and about a billion other places in the list of places putting a large group of people at any kind of real risk. (Google Homeopathy and Target. You'll get results for that too.)

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here so I would be grateful for a little clarification. Are you suggesting that because WF carries some lines that are deemed to be unhealthy this somehow negates in people's minds the overall perception of the store standing for a certain thing such as health / sustainability or so forth and buying into that image? For my part I don't think that is the case at all.

A little off tangent here but there is an interesting line of research that suggest putting healthier lines in places like McDonald's actually increases consumption of the more traditional items on their menu. Why? Because the halo of healthy food transfers onto the other food as well and makes it more acceptable to eat - "hey McDonalds has salads too but I think I will have the large Big Mac Meal this time..." In addition, the "health halo" tends to increase consumption overall in general as people mistakenly believe "this is healthy so I can eat large quantities of it" - such as smoothies for example.

In addition, you seem to suggest that because Big Food isn't taken to task for everything that "smaller" companies (which is a relative term only) should be given a free pass somehow over exploitative practices whatever they may be. Well, they don't.

Blue801

I like the whole temple, religion,worship parallels implied by just the title. Most the doctrine and ideologies for sale in a church or whole foods store are based on either pseudohistory or pseudoscience respectively. It is magic and faith, a great cultural and psychological explosion! Orthorexics can be the whole food temple priests!
:drinker:

FlaxMilk

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here so I would be grateful for a little clarification. Are you suggesting that because WF carries some lines that are deemed to be unhealthy this somehow negates in people's minds the overall perception of the store standing for a certain thing such as health / sustainability or so forth and buying into that image? For my part I don't think that is the case at all.

A little off tangent here but there is an interesting line of research that suggest putting healthier lines in places like McDonald's actually increases consumption of the more traditional items on their menu. Why? Because the halo of healthy food transfers onto the other food as well and makes it more acceptable to eat - "hey McDonalds has salads too but I think I will have the large Big Mac Meal this time..." In addition, the "health halo" tends to increase consumption overall in general as people mistakenly believe "this is healthy so I can eat large quantities of it" - such as smoothies for example.

In addition, you seem to suggest that because Big Food isn't taken to task for everything that "smaller" companies (which is a relative term only) should be given a free pass somehow over exploitative practices whatever they may be. Well, they don't.

I'm saying that I'm grateful that when I eat a bag of vegan marshmallows from Whole Foods, I can rest assured that nothing that results from that is on me because Whole Foods has already evaluated the food for its safety, nutritive, and quality. That's awesome. Nothing is my fault, and I really love vegan marshmallows. I don't love getting most of my day's calories in one single food item, but I can't help it. Whole Foods is a TEMPLE of health. By walking in, I am cleansed of the worries of mere mortals and can trust that everything in there is sold for my well-being and not for anyone's profit.

Exploitation will exist in any market where consumers want something. There is no real value in me buying vegan marshmallows that are ridiculously expensive. Whole Foods exploits that to make money. That's the nature of business. I'm saying it's ridiculous to harp on Whole Foods as a "temple of pseudoscience" given the actual nature of the place and the actual risk of harm by much bigger companies. This part has nothing to do with you, but I'm also questioning why it's ok to exploit people through science and designing super palatable foods that they will want to buy but it's not ok to exploit them through making something available that consumers are asking for. Whole Foods isn't pushing homeopathic "medicine" on the world. It's providing it to those who already want it.

I'm not saying WF should get an ethical pass, I'm questioning why the priority is on them and not on places with a much bigger impact on the health and wellness of the average person. I'm questioning that the author of that article doesn't provide a great deal of business to places that exploit people every day. Anything involving profit involves manipulation and exploitation. It's better for people to know that. It's better to know that foods are designed to be super palatable, because places are going to be allowed to continue to sell them, and it's valuable information to know that the food is carefully designed to make you love every bit of it and want more. It helps you make informed choices. I don't have any issue with people having an issue with homeopathy. It's education. Acting like Whole Foods is some kind of a magic drug dealer is a little over the top.

dayone987

I don't think that you can compare WF (or anyone else) selling cookies and selling homeopathic drugs.
Or as another poster witnessed, promoting the Miracle Cleanse.

