http://ctx.sagepub.com/Contexts

http://ctx.sagepub.com/content/13/3/32The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1536504214545757

2014 13: 32ContextsMichael A. Haedicke

World®Small Food Co-ops in a Whole Foods  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  American Sociological Association

can be found at:ContextsAdditional services and information for    

  http://ctx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://ctx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Aug 22, 2014Version of Record >>

at DRAKE UNIV on August 28, 2014ctx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at DRAKE UNIV on August 28, 2014ctx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

small food co-ops in a whole foods® world by michael a. haedicke

at DRAKE UNIV on August 28, 2014ctx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

33SUMMER 2014 contexts

Housed in a custom-built storefront in a neighborhood studded with

independently owned businesses, Pacifi c Food Co-op (a pseudonym)

cheerfully announces its devotion to organic foods with the slogan

“It’s time to eat organic!” A tidy sales fl oor, a fraction of the size of a

standard supermarket, contains a variety of fresh, frozen, and pack-

aged organic products. A small café on the upper level sells vegan

and organic cookies and cakes, as well as a changing menu of hot

organic lunch items. Flyers publicize farmers’ markets, gardening

classes, and trips to local farms.

While a casual shopper wandering the aisles might mistake

PFC for a miniature version of the natural foods superstore

Whole Foods Market, the co-op has a more progressive history

that is rooted in the efforts of a group of neighborhood activists

who wanted to disrupt the control of big businesses over the

food supply. In the 1970s, this group created a grocery-buying

club that dispatched members to local organic farms and to the

city’s wholesale market to buy food in bulk. Every week, they

gathered in a nearby public park and distributed these purchases

to the club’s members. The club provided an alternative to the

neighborhood’s high priced, non-organic supermarkets.

The buying club grew in size, and

moved into one member’s garage, and

then into a rented storefront, and fi nally,

into the larger building that the co-op now

occupies. Despite these changes, it pre-

served its focus on natural and organic

foods, as well as its goal of empower-

ing community members against big food

businesses. But now, PFC and other co-ops

face a new challenge.

PFC is one of several hundred food co-ops in the United

States that specialize in organic foods. Today, as more and more

mainstream supermarkets offer organic foods to their shoppers,

these small co-ops face growing pressure to become effi cient,

streamlined, and consumer-oriented, leaving longtime members

wondering whether this new, more competitive marketplace will

force co-ops to abandon their founding political ideals.

The co-op pioneers of the 1970s, who drew their inspira-

tion from progressive political movements, aimed not only to

farm without chemicals, but also to empower communities and

to democratize food systems. But in the 1990s, as the organic

sector experienced an infl ux of big businesses and profi t-seeking

farmers, many came to fear that market growth would “cost

organic its soul,” according to journalist Michael Pollan.

Examining how this tension plays out in organic foods

co-ops from the California coast to snowy midwestern towns

to bustling neighborhoods in the northeastern United States, I

interviewed members and staff, attended store meetings, and

examined several decades’ worth of articles from newsletters

and trade magazines. What I found is that even as co-op lead-

ers creatively adapt to market pressures and continue to draw

their customers into discussions of the food system, the rapidly

growing organic foods sector is pushing many of their idealistic

practices out the door.

from co-ops to food democracyIn recent years, many activists and academics have focused

attention on democratizing the food system in the United States,

and indeed, globally. As the scholar-activist Neva Hassanein

explains, this movement emphasizes “the idea that people can

and should be actively participating in shaping the food system,

Contexts, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 32-37. ISSN 1536-5042, electronic ISSN 1537-6052. © 2014 American Sociological Association. http://contexts.sagepub.com. DOI 10.1177/1536504214545757

Today, as more and more mainstream supermarkets offer organic foods to their shoppers, small co-ops face growing pressure to become effi cient, streamlined, and consumer-oriented.

Illustrations by Sam Grinberg

at DRAKE UNIV on August 28, 2014ctx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

34 contexts.org

rather than remaining passive spectators on the sidelines.”

In a democratic food system, according to Hassanein, food

producers and consumers would work collectively to construct

agricultural policies and deliberate about how to balance social

equity, commercial success, and environmental sustainability.

This vision has animated a range of recent social movement

organizations, from Food Democracy Now in the United States

to La Via Campesina on the international stage—and it drives

many small co-op leaders.

