I really can’t let this stunningly misguided CNN gallery/article about shopping at Whole Foods linked from Digg.com pass without comment.  Why is it that, when evaluating something like Whole Foods, or a Toyata Prius, or whatever, these products and services are subjected to the sort of stark cost/benefit analysis that would never be used in evaluating, say, a new Porshe or a big screen T.V.?  Beyond that, the article makes some pretty bizarre assumptions about what people are shopping for, and why, when they shop at a place like Whole Foods.

The article begins with one of my all-time least favorite  rhetorical slights of hand: the condescending use of quotation marks in lieu of any actual argumentation.  It describes Whole Foods as a, “chain of ‘healthy’ supermarkets.”  Oh, SNAP!

Let’s examine this “article” further…

Again, from the article:  “But not everything at Whole Foods is all that wholesome. And buying there could cost you a lot more than at other supermarkets.”  STOP THE PRESSES!  It’s almost as if people are willing to pay more for something that they believe to be of greater worth.  Maybe I’ll pitch CNN my forthcoming article about how you can get coffee much, much cheaper than at a specialty coffee shop if you just drink the free institutional food service crap you can get for free at any office.  Geez, these “coffee shops” and their so-called “coffee!”  What a scam!

“Whole Foods offers only a limited supply of local produce.”  Uh… OK.  Has some claim been made that all of Whole Foods’ produce is local?  When there’s local stuff in season, my local store seems to have it in stock, and when there’s not, they don’t.

“Just because you are in a Whole Foods, don’t think that everything you see on the shelves is healthful.” Again, does anyone think this?

“…if Whole Foods didn’t stock at least some junk food, you’d have to make a stop at another store – burning more gas to get your chips.”   My Whole Foods has an entire isle of chips and assorted other unhealthy crap.  Is this unusual?

“..organic produce, which is grown without pesticides, costs 20 percent more on average than the store’s conventionally grown produce.”  You don’t say.  Also of note, a bottle of  2001 Hess Collection Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon costs more than a bottle of Night Train.  If you consider the greater quality of the former item worth the extra cost, you should purchase it, if not don’t.

“However, you will pay plenty for stuff you won’t find elsewhere – heirloom arugula, Icelandic low-fat yogurt and organic frozen chicken potpies.”  See above.

“The store diligently lists the ingredients that go into its meat loaf and macaroni and cheese, but it doesn’t provide nutritional information on any of its in-store prepared foods.”  Do any restaurants have to do this?  I’ve certainly never been presented with such information at say Pizza Hut.  Why is buying a piece of Pizza that was prepared at Whole Foods any different?  I believe that only pre-package/prepared foods are required to have nutritional labels, right?

“The “green” soaps and detergents may be less harmful to the environment (because they have no phosphates), but they don’t necessarily remove the dirt any better than Tide or Cascade.”  Wow, that sucks–It sounds like the only winner here is the environment! Oh, wait… I guess that’s OK.

I guess, sarcasm aside, that what I’m missing here about this article is that it seems to imply that Whole Foods is pulling the wool over its customers eyes about all this stuff, but the idea that people are willing to pay a bit more for food that’s higher quality, organic and/or responsibly produced is precisely the underlying idea behind the chain–and it’s never to my knowledge (and I shop there pretty regularly) claimed otherwise.