When I buy cookies, candies, chips, etc there is a nutrition label that tells me how many calories, fat, sugar, Vitamin RDA % etc.
The packaging does not include health claims that have not been substantiated by science. If they do, they can be fined (e.g. the probiotic yogurt company)

FlaxMilk

I don't think that you can compare WF (or anyone else) selling cookies and selling homeopathic drugs.
Or as another poster witnessed, promoting the Miracle Cleanse.

When I buy cookies, candies, chips, etc there is a nutrition label that tells me how many calories, fat, sugar, Vitamin RDA % etc.
The packaging does not include health claims that have not been substantiated by science. If they do, they can be fined (e.g. the probiotic yogurt company)

Look up Hyland homeopathic products. The label on homeopathic products also tells you what's in there. I completely disagree that food companies do not make claims that have not been substantiated by science. I also completely disagree that many "nonhomeopathic products" sold in stores actually have been proven to do what the box and product really wants you to believe they do.

(Yes, amounts are not always specified, but welcome to food labeling. I can buy "Multigrain Bread" made pretty much out of white flour with a sprinkle of other grains. Labeling is tricky and not as consumer friendly as people would like to believe.)

cwsreddy

I am a little surprised by some of the responses to this thread but then perhaps I shouldn't be.

It is quite right, in my view, to express distaste at McDonalds for being one of the biggest, if not the biggest, distributors of children's toys in the world because they want to capture consumers at the earliest age possible. It is quite right, in my view, to express distaste at Coca Cola at sponsoring sporting events so as to co-opt the positive experiences from exercise at associate with their products.

By the same token it is quite right to express distaste at Whole Foods for hawking products which are in essence utter rubbish simply because they are falsely enshrined with a health halo. In fact it maybe worse because people are more likely to associate WF as being an ethical company and trust that they will provide them products which will actively improve their health.

It is all very well saying caveat emptor (buyer beware) but there is a big power balance difference between consumers and a company of this size. They have a huge amount of resources to throw at marketing pitted against the collective intelligence of consumers which even at its highest falls for a large range of ploys to separate them from their money.

Thank you. This is a great post.

Jonnythan I thought there was nothing wrong with McDonalds or Coca Cola.... why do you feel this is a great post if it questions the core tenants of your nutrition philosophy?

msf74

. This part has nothing to do with you

Actually, it seems like none of your polemic is to do with me but rather your beef (pardon the pun) with Jon boy.

I am, and have been, critical of a range of business practices, companies and health messages I believe are harmful no matter if they comes from McDonalds, The AHA or WF etc.

However, there are a plethora of posts, blogs, articles, position statements and so forth based on the usual suspects so an article on the stunts that "smaller" companies (again this is relative - we are not talking about a small family butcher here are we?) seems legitimate.

dayone987

I don't think that you can compare WF (or anyone else) selling cookies and selling homeopathic drugs.
Or as another poster witnessed, promoting the Miracle Cleanse.

When I buy cookies, candies, chips, etc there is a nutrition label that tells me how many calories, fat, sugar, Vitamin RDA % etc.
The packaging does not include health claims that have not been substantiated by science. If they do, they can be fined (e.g. the probiotic yogurt company)

Look up Hyland homeopathic products. The label on homeopathic products also tells you what's in there. I completely disagree that food companies do not make claims that have not been substantiated by science. I also completely disagree that many "nonhomeopathic products" sold in stores actually have been proven to do what the box and product really wants you to believe they do.

(Yes, amounts are not always specified, but welcome to food labeling. I can buy "Multigrain Bread" made pretty much out of white flour with a sprinkle of other grains. Labeling is tricky and not as consumer friendly as people would like to believe.)

Can you give an example of a food that has a claim on it not substantiated by science?