Activists don’t always practice the ideologies they preach, of

course. Environmental radicals drive gas-guzzling cars, structure-

less anarchist groups choose de facto leaders, and movements

devoted to social equality marginalize some of their members.

When the rubber of activist idealism meets the road of real-life

politics, outcomes can be difficult to predict. This is certainly

true of the food system.

In her incisive book Food Politics, scholar Marion Nestle

documents how the concentrated market power of a handful

of food conglomerates gives them outsized influence over food

policy, discouraging public participation. Through lobbying and

advertising, these businesses stifle open debate about the social

and environmental consequences of modern food production.

Complex food chains, divided along lines of race, class, and

gender, separate consumers and food producers.

In the 1970s, when many co-ops were created, the organic

foods sector appeared to offer a real alternative. Organic advo-

cates believed that small-scale agriculture and close relationships

between producers and consumers would be building blocks for

a regionally based, environmentally sustainable, and socially just

food system. The number of organic foods consumers was tiny

in relative terms, but as the historian Warren Belasco explains in

his book Appetite for Change, they were more politically aware

and committed to social change than mainstream shoppers.

In the 1990s, though, mainstream food conglomerates pur-

chased small organic companies, large farms invested heavily in

organic production, and retailers like Whole Foods Market came

to dominate the organic foods retail market. As geographer

Julie Guthman wrote in Agrarian Dreams, the organic sector

“replicated what it set out to oppose.” These changes raise

questions about the ability of organic advocates, including those

in co-ops, to put their values into practice.

The chart below shows how these changes affected food

co-ops. In 1991, the majority of organic foods sales occurred in

natural foods specialty stores, a category which includes co-ops.

Mainstream retailers controlled only 7 percent of the market.

Fifteen years later, the mainstream stores had begun to edge

the natural foods specialists out of the race—exacerbated by a

2006 decision by Wal-Mart, the world’s largest grocery retailer,

to sell more organic products.

The fact that the “natural foods specialists” category also

includes large chain retailers like Whole Foods means that the

actual percentage of sales that occurred in co-ops was even

smaller than that which appears in this chart. The overall volume

of organic foods sales has increased since the early 1990s, and

co-ops are selling more in absolute terms, but they have to work

harder to keep their customers.

These statistics hint at other important shifts in the organic

sector. Organic foods consumers in the sector’s early years were

often what market researchers call “true naturals.” For them,

organic foods were a way of life, tied to political engagement

in environmental and social issues. Today’s shoppers, in contrast,

are just as likely to buy organic foods to demonstrate affluence

and sophistication, protect the health of their families, and be

an ethical consumer—and they highly value a smooth, efficient

shopping experience.

democracy and efficiency In the 1970s, co-ops operated as democratic businesses,

encapsulated by the slogan, “Food For People, Not For Profit.”

Members of co-ops not only shopped at their stores, but also

helped to run them by working volunteer shifts and by voting on

store policies. Lengthy membership meetings meant that co-op

democracy was time-consuming and sometimes acrimonious.

Sam, a longtime member of PFC, recalled early debates

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 percent of total sales

Natural food specialists Direct marketing Mainstream retailers

Sales Channels for Organic Foods

Source: Carolyn Dimitri and Lydia Oberholtzer. 2009. Marketing U.S. Organic Foods: Recent Trendsfrom Farms to Consumers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service

‘91 ‘98 ‘06 ‘91 ‘98 ‘06 ‘91 ‘98 ‘06

at DRAKE UNIV on August 28, 2014ctx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

35SUMMER 2014 contexts

surrounding whether or not to carry eggs. Some vegan co-op

members didn’t want eggs in the store, so “they would get all of

their friends together and they would vote out eggs.” The next

month, someone else would organize to keep eggs in the store.

“So you had a very inconsistent base, at least for the business

world, of products going in and out.”

“To the outside world, it looked cool,” said Sam. “But

the store rarely made money.” Other co-ops experienced simi-

lar problems, which became more apparent as supermarket

competitors began to sell organic and natural foods. Co-op

customers, frustrated by meetings and debates, turned to these

new stores, and many co-ops were forced to shut their doors.

During the 1980s, co-op leaders registered growing con-

cern about this tension between commerce and democracy. A

1987 article in the co-op community’s national trade magazine,

titled “Why Co-ops Die,” decried the “withering” of the move-

ment’s democratic aspirations. The co-ops that weathered the

market changes were doing so by abandoning their democratic

practices and by parroting the commercial orientation of their

competitors, the author explained. The article concluded that

co-ops were “tied to the climate of their birth [and] may not

be designed to live beyond the needs and the visions of the

generation that conceives them.”

