Chipotle's Response

I signed an online petition for Chipotle to sign an agreement with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW). Here is their thoughtful response:

We’ve never believed that you need to have a contract to do the right thing.

At Chipotle, we’ve built our business on doing what we believe is right. We have a decade-long track record of working to improve the nation’s food supply by choosing like-minded suppliers who share our belief in raising animals and growing vegetables in ways that demonstrate respect for people, animals and the environment. When we can’t find such arrangements, we use our purchasing power to influence change among those who are willing to work with us.

Most recently, this led us to negotiate a pact with East Coast Farms, one of Florida’s largest and most reputable tomato growers, in order to pay a penny a pound more for the tomatoes we buy. This additional money will be paid directly to the workers who pick our tomatoes. That might not seem like much, but it is substantial. Workers are paid a set amount for every pound of tomatoes they pick. Over just one hour, a worker typically gathers several hundred pounds of tomatoes, such that this price difference effectively amounts to a wage hike of nearly 70% for the average worker who picks our tomatoes.

But evidence of our commitment goes well beyond that. Today, Chipotle serves more naturally raised meat (from animals that are raised in a humane way, never given antibiotics or added hormones, and fed a pure vegetarian diet) than any other restaurant company. We are also the only national restaurant company to commit to serving significant amounts of organic or locally grown produce, and the first to move to dairy products made with milk from cows that are not treated with the synthetic hormone rBGH. These decisions have come at a price. In fact, Chipotle has the highest food cost in the industry because of our commitment to serving food made with ingredients from more sustainable sources.

We’ve done all of this without contracts binding us to one agenda or another, instead working to find or create opportunities to make positive changes, and pursuing those opportunities to the best of our abilities.

This most recent progress comes after months of working with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), whose campaign to improve wages and working conditions for farm workers who pick tomatoes in Florida prompted an organized effort by the Florida tomato industry to block fulfillment of similar agreements between the CIW and other large tomato buyers. By working directly with the grower, we have found an alternative that allows us to have an immediate and positive impact on the lives of people who pick tomatoes for us.

We will continue in our quest to provide Food With Integrity, always looking for suppliers who share our belief in producing food in ways that demonstrates respect for workers, animals, and the environment. And we will continue to use our purchasing power to push for change when we cannot find suitable alternatives.

-Chipotle

Chipotle Mexican Grill, 1401 Wynkoop #500, Denver, CO 80202

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) has a post today indicating their praise and appreciation for East Coast Growers and Packers and the additional penny per pound approach.

I will eat a Chipotle burrito for lunch today and keep eating at Chipotle. And I'm even more irritated with Chick-fil-A's lack of response to my questions.

Et tu, Chipotle?

I recently wrote about my reactions to Food Inc and new decisions about eating choices and behavior. Part of the change includes eating more at Chipotle (which sponsored Food Inc.). Now I have read an article about Chipotle's apparent unwillingness to work with the Florida-based Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) toward improving working conditions for migrant workers. I joked with one of my friends that since I have seen Food Inc. but have not seen The Cove, the only food I can eat is dolphin ;-)

Why is it so hard to identify a meal that ultimately doesn't harm someone or some animal?

Life Inc.

Note: I was not aware of Douglas Rushkoff's book "Life Inc" when I originally wrote this blog post.

I have changed my eating habits since watching Food Inc. I am eating less meat and more vegetables and fruits. I'm eating more food from the local farmers' market and less "food" from fast food chains including Chick-fil-A (more on this below). I'm trying to eat at restaurants that clearly indicate their food is locally produced or organically grown.

If you are considering whether to watch Food Inc., ask yourself first: Do you want the red pill or the blue pill?

Initially I thought Food Inc. was unfocused. The movie covers a tremendous number of topics ranging from food safety, inhumane treatment of animals, the marginalization (elimination?) of the family-owned farm, and the lack of support from political leaders to pass bills that would provide greater oversight. The overriding theme connecting these rather disturbing dots is the industrialization of food production. Michael Pollan has wisely suggested "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." He's also noted that it has become increasingly difficult to do so in his latest book "In Defense of Food."

