Wow.
How about taking 2 seconds to google an issue before snapping to a judgement?
Whole Foods Boycott
- Thread starter drkenan
- Start date
How about taking 2 seconds to google an issue before snapping to a judgement?
There are plenty, but my mid-west values prevent me from buying over priced food. Safeway baby, all the way.
The fresh spicy turkey sausage in the Whole Foods meat department is awesome.
Gee, silly me for trusting the US State Dept instead of Greenpeace...
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2009/115007.htm
Not wanting to eat something due to moral obligations is fine, but to boycott an entire food chain because that chain decides to import a legally caught, sustainably harvested (according to the CCMALR) product into the United States goes too far.
Well you should have gotten a $60,000 home, like in Richmond or Pittsburg:
$48,000
2247 Lakeview Circle, Pittsburg
Previously sold in 2006: $228,000
Size: Condo, 1 bedroom/1 bathroom, 527 sq. ft.
Year Built: 1989
$62,500
311 S. 16th St., Richmond
Asking price: $49,900
Previously sold price: Unavailable
Size: 3 bedrooms/ 1 bathroom, 925 sq. ft.
Year built: 1958
$69,000
412 9th W. St., Pittsburg
Asking Price: $69,000
Refinanced in 2005: Valued at $242,000
Size: 3 bedrooms/ 1 bathroom, 1,594 sq. ft.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/26/BUN819BK46.DTL#ixzz0PP4qC8tx
Except the fact that most are caught via long lining (as your website also confirms) which is a proven wreckless fishing tactic, killing a variety of endangered animals and a huge waste of hundreds of thousands of bycatch every year. Chilean Seabass is not responsibly harvested and should not be purchased - end of story.
The Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute is a well known and respected institute which has no blatant politics to play or conflicting interests or like Greenpeace or the state department.
Government fisheries management have a horrible record as politics are biased over science, lack of funding for proper surveys, stocking predatory fish that endanger the native species, fish and dams, etc. There are plenty of historical precedents of their mistakes leading to the loss of entire fishing industries - Canada has had a few.
The reality is that Trader Joe is not a responsible business especially since they profiting off the green image.
Last edited:
So now you're claiming to be an aquatic sustainability expert? You called me out on the fact that my profession gives me no credibility in this field, and yet you're putting yourself out there as an expert source on this? What exactly do you do for a living?
The MBARI report is also from 2006, and the US State Dept notes that illegal harvesting of Chilean Sea Bass has been declining since then:
I'm not saying I eat Chilean Sea Bass that often (or at all), but boycotting TJs (who I never really saw as a leader in the whole "green" thing in the first place) over their carrying of CSB is way over the top. If nobody bought CSB from TJ, they'd stop carrying it. What the people boycotting TJ want, is for the lost revenue to FORCE TJ to stop carrying it for the people who still actually want to buy it. If you want to educate people about not eating CSB, fine. If you want push for CSB that is caught and harvested in a sustainable manner, fine. Just don't try to force a retailer to stop carrying something JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH IT. Your right to educate people about sustainable and green practices ends at the point of affecting what I can and can't buy at the local market.
Nothing is certain and they admit overfishing has been and continue to be an issue. The state department website makes it clear there is uncertainty about the illegal catch which is by nature illegal, unreported/covert, and unregulated.
Even in a US based, "well monitored" legal industry, its a safe bet to go with much easier clear cut food regulation from government right...would you like some peanuts, beef, produce, etc?
I said I trust experts over anyone else. My adviser at Cornell is a PhD in fisheries science and he focuses on marine and freshwater population dynamics and my sister is one of the founders of a non-profit sea turtle conservation organization in Costa Rica, so yeah I have heard from plenty of experts. Long lining is one of the major threats to sea turtles.
There are 14 other red list species Trader Joe sells, its not just CSB like you claim - read the report instead glance at the website:
Long lining reputation is well documented, even in the mainstream media long ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/05/science/long-line-fishing-seen-as-damaging-to-some-fish-and-to-the-albatross.html?pagewanted=all
Duke has a great reference for bycatch: http://bycatch.env.duke.edu/
Last edited:
Buy now? No thank you. I wait for the second wave (if you can call it a wave, because defaults never actully dropped, peak-trough and all that) of defaults to hit. 2010-2011 will be a isht show.
Yeah, but you going to live in Pittsburg or Richmond?
actually, as I poke more into this...
http://www.traderjoes.com/action_issues.asp
they (claim they) stopped selling Chilean Sea Bass in 2005. they also claim to sell fewer red-listed things than Wegmans...
