Food Policy
Discounts of the Fittest
Pushed by iconoclastic founder John Mackey — and also by its $150 million health care bill — Whole Foods Markets has announced it will offer steep store discounts to employees with healthier lifestyles and smaller Body Mass Indices. This begs a few important questions: First, are there actually any unhealthy Whole Foods employees? Second, parenthetically, does Trader Joes have fitter employees? Third, is this initiative, which is clearly a shot across the bow of corporate America, an enlightened move by a brilliant hippie capitalst, or an offensive, possibly discriminatory maneuver by a crank libertarian?
Here's the deal: Employees who don't smoke, and also have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, and a low BMI get up to a 30% discount on their purchases. All the slacker employees still get 20% off, and the program is optional; but the whole thing is likely to rub some people the wrong way (much like the uproar over Obesity 101 at Lincoln Univesity). My thoughts: First, Whole Foods is not the first company to go this route, or even the first grocer....
Safeway CEO Steven Burd has implemented a similar program, and flogged it to whomever will listen, including the Wall Street Journal op ed page. If the company is going to pay a big part of its employees health care bills, and if discretionary employee behavior plays a significant role in those costs, then the company has the right to offer incentives toward healther living. BMI is not a perfectly fair measure, but when combined with all the other behaviors, it would seem to balance out. So, I'm behind Mackey on this one, until someone convinces me otherwise. And my main regret is that the program is limited to employees.
Email this page
Comments
"Limited to employees" is right! I wonder how this kind of incentive-for-all would affect the recent Supreme Court pro-lobby/campaign finance decision when it comes to the farm bill & all its high fructose corn syrup lobby-happy, porkbelly subsidies (and, related, the current health bill). Will there ever be another revolution, already?
/rant
Submitted by spindig on 01.27.10 at 04:42.
I think it's brilliant. We cost less tax payers' dollars, less health care costs for employers, why shouldn't we get benefits / rewards for it?
If people need more motivation to live a healthy lifestyle besides all teh obvious ones - why not?
I wish my company were more progressive.
I haven't taken a sick day in 10 years, while my colleagues miss work for sickness ALL teh time. I'd like my fair shake.
Another reason for me to love Whole Foods!
Submitted by michlny on 01.27.10 at 04:49.
I like the idea for there being incentives towards being healthier and don't think there is anything wrong with his plan. I was sort of amazed at how offended people were about this topic over on Jezebel yesterday....
Submitted by FatBottomSlim on 01.27.10 at 04:57.
This is all nice and dandy, but it punishes people who have pre-existing health conditions - you don't know that someone's diet is necessarily linked to their "low blood pressure, low cholesterol, and a low BMI" and it's crappy to punish employees who may have familial history-linked problems with high blood pressure or cholesterol. I actually know several people who are very healthy eaters and marathon runners with crap cholesterol levels (it's highly linked to ethnicity and familial history) and others who are drunks and BK addicts with great levels. It's not necessarily something you can control that easily and, frankly, it's not your employers business anyway.
Not to mention this is sort of counterintuitive - if someone has a poor diet that is causing high blood pressure, BMI and other health problems, if you are alleging to be promoting healthful behavior aren't they the ones who need help the most and can most benefit from access to cheaper, healthy food? I see a discrimination suit waiting to happen.
If he was worried about his employees health, the high deductible health plan he recently instated is awesome becuase it makes basic health care too expensive for his employees. You'd better stay healthy! You can't afford not to!
</ugh Ayn Rand obsessed Libertarians make me rant>
Submitted by erikka on 01.27.10 at 05:50.
Isn't it just as easy to say that, given the majority of people in this country are unhealthy (obese), healthy people are being unfairly punished since health care costs are ultimately passed along to all consumers?
The Lincoln U. Obesity 101 rub lives.
I think the key is incentive to try to make oneself a little healthier, relatively speaking. In mass, everybody will benefit.
Submitted by spindig on 01.28.10 at 07:45.