The multigrain bread label would have included the ingredient list, likely the first one would have been white flour.

FlaxMilk

Can you give an example of a food that has a claim on it not substantiated by science?

The multigrain bread label would have included the ingredient list, likely the first one would have been white flour.

Homeopathic products include ingredient lists. What's the difference? If it doesn't have to say 90% white flour, what difference does it make?

Off the top of my head, no, can't give you a food claim that is not substantiated by science as I stopped paying attention to claims and advertising a long time ago. Given a little time, I'm sure I could come up with all sorts of misleading statements on food products. As you said, the FDA will tell the worst offenders to remove some of their statements. But only those that are in overt violation. Implication is everything.

And when someone on here posts an article about super palatable foods, they are attacked as wanting to surrender all personal responsibility to someone else and live in a nanny state. Food labels can say "Can be part of a healthy diet" and all sins are forgiven because it's up to the consumer to know what a healthy diet is. Read this:

How do the Remedies work?
The Bach Flower Remedies is a safe and natural method of healing. They gently restore the balance between mind and body by casting out negative emotions, such as, fear, worry, hatred and indecision which interfere with the equilibrium of the being as a whole. The Bach Flower Remedies allow peace and happiness to return to the sufferer so that the body is free to heal itself.


How are the Bach Flower Remedies made?
The Bach Flower Remedies are made 100% naturally from spring water infused with wild flowers, either by the sun-steeped method or by boiling. The Remedies are hand produced exclusively in England. The Remedies contain 27% grape based brandy as a preservative. Or the alcohol free versions are preserved in glycerin made from sunflowers.

And selling that product makes you a mystical drug pusher's holy pilgrimage site.

It says that the body is healing itself. It's "Multigrain bread." It's 4.9 calories instead of 0.

FlaxMilk

http://www.cheerios.com/en/Cheerios-Heart-Health.aspx

One key word is *May* reduce the risk of heart disease. They'd probably get pulled if they said "Will reduce your risk of heart disease."

Well, a hug from your spouse may reduce your risk of heart disease too.

And wildflowers in spring water may give you temporary relief too.

PRMinx

Not all customers are shopping at Whole Foods because of it's pseudo-scientific claims.

I shop at Whole Foods all the time because it's the only grocery store around here with a produce, cheese and meat section that doesn't suck. Once the farms open for the summer, it's a different story.

dayone987

Can you give an example of a food that has a claim on it not substantiated by science?

The multigrain bread label would have included the ingredient list, likely the first one would have been white flour.

Homeopathic products include ingredient lists. What's the difference? If it doesn't have to say 90% white flour, what difference does it make?

Off the top of my head, no, can't give you a food claim that is not substantiated by science as I stopped paying attention to claims and advertising a long time ago. Given a little time, I'm sure I could come up with all sorts of misleading statements on food products. As you said, the FDA will tell the worst offenders to remove some of their statements. But only those that are in overt violation. Implication is everything.

And when someone on here posts an article about super palatable foods, they are attacked as wanting to surrender all personal responsibility to someone else and live in a nanny state. Food labels can say "Can be part of a healthy diet" and all sins are forgiven because it's up to the consumer to know what a healthy diet is. Read this:

When you said you "completely disagreed" I thought you would have a specific example. But apparently you don't look for claims and advertising anymore?

Packaged food has an ingredient list, a nutrition label, and unless you can come up with an example, I still don't think that they put false health claims on the label.

Edit to add, I saw your Cheerio example.

Oats have been shown to reduce risk of heart disease.
And, I think there be studies that show hugs might also reduce risk of heart attacks.

jonnythan

And selling that product makes you a mystical drug pusher's holy pilgrimage site.

Statements like this make it difficult to have this conversation with you. It's clear - and has been explicitly stated to you over and over - that it's not simply selling homeopathic products that differentiates Whole Foods from, say, Shop Rite.