And even Greenpeace admits that Whole Foods sells more red-label fish product than TJs...
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/traitor-joe-faq
And it's interesting to see that www.traitorjoe.com is actually *run* by Greenpeace...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/the-greenpeace-vs-trader_n_230891.html
But for some reason TJs is bad, and Wegman's and WF is good (and yes, I read Greenpeace's response to that question, and still don't understand why...).
http://www.traderjoes.com/action_issues.asp
they (claim they) stopped selling Chilean Sea Bass in 2005. they also claim to sell fewer red-listed things than Wegmans...
And even Greenpeace admits that Whole Foods sells more red-label fish product than TJs...
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/traitor-joe-faq
And it's interesting to see that www.traitorjoe.com is actually *run* by Greenpeace...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/the-greenpeace-vs-trader_n_230891.html
But for some reason TJs is bad, and Wegman's and WF is good (and yes, I read Greenpeace's response to that question, and still don't understand why...).
As a nationwide chain TJ has a lot of variation on what they carry. Variation is expected in specialty supermarket chain that operates in many regions with fresh foods like seafood. Some other claims they make have also been shown as untrue in audits about fish they no longer carry(like CSB and Ocean Quahog) or their labeling practices.
Also Traitor Joe's website has Greenpeace written all over it - in the page title, graphics, and the copyright at the bottom. I don't see your point about that? It was part of their PR campaign - many people don't read 30 page reports and just want some actionable point.
You'll see that TJ now list the MBARI as an authority and they announced a goal of working with them in the future to improve their practices (or to help people forget about the PR, it will be short term point for most people).
I forgot to post a link to the third well know organization with seafood watch information - http://www.blueocean.org/seafood/seafood-guide
I posted the link above that shows the full report for each store - again - http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press-center/reports4/carting-away-the-oceans.pdf
Also Traitor Joe's website has Greenpeace written all over it - in the page title, graphics, and the copyright at the bottom. I don't see your point about that? It was part of their PR campaign - many people don't read 30 page reports and just want some actionable point.
You'll see that TJ now list the MBARI as an authority and they announced a goal of working with them in the future to improve their practices (or to help people forget about the PR, it will be short term point for most people).
I forgot to post a link to the third well know organization with seafood watch information - http://www.blueocean.org/seafood/seafood-guide
I posted the link above that shows the full report for each store - again - http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press-center/reports4/carting-away-the-oceans.pdf
Last edited:
So... first you post that these people should give you a "freakin' break" because Chilean Sea Bass aren't even endangered. (Basically admitting you know nothing about the topic at hand)
... Then you change to the argument of "well other people are doing it too".
I know the knee-jerk "stupid hippies" response is a hard thing to overcome, and it's also hard to admit that maybe your gut reaction might've been a little stupid... but try here.
... Then you change to the argument of "well other people are doing it too".
...as if that somehow absolves you and/or Trader Joe's from thinking that there's nothing wrong with selling the stuff. Once again, how about looking into a subject, drawing your own conclusions, and then deciding on who to support? You wouldn't find yourself hop-scotching around all these half-understood arguments you're making if you actually had a reason to support one of them.
I know the knee-jerk "stupid hippies" response is a hard thing to overcome, and it's also hard to admit that maybe your gut reaction might've been a little stupid... but try here.
My knee-jerk reaction is over people trying to force corporations to follow their own personal set of morals, whether it's about TJ's and what seafood they sell, or WalMart selling edited DVDs, movie theaters only playing movies "rated by the MPAA", etc. You don't want to eat certain types of food, or watch certain movies, or go to certain sites on the internet, fine. But this isn't about that, it's about using your purchasing dollars to try to decide what companies are offering to other people. It's not enough that you're not eating/drinking/watching whatever it is you don't like, you need to ensure that nobody else is either. And instead of trying to educate the customer, you just go to the source and try to get it pulled off the shelf.
*THAT* is what I have a problem with.
So I honestly could care less that TJs is specifically offering Sea Bass or not, since I don't eat it (and don't actually shop at TJs, either). What got me annoyed is people trying to cram their own set of values/morals down other people's (corporations) throats. I do eat lots of things that Greenpeace / PETA / whoever don't approve of, and and I want to be able to make that choice. Farm raised Salmon is far more affordable than fresh, Veal is yummy, and the bacon that tastes so good probably comes from the feed lot down the street that I shudder as I drive past. But that's ok, since people aren't actually targeting those things... But when some far right organization has a boycott over something that you might actually care about or think should be available for purchase in an effort to keep other people from buying it, I wonder whether your tone would be the same... It's still some group trying to force their morals/beliefs on what you can or can't buy. THAT is what I have a problem with.
