This Week's Letters
Whole Foods: A question of ethics
Editor:
Going grocery shopping these days is an ethical minefield. Local or organic? Paper or plastic? Farmed or wild? Is a lobster happier in a plastic condo than an open tank? Do lobsters know what “happy” is? Social conscience nags at us. We try to make the “right” decision. But it takes time, lots of it. It takes time to research the lifecycle of a paper bag, the history of a shrimp farm or the feelings of a lobster. We care about the answers, but this research simply takes more time than we have. Enter Whole Foods.
For those of us without time to do research, but with a little extra cash to spend, Whole Foods is an easy out. If I choose to shop at Whole Foods, I believe that they have done the research for me. I can trust that Whole Foods is presenting me with the healthiest, most ethically correct and eco-friendly choices, right? Wrong. Not because Whole Foods is trying to pull the wool over my eyes, but because my ethics may not match theirs. How local is local? Do I believe that a New Hampshire company who will separate lobsters into condos is a better choice than a “traditional” Maine lobster dealer? If I am worried about what method of execution a lobster would prefer, shouldn’t I also wonder about the last moments of a clam? There are no correct answers. I have mine and Whole Foods has theirs. Buying their goods is not a guarantee that I am bettering myself or the environment, just their bottom line. Whole Foods is not a charitable organization. They are a large, successful corporation. They intend to make a profit. Though their Web site says that, “There's no inherent reason why business cannot be ethical, socially responsible and profitable,” I would still have to rely on Whole Foods’ ethics to match my own.
We’re back to time. Will I take the time to research Whole Foods’ ethical choices? No, I won’t. I don’t have to because I have spent years getting to know my community. What I know about my local vendors comes from first-hand research. I have shopped at farm stands, family-owned businesses and Hannaford for decades. I went to school with my local farmer. I buy his produce in season because he has fabulous corn and because I support his efforts to keep his family farm alive. I go to restaurants that have the owner as the manager or chef because the food is better when the owner is in the store and because I respect their work ethic. I shop at Hannaford because they donate to local charities and employ thousands of people in my community. They carry local and organic products and buy lobsters from traditional Maine dealers. I don’t know what Whole Foods will add to our community, but I do know that I don’t need them to present me with the “right” products to buy. I can do that myself.
Susan Bayley
Scarborough
Office towers in Scarborough? No way!
Editor:
Regarding Ward Peck's "dead serious" suggestion of "office towers" in Scarborough, I'd like to nominate him for the "Most Ridiculous City Planning Suggestion" award of 2007. It's early in the year though, Ward, and I'm sure you won't be the only nominee.
Where to start? This is such a bad idea. I half believe you only wrote it to get a rise out of people, but you claim to be really serious. Whatever Scarborough once was, it is now a bedroom community in a semi rural setting and there's nothing wrong with being that. Office towers? We don't need no stinkin' office towers. First, it would be an eyesore to say the least. Scarborough needs a skyline? A skywalk over Route One, just like they have on interstates in big states? Mmm...maybe with a McDonalds and a Starbucks up there too? Gee, can't wait. That'll be pretty. Second, you erroneously presume that putting a mass of people in a work setting of tall office buildings will create an infrastructure conducive to something other than tall office buildings that become vacant in the evening. You need to learn the lessons of many larger cities with office areas that die after five o'clock. We don't need to build one more here. Third, you also erroneously presume that Scarborough actually needs this office space and could fill it, let alone wants it, based on what – one report by a broker whose business it is to rent office space? Have you heard about the great incentives we offer businesses to come to Scarborough?
I completely agree that Scarborough has made some awful planning decisions and/or lack thereof. But more than that, I contend that the confrontational nature and often holier-than-thou attitude of certain council members, past and present, has done far more to contribute to a lack of community identity in Scarborough. If you've ever been to a council meeting, and I'm certain you have as a reporter, you can see that it's more about egos than resolving issues. It becomes "us" against "them," which makes no sense since we're all the same.
Let's figure out why a group of people wanting to play a pick up game of touch football in a public park need a permit to do so first and think about how that effects the "community identity" before we throw up (nice pun) a few office towers as the answer to "rural office sprawl." And Ward, I much prefer to hear your Bush bashing and bringing the troops home and insane costs of war writings. You've got that right, and unlike office towers, that's a really good idea.