Your use of language such as this makes me want to simply not respond to you. You're not an argumentative troll like some others, so having to respond to this sort of sentence just makes me.. tired. If you want to engage on an honest intellectual level I am happy to do so, but I am becoming increasingly convinced you are less interested in understanding and honest debate than simply winning.

cwsreddy

And selling that product makes you a mystical drug pusher's holy pilgrimage site.

Statements like this make it difficult to have this conversation with you. It's clear - and has been explicitly stated to you over and over - that it's not simply selling homeopathic products that differentiates Whole Foods from, say, Shop Rite.

Your use of language such as this makes me want to simply not respond to you. You're not an argumentative troll like some others, so having to respond to this sort of sentence just makes me.. tired. If you want to engage on an honest intellectual level I am happy to do so, but I am becoming increasingly convinced you are less interested in understanding and honest debate than simply winning.

whoa. most ironic post i've ever seen.

that said, in this thread the only difference YOU'VE pointed out between WF and Shop Rite is that one promotes that it offers higher quality foods and is a "health" store right?

Again I ask, why is this directed at Whole Foods then and not health stores in general? What's your beef?

jonnythan

Again I ask, why is this directed at Whole Foods then and not health stores in general? What's your beef?

Because Whole Foods is a large national brand with stores all over the country.

Also, because this article is about Whole Foods. Maybe you should ask the article writer picked out Whole Foods instead of other health stores in general. I suspect it's the same reason McDonald's is often singled out instead of fast food restaurants in general: because they're the biggest and have the most market and mindshare.

FlaxMilk

When you said you "completely disagreed" I thought you would have a specific example. But apparently you don't look for claims and advertising anymore?

Packaged food has an ingredient list, a nutrition label, and unless you can come up with an example, I still don't think that they put false health claims on the label.

Edit to add, I saw your Cheerio example.

Oats have been shown to reduce risk of heart disease.

I know oats have been shown to reduce risk of heart disease. So why doesn't Cheerios state "Will reduce the risk of heart disease?" For the same reason homeopathic medicines can't say "Will cure menstrual cramps."

I'll pick on a product I like.

Wonderful pomegranates provide a number of important nutrients including vitamin K, potassium and a variety of pomegranate polyphenols, making them an important part of a healthy and balanced diet.

That's from POM, another company that got into some trouble for making dubious health claims. (That's the thing, they may get in trouble, but they are allowed to hit the shelves and get the word out there, and the consequence is often minimal. The regulation isn't that great until someone complains.) They're not really saying anything untrue there. Can pomegranates be a part of a healthy and balanced diet? Sure. Are they really "important?" I never had anything with pomegranate until adulthood. I consider them treat items because of the cost. They are not necessary for me to have a healthy or balanced diet.

SusanL222

Well, I think this bone has been chewed to death and should be quietly buried.

FlaxMilk

Statements like this make it difficult to have this conversation with you. It's clear - and has been explicitly stated to you over and over - that it's not simply selling homeopathic products that differentiates Whole Foods from, say, Shop Rite.

Your use of language such as this makes me want to simply not respond to you. You're not an argumentative troll like some others, so having to respond to this sort of sentence just makes me.. tired. If you want to engage on an honest intellectual level I am happy to do so, but I am becoming increasingly convinced you are less interested in understanding and honest debate than simply winning.

It's been explicitly stated to me, but I clearly haven't been sold. You can tell me anything you want, but that doesn't mean you've proven it. You haven't convinced me.

My use of language such as this is directly tied to the language in the thread title, so I'm glad that you noted my hyperbole. That was a healthy chunk of my point.

I won't be offended if you don't want to respond to me. I have ended conversations with you that I felt weren't worth continuing for the same reasons you suggest toward me. On this one, I don't think there is any "winning" because it's an opinion piece more than anything. You can think Whole Foods is a temple to pseudoscience. I can think Pizza Hut is a temple to the science of exploiting people's biology through science. Both are legal.

cwsreddy

Statements like this make it difficult to have this conversation with you. It's clear - and has been explicitly stated to you over and over - that it's not simply selling homeopathic products that differentiates Whole Foods from, say, Shop Rite.