Last edited:
Nobody has a right to destroy ecosystems just because they want to - its not only you or single species - it doesn't work that way. People need to face reality, its not values or morals.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html
Selfish assholes don't have a right to do what they want, its been proven wrong again and again. Entire fishing communities have failed someone could have some short term gain at the expense of everyone.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html
Selfish assholes don't have a right to do what they want, its been proven wrong again and again. Entire fishing communities have failed someone could have some short term gain at the expense of everyone.
So people should just let retailers do whatever they want, when they want and never say a word?
When they're selling a legal product, legally? Sure! If you don't like it, push for better mandated packaging and label descriptions. Push for adding CSB, Orange Roughy and whatever else to the Fish and Wildlife's endangered species list. If long-lining is so bad, outlaw it and don't allow importation of the fish caught by it. Work to draw a line between legal and illegal, and then allow whatever is legal to be sold. This is what gets me about people on both the right AND the left. Everybody wants to determine what you should and shouldn't be allowed to buy. The right will boycott stores to keep them from selling you condoms, Plan B, pron, alcohol, cigarettes, or anything else they deem "morally unhealthy", and the left boycotts stores that try to sell you things that they deem are not ecologically friendly or sustainable whether or not the government agrees. WTF people? I make the choice to buy things or not buy things based on my own desires and morals. I don't buy Styrofoam disposable cups/plates because I don't want to add that stuff to the local landfill (and it's almost impossible to find a recycling place that will take it), but I'm not going to try to prohibit someone else from buying it. They're free to make that choice and I'm free to buy that 6-pack of yummy local microbrew that I'm sure they disapprove of.
Personal choice. Holy crap, who'd have thought it was such a novel concept...
Last edited:
The basis for laws and consumer buying patterns that influence what suppliers and sellers make/stock have always had strong social components. They are not merely many people making up their mind on their own - its never been and never will be merely an isolated personal choice.
Science is factual, reality based. Its not arbitrary/specious religious/legal/political/moral beliefs, you know with concrete well supported objective evidence. Belief is not merely enough for science which is the key difference.
The fish issues aren't simple, cheap, and/or in a single contained, isolated jurisdictions - fishing is a classic commons type issue. Its often the case things are too far along or even expired before a complex problem is apparent to the masses (or even experts) and action can be taken - its a well established in the history of our country with numerous species and ecosystems that have been irrevocably damaged or lost (or other commons type issues like the financial system). Proactive management by way of true science based policy is the only way to avoid the mistakes of the past. The past has well established that personal choice by the masses does not work.
Science is factual, reality based. Its not arbitrary/specious religious/legal/political/moral beliefs, you know with concrete well supported objective evidence. Belief is not merely enough for science which is the key difference.
The fish issues aren't simple, cheap, and/or in a single contained, isolated jurisdictions - fishing is a classic commons type issue. Its often the case things are too far along or even expired before a complex problem is apparent to the masses (or even experts) and action can be taken - its a well established in the history of our country with numerous species and ecosystems that have been irrevocably damaged or lost (or other commons type issues like the financial system). Proactive management by way of true science based policy is the only way to avoid the mistakes of the past. The past has well established that personal choice by the masses does not work.
Last edited:
That's a pathetic and shallow point of view that clearly lacks any semblance of perspective, and completely ignores all ethical considerations. If it were still legal to dump motor oil into the creek behind your house, you would be fine with people out there doing it because it's their "personal choice" ?
As Syadasti has alluded to, management and legislation, regarding the harvesting of the ocean's resources are subject to the same collusion, lobbying, bribery, etc. as any other industry... so again, just because something's legal doesn't make it right. Trader Joe's has apparently "seen the light" on this particular issue... why can't you?
Uh, you're making my point for me... It's NOT legal to dump motor oil into the creek behind my house. It was determined that it caused horrible ecological issues, and it was banned. Also, it used to be legal in my neighborhood to burn leaves in the fall. This was causing air-quality problems, so instead of trying to shame people into not doing it, they went to the city council and got an ordinance passed to prohibit the burning of leaves. Voila, democracy at work. The US FWS currently lists 2,000 animal and plant species as endangered in the US, and ~600 internationally. Trafficking in specific animal parts is a crime, and strictly followed. The laws regarding salmon fishing are working so well that even the MBA feels that it's the most sustainable way to harvest fish. Why exactly is it wrong to work through governmental channels?