Ultimately, the most powerful message of Food Inc. has nothing to do with food. It has to do with choice--or the lack thereof.

The reason I chose "Decide" as the title of this blog relates to one of my favorite scenes from the Lord of the Rings when Gandalf states "all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us." In this day and age, it seems we should add "as long as corporations allow us."

Food Inc. portrays an unnerving integrated sequence of actions by corporations and an associated campaign of misinformation or lack of information that make it difficult, if not impossible, to understand the impact of our food consumption. By switching to soy milk in an effort to make better choices, it seems quite likely that I'm consuming genetically modified soybeans and lining the pockets of Monsanto Inc.

This sobering vision of food in the United States resonates with other areas of our lives. In the famous scene from The Matrix featuring the red pill and the blue pill, Neo declares that he does not believe in fate because he doesn't like the idea that he's not in control of his life. In The Matrix Reloaded, Merovingian relishes the moment when he declares "choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without."

Frank Rich expressed this sentiment in a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times:

"What disturbs Americans of all ideological persuasions is the fear that almost everything, not just government, is fixed or manipulated by some powerful hidden hand, from commercial transactions as trivial as the sales of prime concert tickets to cultural forces as pervasive as the news media."

Indeed, it would seem that the invisible hand of the market has moved from guiding us to slapping us.

In their insightful and fascinating book "Nudge" Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein discuss the concept of choice architecture and its influence on our decisions: "A choice architect has the responsibility for organizing the context in which people make decisions. A crucial parallel is that there is no such thing as 'neutral' design." Thaler and Sunstein specifically point out that they are not espousing a form of paternalism that drives people to a predefined choice, but rather to architect our lives such that we can make informed choices. Sadly, Food Inc. provides ample evidence that our government (regardless of red or blue state persuasion), rather than acting as a choice architect on our behalf, is often part of the problem.

My personal experience with Chick-fil-A offers interesting food for thought. I have enjoyed Chick-fil-A ever since I was a child growing up in North Carolina. One of the simple pleasures from my childhood was going to the mall with my brother and eating Chick-fil-A. This might not seem like much, but it undoubtedly reinforces my desire to eat Chick-fil-A today. About a year ago, I had contacted Chick-fil-A in response to watching a PETA video demonstrating Kentucky Fried Chicken's suppliers' horrific practices. Chick-fil-A promptly sent me a response indicating that they took this issue very seriously and worked with the USDA to define a set of best practices for humane treatment of chickens.

I continued to eat Chick-fil-A.

After watching Food Inc. I contacted Chick-fil-A again, this time asking them about the production process of their suppliers (mentioning Food Inc. particularly). Once again, Chick-fil-A responded with a prompt, friendly response pointing me to the same USDA website. Having seen from Food Inc. how toothless the USDA can be with enforcement, I decided to pursue this matter further.

Chick-fil-A is a privately held company so it's even harder to discover information about their practices. Thanks to Wikipedia, I discovered that Wayne Farms LLC is one of Chick-fil-A's suppliers. Wayne Farms LLC website highlights their commitment to family values, safe working environments, etc. They apparently even have an audit process to ensure their network "meet the high product quality and safety standards required by Wayne Farms." As I looked around their website, it became clear to me that the site was full of such wonderful statements and claims--and absolutely little or no specific information. What are these "high product quality standards required by Wayne Farms"? I followed up with Chick-fil-A.

Enclosed below is the email exchange between me and Chick-fil-A:

Dear Mr. Choudhury:

Thank you again for taking the time to contact Chick-fil-A. Chick-fil-A is proud to have many long-standing business relationships with our chicken suppliers.

At this point-in-time, we have several suppliers which have plants in the South, Southeast, and Southwest. All of our chicken comes from chickens that are processed under the continuous USDA inspection program (please visit the following website for additional information: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Chicken_Food_Safety_Focus/index.asp).

We regularly visit our chicken supplier facilities, making sure they are reaching our high level of quality requirements. If you are concerned about a particular chicken company and would like to know if they are one of Chick-fil-A’s suppliers, kindly provide us with the company name and your concerns. If they are indeed a supplier, we will be happy to review your concerns or forward your comments to the appropriate parties.