Your use of language such as this makes me want to simply not respond to you. You're not an argumentative troll like some others, so having to respond to this sort of sentence just makes me.. tired. If you want to engage on an honest intellectual level I am happy to do so, but I am becoming increasingly convinced you are less interested in understanding and honest debate than simply winning.

It's been explicitly stated to me, but I clearly haven't been sold. You can tell me anything you want, but that doesn't mean you've proven it. You haven't convinced me.

My use of language such as this is directly tied to the language in the thread title, so I'm glad that you noted my hyperbole. That was a healthy chunk of my point.

I won't be offended if you don't want to respond to me. I have ended conversations with you that I felt weren't worth continuing for the same reasons you suggest toward me. On this one, I don't think there is any "winning" because it's an opinion piece more than anything. You can think Whole Foods is a temple to pseudoscience. I can think Pizza Hut is a temple to the science of exploiting people's biology through science. Both are legal.

drop the mic

msf74

Well, I think this bone has been chewed to death and should be quietly buried.

Oh, I don't know.

I think spurious health claims abound and it's good to discuss the deceptive, unethical or plain misguided practices that many companies use (yes, I am looking at WF here as well) to increase their profits and market share.

"May help reduce cholesterol as part of a balanced diet" (rather than just a balanced diet in itself), "half the saturated fat of ordinary yogurt" (lets not mention the huge amounts of sugar) etc.

cwsreddy

Well, I think this bone has been chewed to death and should be quietly buried.

Oh, I don't know.

I think spurious health claims abound and it's good to discuss the deceptive, unethical or plain misguided practices that many companies use (yes, I am looking at WF here as well) to increase their profits and market share.

"May help reduce cholesterol as part of a balanced diet" (rather than just a balanced diet in itself), "half the saturated fat of ordinary yogurt" (lets not mention the huge amounts of sugar) etc.

honestly anything that has to go out of its way to shout "I'M HEALTHY!" probably isn't...

FlaxMilk

A clarification on why I don't trust implications or claims on labels: yesterday, I saw a new juice in the produce section. The name of it something about Berries + Carrot. Well, I like many berries in juice form but not in whole form, and they are good for you, and yes, juice is a treat, but I like treats. I don't even remember how many ingredients in I stopped reading, but I know it was after the first ingredients were things like "Apple juice, grape juice." I then looked at some of the even more exotic and expensive sounding juices. Their first ingredients? Apple juice, grape juice, pineapple juice. I may as well go spend a lot less money for the same basic product. No, I don't trust labels.

msf74

Well, I think this bone has been chewed to death and should be quietly buried.

Oh, I don't know.

I think spurious health claims abound and it's good to discuss the deceptive, unethical or plain misguided practices that many companies use (yes, I am looking at WF here as well) to increase their profits and market share.

"May help reduce cholesterol as part of a balanced diet" (rather than just a balanced diet in itself), "half the saturated fat of ordinary yogurt" (lets not mention the huge amounts of sugar) etc.

honestly anything that has to go out of its way to shout "I'M HEALTHY!" probably isn't...

Yes, I think in many cases you are right.

I think it must be bewildering for many people to know if they are making valid choices towards their health given so much conflicting information or viewpoints out there.

I think that is an important theme of that article bearing the above in mind. People will place their trust in somewhere like WF to supply them items which are healthy rather than research all the science for themselves because in all honesty that would be exhausting. And where there is trust there is potential exploitation.

That is why we need open discussion and simpler nutrition frameworks in reality.

jonnythan

Well, I think this bone has been chewed to death and should be quietly buried.

Oh, I don't know.

I think spurious health claims abound and it's good to discuss the deceptive, unethical or plain misguided practices that many companies use (yes, I am looking at WF here as well) to increase their profits and market share.