Today, when consumers expect organic foods marketplaces

to look and act like mainstream stores, competitive pressures

have forced co-ops to creatively adapt. In fact, I encountered

only two co-ops that still practice democratic management and

relied on members’ work to run the store,

and both were located in densely populated

neighborhoods with reputations for pro-

gressive activism. However, the remaining

co-ops still differed from mainstream stores.

While relying on professional managers and

staff, they encouraged customers to literally

take ownership of the stores. At PFC, for

example, while customers do not work in the store, they have the

opportunity to become members by purchasing a $300 share of

the business—divided into $15 annual payments.

At first glance, member ownership sounds as democratic

as purchasing a share of stock in General Mills. But as co-op

leaders see it, while members receive shopping discounts and

annual dividend checks, that is only a small part. As one manager

put it, “We are such a capitalistic society. It so dominates our

economic learning that the idea that people can pull together

and actually have a society for mutual aid is a new concept.

Ownership creates the sense that we are all in it together and

as the business thrives, we will all do better.”

The manager of another store explained that co-op invest-

ments also strengthen bonds between members and local

communities. “Democratic ownership is the main difference

between co-ops and private businesses. Our goal is not to make

money. We exist to provide services to our members and the

community. We tell customers, did you know that you could

own part of this business and that dollars that are spent here

are more likely to stay within the community?”

Member ownership helps co-op leaders negotiate between

the demands of the market and the goal of democratic change.

Although members are no longer directly involved in store

operations, managers and staff make investment meaningful

by framing membership in the language of solidarity and social

change. They encourage members to see themselves not only as

customers, but also as stakeholders in the food system. Members

vote in elections for stores’ boards of directors, or they run in

those elections themselves. Co-ops try to keep prices down by

providing members with shopping discounts. Some stores even

provide substantial discounts to members who donate their time

to nonprofits in the surrounding community.

consumerism and changeOf course, creating democratic businesses is only one part of

what co-op leaders are trying to achieve. They also want to change

the food system and raise the political consciousness of their

customers, nudging them toward activism. In their early years,

co-op leaders wore their politics on their sleeves. One manager

I spoke with recalled a time when customers who asked to buy

non-dolphin-safe canned tuna were subjected to “re-education”

by cashiers as they stood in the check-out line. Today, managers

worry that these political efforts may scare off customers.

As Charles, the manager of a co-op with four stores in

neighboring towns, put it to me, “You’ve got to be careful here.

It’s an extremely competitive market…and we don’t want to be

dictating and we don’t want to be preaching. That doesn’t help

In a democratic food system, producers and consumers would deliberate about how to balance social equity, commercial success, and environmental sustainability.

at DRAKE UNIV on August 28, 2014ctx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

us as we try to grow and broaden our appeal to more people.”

Still, managers in co-ops encourage customers to think criti-

cally about the larger food system. Nearly every co-op I visited

highlights products from local organic foods producers, and

several have explicit goals for the percentage of locally-produced

products they stock. Charles’ co-op even invests in a refriger-

ated truck and a driver to travel to small, organic farms within

the region to pick up produce for the store. Customers often

appreciate the opportunity to support independent farmers and

small businesses, he explained.

Co-op managers also pull products from their shelves if

manufacturers engage in socially or environmentally harmful

practices. When they learned that one organic dairy company,

Horizon, raised some of its cows on factory-like farms, some

managers stopped carrying Horizon products. They did so cau-

tiously, allowing customers to special-order

the products if they wanted to, but they also

let customers know why the products were

no longer available.

Some co-ops combine this merchan-

dise “gatekeeping” with educational

efforts designed to help members under-

stand the benefits of a decentralized,

regionally organized food system. They

write articles in store newsletters, screen

films and host speakers that address concerns with the main-

stream food system, and organize visits to local organic farms

that foster critical conversations about the food system.

While describing her store’s support of an educational pro-

gram that brings middle school students to an organic farm for

a day, one manager explained, “These are the future decision

makers about food and what is healthy, and if all they hear about

is Coke and fast food, if that is what they are surrounded with,

that is what they are naturally going to be drawn to when they

start their own families. This trip helps them make wise decisions

and to understand that you need to steward the land.”

