One of the odd results of the national healthcare debate has been a vociferous boycott of Whole Foods. The boycott was organized after Whole Foods CEO John Mackey wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing that what America needed was not more government control of healthcare, but less. While a few of the eight reforms he suggested were actually not unreasonable (reforming Medicare, making costs transparent), what riled up proponents of the public option were remarks like this:

A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America.

While not untrue, many Whole Foods loyalists found his rhetoric far too right-wing for their tastes. It didn’t help that he started the piece with a quote from Margaret Thatcher regarding the cost of socialism, and suggested that much of the costs of health care could be managed if people simply lead healthy lifestyles.

One day after the op-ed ran, the Boycott Whole Foods group emerged on Facebook, with links to flyers urging people to join the boycott:

John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, recently wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal stating that it is your own responsibility to stay healthy and the problems of our health care crisis should be left to the insurance companies unregulated.

Today that Facebook group has 32,069 members. Many of those members may be surprised to know that Michael Pollan, anti corporate food firebrand and author of Omnivore’s Dilemma, is not among them. In a short piece yesterday, Pollan laid out the reasons why he is not supporting the Whole Foods boycott.

So why not boycott? Pollan suggests that if a successful boycott were to put Whole Foods out of business, the push for sustainable, humane, and healthy food would be seriously hampered.

Whole Foods is not perfect, however if they were to disappear, the cause of improving Americans’ health by building an alternative food system, based on more fresh food, pastured and humanely raised meats and sustainable agriculture, would suffer.

Pollan argues that yes, healthcare reform can only help create a healthier food system. He suggests that when insurance companies can no longer kick people off the roles, they’ll take a bigger interest in working to ensure their clients eat healthy, local food. So why support the company of a man who is against healthcare reform?

So Mackey is wrong on health care, but Whole Foods is often right about food, and their support for the farmers matters more to me than the political views of their founder. I haven’t examined the political views of all the retailers who feed me, but I can imagine having a lot of eating problems if I make them a litmus test.

I’m a big fan of Pollan, not so much of Whole Foods (for various reasons). I don’t shop at Whole Foods because I much prefer to give my money to a local company. I wonder, though, are there any Blogtownies boycotting Whole Foods because of Mackey's politics? Will Pollan’s remarks make any difference?