First of all I am an 11 year WF team member. All TM's, no matter if they have worked there for 5 days or 5 years recieve a 20% discount. So no one is being "punished" for not meeting the health screening criteria to recieve the greater discount. (one does not have to be super fit to meet some of the minimums. An average person could definately meet some of them in order to get the greater discount) The program is completely optional.
I was very excited when I heard that this program was rolling out. I, like many of my fellow TM's see it as a motivational tool. Even though I have been a TM for a long time, I am not at my healthiest right now. When we were first told about this program, i vowed that I needed to make a change in my life and this was the perfect time. (Through WF is also how I discovered SW!)
As WF team members, we are expected by customers and the general public to be very knowledgeable about health and food related issues and this program is just one way to reward those that really live the "core values" and not just show up to get a paycheck and not give anything back!
Submitted by tcmahunt on 01.27.10 at 06:42.
But BMI isn't "combined with all the other measures" -- whatever your lowest score is prompts the discount. So no matter if your blood pressure and cholesterol are great, no matter if you work out 5 times a week and eat a healthy diet -- if your BMI is too high, you get less of a discount than skinnier coworkers.
It makes me wish I ever shopped at Whole Foods, so that I could now stop.
Submitted by Sardonic on 01.27.10 at 08:28.
horrible idea, through and through and anyone who thinks it's a good idea is likely within a healthy BMI range and unable to understand just how complex the concept of "being more fit" is in the average overweight persons life.
Submitted by mcheerio on 01.27.10 at 10:15.
As someone who was once WAY outside the "healthy BMI" range, I still think it is a good idea. People get a bonus for better health scores. Great. You don't want to tell, don't and you still get the standard 20% that they give to everyone. You want the higher percentage, work for it. I don't think having a lower BMI is easy, AT ALL but I don't think there is anything wrong with giving an incentive to try. I think it is great motivational tool, that is all.
Submitted by FatBottomSlim on 01.27.10 at 10:36.
I think it's bullshit. Like other people have mentioned, this potentially penalizes (and even if employees get a baseline discount, being excluded from a bigger one IS a penalization) people for things totally out of their control--family history of high cholesterol? Marathon runner, but your blood pressure runs high? SUCKS TO BE YOU. And I have a long-standing problem with using one's BMI as a baseline of health--it can be one diagnostic among many, sure, but you can have a low BMI and be incredibly unhealthy, just as someone can be in the overweight category while being healthy. Using that as an incentive is seriously dumb.
Also, the idea that healthy people are being "unfairly punished" because they're having to subsidize the fatties is, excuse my ranting, fucking ridiculous. That's like me saying I shouldn't have to subsidize your social drinking (even a few glasses a week can lead to trouble!) or getting hit by a bus (why should the emergency costs for your broken leg get passed on to me?) or your family's genetic susceptibility to cancer. Either you want to pay for your and only your existence, in which case enjoy your island and good luck with establishing a highway system, or you accept that citizenship by definition involves caring for the well-being of all of us.
Submitted by meggiep on 01.28.10 at 05:41.
So everyone understands what the minimum criteria include (remember I posted earlier that one does not have to be super fit to meet some of these)
BMI <30 (in the overweight category)
Total Cholesterol <195
Blood Pressure <140/90
For erikka, Sardonic, mcheerio and meggiep: I do have a family history of obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure and subsiquently diabetes, stroke, heart disease, ect... I am overweight (BMI 28.3) and my blood pressure and total cholesterol are on the high side, so I do not currently meet the criteria to get the higher discount. But I am not using that as a crutch or using that to complain that this program is unfair. Rather, I am seeing this as it was meant to be, a motivational tool for TM's to make the positive changes to become healthier. And YES, I fully understand the challenges facing an overweight person to become healthier! I live them every single day!! What about all of you?
Finally, how many of you are WF TM's? Because as one, I believe that the one's that can truely critique this program are those directly affected by it and that have been provided with all the information regarding it.
M-
Submitted by tcmahunt on 01.28.10 at 07:03.
Right, ok, then I guess I won't criticize anything that doesn't directly affect me.....like meggiep said, good luck on the highway system on that island.
You know what would incentivize making positive changes to become healthier? Incentivizing the positive changes, and not the end results that may or may not be an accurate reflection of those changes.