TJs made a business decision to avoid huge losses. So far WalMart hasn't done the same with regards to Plan B (which I've noticed you've avoided addressing), but who knows if they'll take a second look at their finances and profits and decide to kowtow to a group that you don't agree with. Boycotting to get items pulled from the shelves is only good when it's something you're personally opposed to.
The science is there, it has nothing to do with personal opposition. BurlyShirley, my adviser, Monterey Bay, and the Blue Ocean are experts - the government turns to them, not themselves. The US government (Fish and Game, US Forest Serice, etc) has a horrendous record when it comes to management and protection. Government fisheries management around dams in the West have a horrible record and spend big for little to no results to reverse the trends on the species they protect. The ESA has very few positive results too, reliance on it shows your complete ignorance to the past and present of species in America.
To be fair, I mainly deal with freshwater, rare, non-game fish that aren't subject to the same kinds of pressure as something like Chilean Seabass, but you're right... that ultimately the scientists doing these types of studies are the people you should turn to, to inform yourself on an issue like this.
Dante, as has been mentioned, and as you keep ignoring, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. The data is there and the experts have spoken.
Exactly. The ESA is almost exclusively a reactive bit of legislation, because, so far as I know, a species has to have declined to the point of deserving federal listing and protection before the ESA mitigations can be applied. So... Dante thinks the right thing is to just exploit the hell out a species until the government has to pay big bucks to try and revive it?
Are you honestly this dense? It has been deterimined, just the same, that longlining, overharvest of chilean seabass, by-catch of endangered species, etc. is causing "horrible ecological issues" as well. So, because it isn't banned, you're fine with it?
Pathetic.
And Im sure the pro-leaf burning lobby in your neighborhood carries the same weight as all these commercial fishing enterprises and retailers who lobby and support legislators who push for higher harvest quotas in their favor.
Because, first of all, these fish aren't being taken in US waters, so we don't necessarily have the ability to legislate quotas in the same ways. Duh! And secondly, the fish aren't even endangered "yet" so they have no real standing to deal with Chilean seabass directly using the ESA, so far as I know.
And finally, as has been mentioned ad nauseum, the government "channels" are obviously corrupt.
Or... something that helps the planet/humanity overall.
Oh, BTW Dante, don't you find it a little ironic how you're fine with people making "personal choices" in this thread, so long as what they do is legal.... and boycotting itself is a perfectly legal activity?
Voila, democracy at work.
Voila, democracy at work.
And just because you are morally opposed to something doesn't automatically make it wrong, either. If you were going to try to claim GWB's FWS did a piss-poor job at protecting endangered species, fine. But are you really telling me that with a Democrat Congress, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President that you couldn't get something passed to protect some of these species? We currently protect almost 3,000 species around the world, and yet getting these 17 on the red list would be impossible why? If there's such overwhelming evidence, it should be relatively easy...
And when the right wing activists point to the science that notes Plan B / contraception prevents a fertilized egg from implanting itself into the uterine wall, then what? You think that they have a right to force a company to pull a product off the shelves (which actually did happen at WalMart until a MA court forced them to carry it)?
I've admitted that I'm not an expert. I can point to certain experts testimony along with flaws in other reports (such as MB's report not being updated since 2006 for example), but at the end of the day I'm going to make up my own mind as to what I'm going to eat and I don't want some non-governmental organization (or people on here) making that choice for me. MB doesn't like farm-raised salmon, but fresh-caught is ~$8/pound more expensive (from $6 to $14/pound, last I can remember). Peta doesn't like veal due to how the calves are raised, but it's yummy and reasonably priced. Pigs are generally raised in disgusting conditions with horrible ecological impact, but I'd be pissed if outside groups boycotted the local deli to get the bacon and pork-grillers taken off the menu. I would much prefer that the government step in and institute agriculture controls, regulation, minimum living space, etc. as opposed to it being completely taken away.
Right. So this aspect of FWS doesn't exist?
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/international/index.html
Last I checked, it wasn't determined "just the same"... that's my whole point. One's legal and one's not. One's sanctioned by the US Gov't and 25 nations, and the other will get my neighbor a huge fine and remediation costs.
Oh god, you really, REALLY don't get it do you? Anybody can claim that their cause will "help the planet and humanity overall", from PETA to the Westboro Baptist Church to the Shakers, although the last one might be a bit of a stretch as far as humanity lasting beyond this generation. I'm relying on the US Government to protect me from those wackjobs or I'd be eating grain and tofu and building furniture for a living. Yes, there are fishing lobbies since people actively want to eat fish. There are feedlots because people want to eat meat. I'm relying on the government to weigh the desire to eat fish against the ecological impact. Do they get it right every time? No. Is there another organization that I'd trust to make my food choices for me? No.