Finally, co-ops support food-related political campaigns

and encourage their members to get involved by writing letters

to political representatives, making donations, or attending

demonstrations. A number of the stores are active in state-level

political campaigns to require the labeling of genetically engi-

neered foods and also encourage members to make their voices

heard in national discussions about the content of organic food

regulations. The board of directors at PFC even voted to make

a sizeable financial donation to support a ballot measure that

would ban genetically engineered seeds from being planted

in a nearby county. But these overtly political activities were at

times perceived as risky.

As Carol, the manager of a store that had been deluged

with complaints after announcing its support for an open

space preservation campaign, explained to me, “You just don’t

know! You think something is benign and it’s not. We do have

customers walking through those doors that are probably on

every side of the issue.”

the limits of co-op democracyThrough member ownership and political activities, the

leaders of organic foods co-ops strive to promote a democratic,

environmentally sustainable, and socially just food system. Talk of

democracy in co-ops is more than just clever marketing rhetoric.

In spite of the pressures of a changing organic foods market-

place, co-op members and staff devise strategies to challenge

36 contexts.org

Creative individuals are finding ways to encourage critical thinking and collective action around food, even as they operate in a system that provides precious little support for these activities.

at DRAKE UNIV on August 28, 2014ctx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

37SUMMER 2014 contexts

consumerist individualism and engage their customers in critical

discussions about the structure of the contemporary food industry.

The upshot of this research is that changing food systems is

not an all-or-nothing project. Determined and creative individuals

in the co-ops I visited are finding ways to encourage critical think-

ing and collective action around food, even as they operate in a

system that provides precious little support for these activities.

But there are limits to what co-ops can do. As the manager

of PFC said ruefully, “I happen to be rabidly political, personally…

but I try to not take advantage of the store’s resources to work

my particular bias.” When the store has food that is going out

of date, she makes sure that it is delivered to local charities and

food banks. She also asks herself: “why do we have growing

poverty?” But since talking about poverty as a political prob-

lem would alienate the store’s more affluent and conservative

customers, she and other managers focus on issues on which

there is a broad consensus.

We might well ask how robust the democratic conversation

can be when some issues, such as poverty and social inequality,

are off limits. The reality is that because they are small players

in a rapidly growing market, these co-ops’ ability to set the

political agenda is limited. Many of their customers also shop at

larger grocery stores and expect that co-ops will offer a similar,

customer-centered experience. If they wish to stay in business,

co-ops must be extremely cautious about how they meet cus-

tomer expectations.

Still, as they struggle to maintain their market niche in a

growing organic market, co-op leaders are creatively pushing

the boundaries, keeping the vision of food democracy alive.

recommended resourcesBelasco, Warren J. Appetite for Change: How The Counterculture Took on the Food Industry (Pantheon, 1989). A landmark exami-nation of the entwining of organic farming and social activism in the organic sector’s early years.

Hassanein, Neva. “Practising Food Democracy: A Pragmatic Politics of Transformation,” Journal of Rural Studies 19:77-86. A thoughtful discussion of various approaches to creating demo-cratic change in the food system.

Johnston, Josée. 2008. “The Citizen-Consumer Hybrid: Ideologi-cal Tensions and the Case of Whole Foods Market,” Theory and Society (2003), 37: 229-270. A provocative examination of how the world’s largest organic foods grocery chain attempts to blend the ideas of consumer satisfaction and social change. Provides useful context for understanding co-op strategies.

Knupfer, Anne Meis. Food Co-ops in America: Communities, Consumption, and Economic Democracy (Cornell University Press, 2013). This historical study examines the ideals and prac-tices of food co-ops and compares co-ops that emerged in the early twentieth century with several that were created in the 1960s and 1970s.

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (Penguin Press, 2006). An engaging journalistic account of features of the organic and conventional food systems and their implications for health, culture, and the environment.

Zukin, Sharon. “Consuming Authenticity,” Cultural Studies (2008), 22(5): 724-748. Analyzes the cultural connections between organic foods, upper-middle-class consumption patterns, and neighborhood gentrification. Helps to illuminate the desires and expectations of many contemporary organic foods shoppers.

Michael A. Haedicke is a sociologist in the Department for the Study of Culture

and Society at Drake University. He studies alternative food and farming initiatives,

including the organic foods sector, with a special focus on environmental sustain-

ability and social justice.

at DRAKE UNIV on August 28, 2014ctx.sagepub.comDownloaded from