Again, thank you for your time and interest in Chick-fil-A.

Sincerely,

[name removed]
Chick-fil-A CARES
Chick-fil-A...We Didn't Invent The Chicken,
Just The Chicken Sandwich.
On the Web at www.chick-fil-a.com

P.S. Please retain your Thread ID in the message body. This will help us locate your information should you need us again.

[THREAD ID:1-FO5N9E]

------

Hello,

Thanks for this response. Please call me Sayeed. It's good to know Chick-fil-a has its own set of high level of quality requirements for its suppliers. I would love to hear more about these internal requirements. Could you please tell me if any of the following companies are amongst your suppliers and how they match up against your internal set of quality requirements:

Wayne Farms
Pilgrim's Pride
Sanderson Farms
Tyson Foods

Thanks again.

Sayeed

------

Despite multiple follow-up messages from me, Chick-fil-A has not responded to my email. My last message to them clearly stated that I was speculating whether they were ignoring me on purpose or trying to hide information. I told them that every time I felt the urge to eat at Chick-fil-A, I would eat at Chipotle instead (full disclosure: Chipotle is one the sponsors of Food Inc.).

I have stopped eating at Chick-fil-A.

The family farm depicted in Food Inc. as the counterexample to industrial food production is Polyface Inc. I am struck by the number of times we see the letters "Inc" or "LLC" following a name. Initially I was put off by the "Inc." following Polyface. Then I went back to first principles. Incorporated is a legal term, but its first definition is: characterized by unity, being or joined into a single entity; 'presenting a united front'.

My single decision will mean nothing to a large corporation like Chick-fil-A. But what if we combined our decisions? What if Life Inc. didn't refer to the industrialization of everything in our lives, but rather each of us presenting a united front and demanding information and choice?

Cheese Flavored Coke

I've returned from a business trip and brief vacation in Europe. I'm struck by how people in Europe gather in common spaces such as parks for conversation or walks, rather than in shopping malls for consumption. There are more bicycles than people in the Netherlands. People in Europe don't seem to be out to prove something. In the song, What About Everything? the group Carbon Leaf sings about being "in search of some rest, in search of a break. From a life of tests where something's always at stake." Granted, it took Europe a long time to reach this point, and there's quite a bit of damage to others in their history, but even throughout their heyday, there was always the need to learn another language, observe another culture, and experience someone else's food. Someone else's real food.

The US is beginning to actively engage in reflection and conversation about food. Michael Pollan has written The Omnivore's Dilemma, which examines the "lineage" of four meals. It's disturbing, but not surprising, that it's almost impossible to determine the natural history of a happy meal from McDonald's. I'm sure the cows processed in the industrial production chain of McDonald's aren't too happy about those meals. The single point of failure with industrial food production has also resulted in a vulnerability or dependency that can affect large numbers of people or our furry friends. Think of the fast food restaurant problems with vegetables, or the pet food recall that's taking place right now.

Pollan recently wrote an article in the New York Times Magazine ("Unhappy Meals"). He describes an interesting journey in the US of the fascination, even obsession, with micro-nutrients. This view has culminated in the belief that if one can manage to eat the ideal combination and proportion of vitamins, minerals, and avoid the bad stuff like saturated fat, then, voila, one can become healthy. He offers a persuasive argument to eat real food, focusing on natural ingredients because, well, perhaps nature does know best. Or perhaps our adaption to nature over time has resulted in cuisines that actually acknowledge the best balance of local ingredients and our nutritional needs. Pollan begins his article with the following advice: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Our (and I include myself in this) reluctance to follow this simple, yet powerful, advice has been fueled by the industrialization of food. As we have moved away from real food, we have correspondingly missed the taste of real food. There's an entire industry associated with artificial flavors. I find it disconcerting that I can close my eyes, smell something from a test tube, and imagine a bacon cheeseburger. Artificial flavors seem to found their true calling with sodas (or soft drinks or pop if you prefer). Just think about the number of variants of Coke. What started out as "new Coke" has now resulted in so many varieties of Coke that perhaps we've overwhelmed ourselves with choices (why is it that there are so many close associations of the words "choice" and "dilemma"?).