"May help reduce cholesterol as part of a balanced diet" (rather than just a balanced diet in itself), "half the saturated fat of ordinary yogurt" (lets not mention the huge amounts of sugar) etc.

I think it's good to discuss the degree to which educated, relatively wealthy, and relatively left-leaning segments of society happily embrace pseudoscience and anti-science. I personally think Whole Foods embodies a lot of that: high prices, homeopathic products, featuring of products such as Master Cleanse with in-store demonstrations, warning signs that bread slicers are used for "conventional" bread, etc.

It's one thing to just sell homeopathic products. It's another to sell them while also having literal warning signs that bread slicers are used for non-organic bread in the aisle next to the Master Cleanse pitchman.

Whole Foods has built its brand and reputation on specifically appealing and pandering to this market.

FlaxMilk

And where there is trust there is potential exploitation.

That is why we need open discussion and simpler nutrition frameworks in reality.

I agree, but that's why I don't think it's all that valuable to focus on individual businesses, if the labeling system is broken to begin with. The only thing I trust from a store is that the product they sell me is basically what it says it is. If a store sells poison advertised as milk, I have an issue with that. But I don't see it as realistic for stores to be the gatekeepers of truth when the products they sell don't have to be.

msf74

I think it's good to discuss the degree to which educated, relatively wealthy, and relatively left-leaning segments of society happily embrace pseudoscience and anti-science. I personally think Whole Foods embodies a lot of that: high prices, homeopathic products, featuring of products such as Master Cleanse with in-store demonstrations, warning signs that bread slicers are used for "conventional" bread, etc.

It's one thing to just sell homeopathic products. It's another to sell them while also having literal warning signs that bread slicers are used for non-organic bread in the aisle next to the Master Cleanse pitchman.

Whole Foods has built its brand and reputation on specifically appealing and pandering to this market.

And the question then becomes if educated, affluent people with access to good health information and services (a minority of people) fall for such nonsense then....

what hope for the rest of society?

TimeWillTell2

bump for later!

cwsreddy

Well, I think this bone has been chewed to death and should be quietly buried.

Oh, I don't know.

I think spurious health claims abound and it's good to discuss the deceptive, unethical or plain misguided practices that many companies use (yes, I am looking at WF here as well) to increase their profits and market share.

"May help reduce cholesterol as part of a balanced diet" (rather than just a balanced diet in itself), "half the saturated fat of ordinary yogurt" (lets not mention the huge amounts of sugar) etc.

honestly anything that has to go out of its way to shout "I'M HEALTHY!" probably isn't...

Yes, I think in many cases you are right.

I think it must be bewildering for many people to know if they are making valid choices towards their health given so much conflicting information or viewpoints out there.

I think that is an important theme of that article bearing the above in mind. People will place their trust in somewhere like WF to supply them items which are healthy rather than research all the science for themselves because in all honesty that would be exhausting. And where there is trust there is potential exploitation.

That is why we need open discussion and simpler nutrition frameworks in reality.

this I agree with wholeheartedly, but then I think that needs to be the premise of the discussion, not "Whole Foods is the Temple of Pseudoscience" because let's be real, EVERY major brand is a "temple of pseudoscience" as long as it will help them sell more products!

Again I just think the framing of this discussion is biased and has an agenda instead of actually talking about a legitimate concern that is prevalent amongst ALL marketing in food.

msf74

And where there is trust there is potential exploitation.

That is why we need open discussion and simpler nutrition frameworks in reality.

I agree, but that's why I don't think it's all that valuable to focus on individual businesses, if the labeling system is broken to begin with. The only thing I trust from a store is that the product they sell me is basically what it says it is. If a store sells poison advertised as milk, I have an issue with that. But I don't see it as realistic for stores to be the gatekeepers of truth when the products they sell don't have to be.

And the case for "IIFYM" rests.

(Full disclosure: not something I use myself

OK, this has been a really good discussion. Thanks to the OP for providing such a thought provoking topic. Now, i must go leap tall building in a single bound.)

poohbah4

They had me on that, too.