Phil Kaye
Scarborough
Editor:
Going grocery shopping these days is an ethical minefield. Local or organic? Paper or plastic? Farmed or wild? Is a lobster happier in a plastic condo than an open tank? Do lobsters know what “happy” is? Social conscience nags at us. We try to make the “right” decision. But it takes time, lots of it. It takes time to research the lifecycle of a paper bag, the history of a shrimp farm or the feelings of a lobster. We care about the answers, but this research simply takes more time than we have. Enter Whole Foods.
For those of us without time to do research, but with a little extra cash to spend, Whole Foods is an easy out. If I choose to shop at Whole Foods, I believe that they have done the research for me. I can trust that Whole Foods is presenting me with the healthiest, most ethically correct and eco-friendly choices, right? Wrong. Not because Whole Foods is trying to pull the wool over my eyes, but because my ethics may not match theirs. How local is local? Do I believe that a New Hampshire company who will separate lobsters into condos is a better choice than a “traditional” Maine lobster dealer? If I am worried about what method of execution a lobster would prefer, shouldn’t I also wonder about the last moments of a clam? There are no correct answers. I have mine and Whole Foods has theirs. Buying their goods is not a guarantee that I am bettering myself or the environment, just their bottom line. Whole Foods is not a charitable organization. They are a large, successful corporation. They intend to make a profit. Though their Web site says that, “There's no inherent reason why business cannot be ethical, socially responsible and profitable,” I would still have to rely on Whole Foods’ ethics to match my own.
We’re back to time. Will I take the time to research Whole Foods’ ethical choices? No, I won’t. I don’t have to because I have spent years getting to know my community. What I know about my local vendors comes from first-hand research. I have shopped at farm stands, family-owned businesses and Hannaford for decades. I went to school with my local farmer. I buy his produce in season because he has fabulous corn and because I support his efforts to keep his family farm alive. I go to restaurants that have the owner as the manager or chef because the food is better when the owner is in the store and because I respect their work ethic. I shop at Hannaford because they donate to local charities and employ thousands of people in my community. They carry local and organic products and buy lobsters from traditional Maine dealers. I don’t know what Whole Foods will add to our community, but I do know that I don’t need them to present me with the “right” products to buy. I can do that myself.
Susan Bayley
Scarborough
Office towers in Scarborough? No way!
Editor:
Regarding Ward Peck's "dead serious" suggestion of "office towers" in Scarborough, I'd like to nominate him for the "Most Ridiculous City Planning Suggestion" award of 2007. It's early in the year though, Ward, and I'm sure you won't be the only nominee.
Where to start? This is such a bad idea. I half believe you only wrote it to get a rise out of people, but you claim to be really serious. Whatever Scarborough once was, it is now a bedroom community in a semi rural setting and there's nothing wrong with being that. Office towers? We don't need no stinkin' office towers. First, it would be an eyesore to say the least. Scarborough needs a skyline? A skywalk over Route One, just like they have on interstates in big states? Mmm...maybe with a McDonalds and a Starbucks up there too? Gee, can't wait. That'll be pretty. Second, you erroneously presume that putting a mass of people in a work setting of tall office buildings will create an infrastructure conducive to something other than tall office buildings that become vacant in the evening. You need to learn the lessons of many larger cities with office areas that die after five o'clock. We don't need to build one more here. Third, you also erroneously presume that Scarborough actually needs this office space and could fill it, let alone wants it, based on what – one report by a broker whose business it is to rent office space? Have you heard about the great incentives we offer businesses to come to Scarborough?
I completely agree that Scarborough has made some awful planning decisions and/or lack thereof. But more than that, I contend that the confrontational nature and often holier-than-thou attitude of certain council members, past and present, has done far more to contribute to a lack of community identity in Scarborough. If you've ever been to a council meeting, and I'm certain you have as a reporter, you can see that it's more about egos than resolving issues. It becomes "us" against "them," which makes no sense since we're all the same.
Let's figure out why a group of people wanting to play a pick up game of touch football in a public park need a permit to do so first and think about how that effects the "community identity" before we throw up (nice pun) a few office towers as the answer to "rural office sprawl." And Ward, I much prefer to hear your Bush bashing and bringing the troops home and insane costs of war writings. You've got that right, and unlike office towers, that's a really good idea.
Phil Kaye
Scarborough
Comments