ChewsWise Blog

ChewsWise Blog

Whole Foods Deal for Wild Oats Back in Court

As the saying goes, it ain't over til it's over.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Tuesdayreversed a lower court decision that allowed the world's largest organic and natural foods grocery chain, Whole Foods Market, to buy its rival Wild Oats Markets.

In a 2-1 split, the appeals court ruled that that a lower court made an error when it gave Whole Foods approval last summer to go ahead with the merger, despite the request by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for an injunction to block the deal.

The decision sends the lawsuit back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where Judge Paul Friedman had presided over the case before being appealed. Although the lower court was instructed to give further consideration to the case, the ruling does not undo the merger.

To date, Whole Foods has sold almost 40 Wild Oats stores, closed a dozen and converted many more to Whole Foods stores.

In a recent interview with ChewsWise, Whole Foods CEO John Mackey said: "We paid all the shareholders, we sold off the Henry stores, we integrated Wild Oats into our system, we’ve shut down several stores, changed the name of many of the stores – so the eggs are scrambled and mostly eaten."

The question now is whether the court will try to unscramble the digested eggs.

The Wall Street Journal opines: "The ruling ... may give the FTC a shot at forcing Whole Foods to sell some operations to meet competitive concerns raised by the merger."

“We await the U.S. District Court’s response so this issue can be resolved,” Whole Foods said in a statement. “Meanwhile, it is business as usual.”

- Samuel Fromartz, with contributions from Sustainable Food News

Got (rBGH) Milk? You May Not Know in Ohio

The Organic Trade Association last month filed suit against a new milk labeling rule in Ohio that bans statements about production methods, such as "no artificial hormones."

This suit was the latest bid to block the lobbying by Monsanto Corp. advocates, who are seeking to limit milk labels state-by-state. The International Dairy Foods Association filed suit too.

(Update) On Friday, the OTA filed a motion for summary judgment in the case. The Ohio Department of Agriculture has until August 15 to file its opposition and the OTA could then file a reply by August 29. The IDFA filed a similar motion.

If Ohio is successful, the label limitations would prevent consumers from choosing milk that is produced without synthetic growth hormones. Monsanto argues that there is no difference between milk produced with the added growth hormones and milk without it. But consumers advocates — and consumers themselves — take a different view. They want choice.

A similar attempt by Pennsylvania to limit the wording of milk labels was overturned by the governor in January, after a letter writing campaign by consumers and advocacy groups.

Indiana also considered similar legislation, but it failed to get traction in the state legislature. A bill in Missouri failed to pass. Kansas considered a law but it didn’t make it through the legislature, nor did an attempt in Vermont. A similar campaign in New Jersey has stalled.

Now, Kansas is revisiting the issue and Utah is considering rules similar to Ohio's.

It's all part of a concerted lobbying effort to save synthetic bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST), the milk-boosting genetically engineered drug Monsanto sells under the brand name Posilac. Although the hormone was approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration in 1993, it has been on a downward spiral as consumers, retailers, milk processors and dairy farmers avoid it.

In March, Walmart said all of its store-branded milk would come from cows not treated with rBGH. Kraft is introducing an rBGH-free line of cheese. Dean Foods, the largest milk processor in the nation, is moving away from the synthetic hormone. Kroger has banned the hormone from its store brand milk, as has Safeway.

The hormone has been outlawed in the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Like all genetically modified food, it is banned in organic agriculture.

Aside from the impact on animal health, such as mastitis (an udder infection) consumer advocates are concerned that the synthetic hormone increases levels of IGF-1, a hormone that in some studies has been linked to increased breast and prostate cancer risk. Monsanto and the FDA say the hormone is safe.

In the US, the American Nurses Association recently voted to help "eliminate the use or rBGH in the US by appealing to those who make purchasing decisions within the institutions where we work."

So if nurses are so concerned, why are states trying to ban a label that would give consumers a way to avoid milk produced with the hormones?

"This is something the Monsanto lobby must do because the market is starting to work against the product," Michael Hansen, a staff scientist at Consumers Union, said.

Last year, Monsanto appealed to the FDA to review the approved label wording for rBGH that allows for  claims, such as "produced without synthetic hormones." Monsanto also sought action from the Federal Trade Commission to block advertising of milk produced without rBGH.

The FDA declined to act, noting that it would only intervene in cases where fraudulent claims — as opposed to product descriptions — were made on the milk label. The FTC, in dismissing Monsanto's complaint, also found no instance where a national company made false claims.

The Monsanto lobby also has a research wing. A recent study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the drug can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since the drug boosts milk production in cows. The study argued that if fewer cows produced the same amount of milk, then emissions would be reduced.  Dairy cows produce about 20 percent of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

But an article in Scientific American poured cold water on those environmentally-friendly claims, pointing out an apparent conflict of interest because the study was conducted with Monsanto scientist.

More pointedly, the study hinged on the assumption that cows receiving the drug produced more milk for a given level of feed. But Hansen points out that the FDA specifically disallowed that claim when it studied the drug.

And if reducing methane were really the issue, scientists instead might advocate taking cows out of confined feedlots, where they are fed a methane-producing diet of corn and soybeans and injected with synthetic hormones. As the article pointed out, researchers in Australia found that grazing cows on grass could cut methane emissions by 50 percent. But that finding does nothing for drug sales -- or lobbying campaigns.

- Samuel Fromartz

Here are sites to learn more:

Image source: Discovery Education's Clip Art

MSC Clarifies Alaska Salmon Status

In light of Alaska's decision to shift the responsibility of certifying salmon to an industry body, the Marine Stewardship Council issued this press release. The key point: the current certificate is valid until 2012, so the certified sustainable status of Alaskan salmon is not in doubt. MSC says:

A change of clients is permitted under the MSC program and is not unprecedented.  It is also important to note that a change of client does not affect the value and credibility of a fisheries’ certificate as a globally recognized third-party verification of sustainability.  The Alaskan salmon fishery was re-certified in November 2007 and the current certificate is valid until 2012.

As the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has stated ... their position as a client for an MSC certification is unusual. More typically fisheries clients are groups of fishers and their associations or seafood industry and commercial entities, who are better placed to directly benefit from all the advantages third party certification can bring.

Doing Slow Food Nation

The Woodstock of food? For those who will be at Slow Food Nation in San Francisco over Labor Day weekend, I will be conducting a panel on Friday in the Changemakers Day series. This high-level, engaging event will focus on money and change: what food business brings to the sustainability table.

On board for the panel are Rick Schneiders, CEO of Sysco Food; Walter Robb, President of Whole Foods Market; Fedele Bauccio, CEO of Bon Appetit Management Co; and Woody Tasch, chairman of Investors Circle. Although not up yet on the Web site, it's being held Friday, August 29, from 1-2:30 p.m. Although this event is reserved for practitioners, there are limited public tickets available too.

- Samuel Fromartz

Quick Bites - Alaska Quits MSC?

(Updated) Alaska Quitting MSC? -  The state of Alaska wants another party to arrange sustainable fish certification for its salmon fisheries with the Marine Stewardship Council, Sustainable Food News reports ($-sub). The state Department of Fish and Game has been the client which arranged for this service -- a rare role for a government body. Now,it is hoping another group, such as a fisheries industry body, takes over the role. Alaska is the largest certified sustainable fishery in US waters, if not the world. Fisheries pay fees to get certified by the MSC, which independently reviews fish populations, catches, management and fishing methods. But the state feels it has a higher standard than even MSC. More on this item over at seafoodnews.com.

You Can Go Home Again - Vancouver celebrated the first return of a sockeye salmon to a lake in 100 years. "Seeing that first fish, it almost made us cry," George Chaffee, a councillor with the Kwikwetlem band, said.

Holy Jalapeno! - Turns out tomatoes weren't the culprit in the recent outbreak of salmonella. Instead the FDA has turned its attentions to jalapeno peppers. Tomato growers predictably were angry. "They will never say that tomatoes were not implicated, because to do so would [imply] they caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damages for nothing," Tom Nassif, president of Western Growers, told the WSJ. The salmonella outbreak sickened 1,200 people across 42 states.

unHappy Meals - The WSJ also has an item on Los Angeles city council member's attempt to ban junk food in an area of the city with high obesity rates. The 32-square-mile chunk of the city is home to some 400 fast-food restaurants, where 30% of adults are obese, compared with about 21% in the rest of the city.

Behind the Green Chef

When I interviewed Michael Oshman of the Green Restaurant Association (GRA) recently for a Wall Street Journal story, he mentioned that the restaurant industry is the largest consumer of electricity in the U.S. retail sector. It also accounts for half the food budget of the average American. No doubt that's a hefty footprint, but good restaurateurs are known for being nimble, and can adapt changes quickly.

While menu-boasting of shade grown organic coffee or juicy grass-fed burgers topped with local artisanal cheese is often the easiest way to identify a restaurant that’s going green, the real impact comes from changes in the back of the house.

Oshman estimates that the installation of two high efficiency hand dryers – one each restroom – will cost $1,415, but can provide an annual savings of $2,651 and reduce 1,620 pounds of paper towels waste. The installation of a high-efficiency gas-fired charbroiler vs. a conventional one can save 10 metric tons of CO2 equivalent.

Chef Jose Duarte, of Taranta in Boston, recently embraced his inner greenness and certified his restaurant in October 2007. Since then, he’s converted his truck to run on fryer oil, offers a wine list that’s organic, biodynamic and sustainable, composts food scraps, and has a full-scale recycling program. Duarte estimates that he’s reduced 80 metric tons (176,370 pounds) of carbon dioxide a year by making changes to his operations. That’s roughly equivalent to taking 180 cars off the road annually.

But what’s interesting -- with all the changes he’s made, he’s just now starting to look at sourcing his food locally. It’s not easy to do year-round in New England, but I would have thought that would be higher up on the to-do list, since it’s a change that’s so visible to customers. But then again, maybe it’s not all about the marketing.
– Clare Leschin-Hoar

Chewy Nuggets

What’s for Dinner? - Michael Ruhlman has an interesting thread at his blog on staple meals - what people actually cook for dinner. The variety among people who responded (177 comments and counting) is pretty astounding, with a lot of ethnic food -- more than I would have predicted.

Let’s Do the Math - An engaging post at Ethicurean points to a study that the majority of greenhouse gas emissions occur “during the production of food, not from transportation.” Eating locally is equivalent to driving 1,000 fewer miles a year. But switching out of red meat - for just one day a week - to a vegetarian meal equals 1,160 fewer miles driven per year.

Out of Softshell Crabs - Senators want to declare the Chesapeake blue claw crab a disaster, triggering $20 million in emergency aid for the fisherman. The bay suffers from hypoxia stimulated by agriculture and urban water run-off - essentially choking oxygen out of sea life.

Sustainable Sushi? - I took a quick look at Gourmet.com at the rising tide of sustainable fish in Japan, of all places. They still love their bluefin tuna and whale, but sustainable fish is slowly gaining ground (beachhead?) in supermarkets.
- Samuel Fromartz

Moved To Help Flooded Farmers?

If the pictures, stories and videos coming out of Iowa and other battered states move you to action, here's one place to check out - Farm Aid's Family Farm Disaster Fund.

Farm Aid's web site says it is helping family farmers through this disaster by:

  • Providing emergency funds for families to allow them to buy food and cover family living expenses.
  • Supporting emergency hotlines.
  • Providing legal and financial counseling to farmers in danger of losing their farms.

To be sure, many organizations are at work -- but Farm Aid has a particular focus.