Louis Proyect wrote: > Whole Foods, on the other hand, is a nationwide chain that first established > a foothold in New York a few years ago. Whatever I wasn't buying from Fresh > Direct, I'd pick up at Whole Foods. As its name implies, it puts a heavy > emphasis on organic meat and produce. Their website, competing with Fresh > Direct as to who is best positioned to Save the Planet, informs us: > > This is where it all began. Whole Foods Market is all about organics, and > organics is all about respect for the earth and the natural processes that > have nourished us for millennia. Organic agriculture works in harmony with > Nature to produce food that is free of man-made toxins, promoting the health > of consumers, farmers and the earth, with an eye to maintaining that health > far into the future.
Whole Foods is about organic food? you wouldn't think so from their mega-store in Austin, TX, which is a lot like a Disneyland for foodies. The local versions here in L.A. don't seem to be that different from other upscale groceries (Gelson's, Bristol Farms). Whole Foods is like other retailers: as the Wal-Mart of food, it's trying to absorb Wild Oats, another store which has organic pretensions. >The Federal Trade Commission opposed the deal, but prospects for reversing it >are unclear. > By Jerry Hirsch, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer / July 30, 2008 >The purchase of Wild Oats Markets Inc. by rival organic foods purveyor Whole >Foods Market Inc. turned a bit wilder than anticipated on Tuesday when a >federal appeals court overturned a lower-court ruling that allowed the merger >to go through. >The ruling comes almost a year after Whole Foods in Austin, Texas, purchased >the 110-store Wild Oats chain for $565 million and brings up questions about >whether it would be possible to unwind the merger so long after the fact. >When the two companies announced plans to merge in early 2007, the Federal >Trade Commission moved to block the deal, arguing that it would give Whole >Foods too much of the market for natural and organic foods and could raise >prices for shoppers. >The federal district court ruled against the agency, saying it had not made a >case for delaying the merger. > But [now] a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington said > that was the wrong decision and sent the case back to the U.S. District Court > for the District of Columbia for further consideration. >The ruling was a surprise to antitrust experts, said Mike Cowie, a former FTC >assistant commissioner, who is now a partner at Howrey law firm in Washington. >"This is an extraordinary situation for both the district court and the FTC," >Cowie said. "No one can be sure about what happens now." It's very difficult >in cases such as this to "unscramble the eggs," he said. >Whole Foods, for example, could be forced to divest a number of stores to a >buyer that would be willing to operate them as an independent business, he >said. That's happened with companies in the software industry and other >sectors. And the precedent was acknowledged in the court's opinion. >"The courts have the power to grant relief on the FTC's complaint, despite the >merger's having taken place, and the case is therefore not moot," Judge Janice >Rogers Brown, a former member of the California Supreme Court, wrote in the >2-1 appellate court decision. >Specifically the three-judge panel said the lower court erred when it ruled >that the FTC's definition of what constituted the market for natural and >organic foods was too narrow. The FTC wanted a preliminary injunction to stop >the takeover while it argued its position in court. >"The court should have taken whatever time it needed to consider the FTC's >evidence fully," Brown wrote. >The FTC agreed. "We are pleased by today's decision of the appeals court in >the Whole Foods matter and are looking forward to future proceedings before >the district court, leading to a full trial on the merits before the >commission," Jeffrey Schmidt, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, >said Tuesday. >Whole Foods said it was "disappointed with this decision as customers" and >employees "have already received many benefits from this merger." The >company's shares closed at $22.39 on Tuesday, up 36 cents. >The company said it was evaluating its legal options and it noted that "the >decision acknowledges that neither the court nor the FTC has found the merger >to be unlawful. . . . We await the U.S. District Court's response so this >issue can be resolved." >Most of the time, the FTC would not pursue a case such as this because the bar >becomes very high once a merger has closed, said Ronald Wick, an antitrust >expert and partner at law firm Baker Hostetler in Washington. Federal >regulators typically don't want to put a lot of time and money into it if they >believe they have little chance to win, he said. >Previously, the FTC said it was continuing its appeal because Whole Foods >continued to operate many stores under the Wild Oats name, making it easier to >reverse at least part of the deal. >Whole Foods, however, has now rebranded most of the Wild Oats stores, sold 35 >more and closed 12. There are still 15 that use the Wild Oats name but Whole >Foods said they would be converted in the coming weeks. >The buyers of the stores that were sold off could not be compelled to return >them to Whole Foods to fold into a reconstituted Wild Oats, Wick said. >Other factors also have changed since the deal has closed. In Southern >California, for example, the competition in the natural and organic foods >market is increasing. > Two small organic and natural food chains, Sprouts Farmers Markets and > Henry's Farmers Market -- the 35-store former Wild Oats unit sold by Whole > Foods -- are adding stores, thus diluting Whole Foods' market concentration. >And traditional grocers and retailers including Safeway Inc., which operates >as Vons and Pavilions in Southern California, and retail giant Wal-Mart Stores >Inc. continue to expand their selection of organic goods. < As for labor relations, the Wikipedia says: >Among its core values, the company lists "supporting team member happiness and excellence". The company argues that its treatment of workers obviates the needs for unions: full-time workers are given free health insurance that includes a personal wellness account, and the starting pay at most stores is highly competitive. > CEO John Mackey, a libertarian, makes no secret of his opposition to unions > in Whole Foods. Mackey believes that unions facilitate an adversarial > relationship between management and labor. An attempt at unionizing in > Madison, Wisconsin, in 2002 was met with resistance from store management and > Whole Foods was accused by labor activists of union busting. A 2004 ruling by > the National Labor Relations Board upheld the actions of Whole Foods at the > Madison store, although some workers considered its tactics unethical. > Further attempts at unionizing Whole Foods Market stores have been > unsuccessful. Michael Henneberry of the United Food and Commercial Workers > Union said they failed to attract the interest of the employees at Berkeley's > Whole Foods despite rallying there for seven years. > Whole Foods was criticized for its refusal to support a campaign by the > United Farm Workers (UFW) on behalf of agricultural workers laboring on > strawberry farms. During the late 1990s, the UFW persuaded several large > supermarket chains to sign a pledge in support of improved wages and working > conditions for strawberry pickers. Whole Foods chose instead to support the > farmworkers directly by holding a "National 5% Day" where five percent of > that day's sales — $125,000 — were donated to organizations which provide > social services to farmworkers.< -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