What about that says we have the ability to determine ours and every other country involved quotas in the same way? If you think you got me on something here, you're a retard.
Once again, the people who determine what's ecologically significant are not government entities, they're scientists. Whether or not the government chooses to heed such advice is really insignificant as to whether damage is being done.
So you admit they get it wrong, yet see no reason to be personally acountable for the health of the planet. Got it.
I think this debate's dead. You're just selfish.
For anyone who cares, an excellent book about the past and present state of the various US ecosystems, check out The Condor's Shadow: The Loss and Recovery of Wildlife in America
Amazon said:
Speaking of Peter Mathiessen, check out "The Snow Leopard" sometime.
Bolded for you, since you apparently didn't even bother to read the piece. It determines quotas for importing into or exporting out of the US... As for determining other countries quota's, how did that get involved? You think the TJ boycott will determine what Argentina catches and eats?
And you're right, this discussion is pointless since you can't seem to put forth a valid argument without descending into personal attacks and name-calling. I hope it makes you feel better.
Once again, you fail to see the big picture. What we determine is good for US needs, has an overall effect on total catch. We can't police the world of course, so your pointing out that the USFWS sets our own quotas is only a piece of the puzzle. As I said, it's not the same as in US waters, where we can control exactly what gets taken (to some extent anyway). We ADD TO THE PROBLEM.
Yes, economic sanctions in various forms are an often used strategy by many organizations and governments for a variety reasons...
Moral issues like birth control and science does not work as an analogy because we can definitively say when a mass of cells has developed into a conscious viable person. Just because some believes something is wrong/murder/etc does not make it so and we can prove that with concrete evidence based authority. Again, science is factual, not merely an arbitrary belief being pushing on personal issues. The sale of pill is moral issue based in insular beliefs, not science.
Everyone agrees on the physical timeline for human development, but even a definition as simple as when conception occurs is up for debate (whether it's when the zygote is formed or when it is implanted into the uterine wall. With the former Plan B is an abortificiant and the latter it's contraception). Try telling a right-winger that their anti-abortion view isn't based in science and you'll get more than an earful of information (and what they claim is science and facts). It still comes down to an organization trying to control what you eat, consume, buy, etc. You might think that their science is utter nonsense, and they'll think that your experts and research is nothing but left-wing gibberish.
As I said earlier, that's why I have the government to set a defined and legal limit on what other people can and can't do. I'll adjust my own behavior based on my morals and beliefs (and taste buds), but I don't think that I should be telling someone else what they *shouldn't* do any more than they can tell me what I should or shouldn't do. If my neighbor wants to eat Chilean Sea Bass with Orange Roughy and BBQ'd Quohog sprinkled on top... ok. I'm not going to eat it, but I'm also not going to protest in front of the store where he bought it to try to get them to stop selling it. Now if he's importing ivory figurines and clubbed baby seals, then he's getting reported to the authorities. Nice, simple, easily defined.
As BS has pointed out again and again a strict legal stance on issues is severely flawed. The government is almost never an expert on most of the issues they rule on and the past and present shows a clear record of it. Even an relatively easy "ecosystem" like Internet or other technological issues they are severely behind and/or completely ignorant on the issues.
Fisheries problems are obvious facts and you are just being a selfish ignorant fool if you ignore them, it has nothing to do with pushing subjective beliefs - its objective reality. Your choices are not yours alone in the issue just cause you want to ignore reality until the government says so.
Fisheries problems are obvious facts and you are just being a selfish ignorant fool if you ignore them, it has nothing to do with pushing subjective beliefs - its objective reality. Your choices are not yours alone in the issue just cause you want to ignore reality until the government says so.
Last edited:
Yes, using a strict legal stance on issues is severely flawed. However, it's the only one that I'll use when trying to tell someone else what they can or can't eat/drink/buy. Anything more and you become a hypocrite when decrying other boycotts (to get a product pulled) that you may not agree with. If that somehow makes me a selfish, ignorant fool, oh well. I've been called worse.
Last edited:
Scientific evidence from expert trumps all arbitrary beliefs from non-experts in fisheries (and other) related problems.
I think now is a good time to take it to the PM's as all three of you are saying your same points over and over again without getting anywhere.
I don't have time to continue this on PM, I'm going to be late to my clubbed baby seal and baby puffin BBQ.
AND, add to the fact that no one ever proves anyone wrong here.