My wife has also noted that cheesification of food. There seems to be cheese generously applied to all types of food. Perhaps this happened during the Atkins Diet craze, or perhaps it's an attempt to surpass corn-based derivatives as the "natural" food flavoring additive. I'm sure if cheese can be added to enough food products, the dairy industry will be very happy. So it's occurred to me that there's an obvious conclusion: the happy convergence of high fructose corn syrup and cheese.

Cheese flavored Coke.

Ask for it the next time you supersize your meal at McDonalds.

Using Toilet Paper Carefully

The memories of the 2006 World Cup have begun to fade. As the intensity of the event dissipates, I find myself remembering Argentina as the most memorable team, with team brilliance exemplified by a goal preceded by 24 passes and individual brilliance showcased by Rodriguez's goal against Mexico. While the escapism was fun, it's time to think about other matters.

I wrote earlier about my reasons for calling this blog "Decide." I have made an important decision: I am eating less.

This isn't part of a starvation diet, or a fast, or anything of the sort. I'm simply eating less food because I don't need to eat as much food. When I was in the UK for ten days, I ate less than I normally do. I didn't choose to do so. It's just harder to keep snacking and eating large quantities of food in the UK. The English and the Scots aren't the healthiest Europeans, but they eat less than folks in the US of A. And they walk much more. So, as I found myself eating less and exercising more, I asked myself why I eat so much when I'm at home.

This is something my wife has been encouraging me to do for a long time. There are moments in life when we experience an epiphany, notice with greater clarity, turn the corner, or [insert your favorite phrase here]. For my first lunch after I returned home, I ate only half of my usual sandwich. I worked out that evening as well.

Then I felt hungry. I haven't felt hungry in a long, long time.

Not the kind of hunger that's debilitating, which far too many people face all too often, but a hunger that urged me to refuel. There's something very wrong when people are hungry and don't know when and where their next meal will come from. But there's nothing wrong with a little hunger to remind you that it's time to eat. That you need to eat. I've been eating on auto-pilot for a long time. For too long. I've been eating an appetizer, a main course, often with a soda and dessert and stuffing myself to the limit for every meal. It still isn't too late for me to reverse course, but my father spent his life eating on auto-pilot and it ruined his health. I'm about eating about half as much as I used to eat and exercising more often. And I'm doing just fine. In fact, after only about a month of this change, I feel better than I have in a long time.

Everyone is reminded not to waste food. Typically, this well-meaning reminder manifests itself in eating everything on your plate. Less often it results in people ordering less food to begin with. I can sense the immediate impact on my health and well-being, but I also think about the broader impacts.

I have picked up, and put down repeatedly (remember, I've only taken a few steps along my thousand mile journey) Returning to Silence by Dainin Katagiri. The first time I started to read it, I was prepared to launch myself into Buddhist wisdom. Seeking the timeless wisdom of the Buddhist masters, I came across the phrases in the Foreward:

"We can help in many ways. Using toilet paper carefully is helping others. Don't expect helping to be a big deal. In everyday life, we can help someone or something all the time."

Even before I started reading the book proper, I put it down.

Using toilet paper carefully? I wanted to change the world!!! Since then, I have contemplated the "ripple effect" of using toilet paper carefully. Less waste, less production, less energy usage, less harm to the environment...Less is more indeed. More for others who need it much more than I do.

Bumper sticker wisdom: "Live Simply so that Others May Simply Live" (Actually, I think Gandhi said this).

Yesterday, when I ordered less than my usual amount of food for lunch, I gave back two packets of honey mustard sauce. What if everyone gave back unwanted or unused sauce, or as I will do when I've taken another step along the journey, used no sauce at all? And given the state of the world today, what if we didn't keep driving around until we found that "perfect" spot right near the entrance. What if we actually walked, or used mass transit (of course, we'd have to follow Portland's example first and build effective mass transit).

Many have stated that you can't change the world; you can only change yourself, or your place in it. As for the inertial idea that time will heal all wounds, Andy Warhol said, "They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself."