Despicable
In reference to “Whole Foods Markup” and “Save-A-Lot Salvation” [Fall 2007], I found both articles despicable and way off the wall. I am not trying to push Whole Foods on anyone. The store speaks for itself. It is an amazing store. It makes shopping fun. They care about all their products. I can trust them and they do have sales on things.
The ambience is fantastic. I never saw anything like this anywhere. When you go to Hannaford, the feeling is dead now. No one seems to really know their stuff and you do not know if you can trust any of their food. They are now trying to carry organic stuff, but the personal touch is just not there. If feels like a corporation.
Whole Foods’ standards are so high that they will not even carry all the food Wild Oats approved of. I know, I asked.
Finally, the thing that really was way off the wall was to compare Whole Foods to Save-a-Lot! Wow — that is incredible. That place is the worst place I have ever seen. It is virtually all canned stuff with tons of salt, processed food, with no regard or care about health. You have no idea where the food comes from and the energy in that store is from a mortuary.
How could Mr. Barowitz even write this up? Does he even know what good food is all about? I doubt it. In every instance the comparison is absurd. Corn syrup is okay now? If he had used Hannaford, maybe that would make more sense.
Every store in town has their own specialty, and I go to all of them: Standard Baking Company for their marvelous breads, nowhere else; Micucci’s for some cheeses (and now also for the fabulous baker of Sophia’s fame); and, of course, sometimes I still go to Hannaford for their wonderful section of Vietnamese vegetables that no one else seems to carry. But I tend to go to Whole Foods for all my items now. They have all the good brands, and their own 365 brand is fabulous too, and cheap.
Sorry about my outbursts here, but I felt knocked over by the stupidity of those two articles. Wow.
— Charles Rotmil, Portland
Disappointed
So many of my friends kept telling me about The Bollard, I finally picked up a copy. What was my first impression? “Wow, they are not being financed by back pages full of prostitution ads. That’s a refreshing change.”
But then I read the Hooters article [“Who Needs Hooters?” Fall 2007]. There are so many things wrong with
that, I almost didn’t even bother to write (as in “if you don’t know, there’s no point in my telling you”). But let me start with just one simple fact: It is obvious from the article that you understand that these women are hired not just to wait tables, but to provide a form of entertainment— “ogling,” as your writer invites Bollard readers (presumed to be males and lesbians?) to do.
Okay, think about that: sexual harassment is unwanted sexual attention, and it’s a criminal act. Why? Because it harms, and those harms have been documented. But here’s the problem: If these women are hired to wait tables, but they are really hired to be ogled, then how could they claim sexual harassment? If their uniform is designed to reveal cleavage and barely cover their butts, might they not become confused about whether or not they are “asking for it” when comments or unwanted touching occurs? Who could take it seriously if a “Hooters girl” was complaining about chronic, unwanted sexual attention in the workplace? How could it be unwanted if she applied for the job? And what exactly is she getting tipped for? Prompt service? Stroking male egos? Participating in a voyeuristic scene? Definitely the latter when your writer was interviewing them.
I notice that these women were referred to as “girls” in the article. I don’t remember the writer ever calling them women. If this is such a dandy job/career, why doesn’t your writer grant them adult status?
I also notice you only give their first names in the photos. In every other story about people, their full names are given. Did you just give their first names because you consider them not worthy of identifying? Maybe it’s not so sexy if these women have actual last names like real human beings. If they’re just Suzy or April, isn’t it somehow more sexy? If they are providing such a valuable service as to warrant this article, then why not put their last names in the paper? Or did you do it to protect “the girls”?
And protect them from what, exactly? Surely not unwanted sexual attention. After all, isn’t that what The Bollard is promoting? Could it be that your writer is aware that publicizing and promoting the willing or coerced sex-object status of women in this culture leads to stalking, rape, and murder? Or did they request it? And if they did, did you ever think to ask them why? Now, that would be a subject worthy of investigative journalism.
You did such a great piece on what is behind the deceptive merchandizing/packaging at Whole Foods. How could you overlook the far more insidious merchandizing/packaging that goes on when young women are hired ostensibly to do a job, but when the real service they are providing is allowing themselves to be sexually objectified?
— Carolyn Gage, Portland
Devastating
Ever since Whole Foods built their super-Wal-Mart of “natural food” markets and began touting locality as a marketing technique, Portland’s residents have been absorbed by this ploy or left with little alternative to chain grocery stores. I’m glad to see the fundamental and ethical problems of Whole Foods being addressed by The Bollard.
For years Portland successfully maintained a level of independence from the big-boxy, corporate homogony, which is expanding to cover nearly every town in America. But our precious holdout has begun to change. Recently we have seen the loss of local businesses that were integral to Portland’s character, such as Free Street Taverna, Acoustic Coffee, the State Theatre, The Skinny (which struggles to find space to reopen in), and Casco Bay Books. In turn, we have new neighbors — Wild Oats, Whole Foods, Lowe’s, and another Starbucks — as well as condominiums and potential private waterfront development.
Do these decisions represent the priorities and values of Portland citizens? It’s my belief that there are few, if any, positive, long-term effects of big businesses like Whole Foods, and I’m dismayed at the ease with which they were able to move in and monopolize the local, natural grocery market. No matter how many jobs it may create in the short term, the jobs, culture, power and community that it takes away from us in the long term is much more devastating.
For the average Portlander, there is no feasible alternative to the massive chain grocery stores. And for the conscious consumer who is educated about the realities of locality, sustainability, and industrial-organic standards, food shopping in Portland requires a compromise of ethics.
Why should it be hard to have the options to make choices we want? I don’t want food shipped from across the country. I want food without pesticides (and this does not include the lax standards under the label “usda Organic”), and I don’t want to pay high prices that contribute to the excessive profits of a corporation based in Texas, or anywhere else.
This is not much to ask. Why shouldn’t it be a reality?
— Sarah Morrill, Portland