Submitted by Sardonic on 01.28.10 at 08:14.
While I support good health as much as the next person, I think I would feel less distaste for this if the higher discount was based on adopting healthy practices, rather than something like BMI (which I really object to, and not because I have a high one -- my BMI is near the low end of the "healthy" range). But I understand that it's harder to monitor someone's practices. How can you confirm that someone doesn't smoke, for example? They could be sneaking cigarettes off the job pretty easily.
Perhaps there could be a higher discount for signing up for a WF-sponsored health program, and the company could have meetings, provide menus, exercise plans, etc. And anyone who signs up for it and documents their meals and activities gets the additional discount.
Submitted by Susmita on 01.28.10 at 09:05.
Sardonic - Your suggestion would also be "unfair" as those who are in close to optimal shape would not have the same opportunity to incorporate "positive changes".
And whoa now people, I'm a card carrying libertarian and can see this program is problematic. Let's back off of the libertarian-bashing, shall we?
Submitted by syrupandhoney on 01.28.10 at 09:44.
Maybe Whole Foods should make Social Workout their model!
(It is a little funny to be arguing about this here, since we're on this site to accomplish similar goals as those being encouraged by WF. What better place to being arguing about it, I guess.)
Submitted by spindig on 01.28.10 at 10:02.
This program is a great attempt at improving public health but it doesn’t do enough. Simply put, people shouldn’t be buying and consuming more food than is healthy for them. This improves health and makes more food available to the starving. We talk about health care being a right, but we can’t live very long without food. Everybody should have the right to their fair share of food. Its distribution should not be left in the hands of private companies such as Whole Foods, when clearly it belongs to everybody.
Submitted by barryo2 on 01.28.10 at 10:04.
Wasn't it an Ayn Rand loving Libertarian bash?? I'm actually down with that... well, I'm down with anyone bashing Ayn Rand lovers. They're just as bad as Bukowski acolytes, they just dress better. I'm ok with Libertarians.
To all WFTMs: I hate retail vernacular, just saying. You're abbreviating Team Member, right? That's lamer than working from a POS system, come on.
Obviously, this is a case of a company attempting to do the right thing but going about it the wrong way. BMI has clearly been an erroneous indicator of health in the past, and yes, there are numerous genetic advantages and disadvantages here, not to mention income disparities between, say, single moms and couple-income-supplemented-gym-going-life-partners.
I think it's a catch-22 though: you can't target any group and give them incentives without making another group feel discriminated against. The end, ye olde grumpy bloggers.
Honestly, as a smoker, I'd just give my "healthy" coworker my cash and cart and tell them to give me the change outside. Isn't that how all these things really work?
Submitted by Mr. Mohawk on 01.28.10 at 10:15.
I’m on the fence with this one. I think Whole Foods is trying to provide incentives for their employees to be healthier which is great, but I also think the whole program is borderline discriminatory. There are better measures to determine whether or not employees are living a healthy lifestyle according to Whole Foods core values, BMI is not it. Thin does not necessarily equal healthy. If Whole Foods really wants to provide incentives for their employees to be healthier, why not provide different informational sessions about healthy living for them to attend, and if they do they could get a higher discount? Why not let employees have a tracking system for how much they work out, and reward them with a higher discount for that?
If I were a Whole Foods employee with a higher BMI, I wouldn’t feel happy to come into work every day knowing that people who were thinner than me were given advantages such as a higher discount. Does this mean that Whole Foods values its thinner employees more? If I was an employee with a higher BMI and worked harder and performed better, why should I not get a higher discount than a slacker employee with a lower BMI?
I’m sure there’s a certain image of healthy living Whole Foods wants to project to their customers through their employees, which is at some level probably why this incentive was introduced in the first place. Life is hard enough for people with higher BMI’s and all the discrimination they already face, why contribute to that?
Submitted by starry04 on 01.28.10 at 10:28.
"Finally, how many of you are WF TM's? Because as one, I believe that the one's that can truely critique this program are those directly affected by it and that have been provided with all the information regarding it. "
My main focus of this was that unless you are a WF TM, you haven't been given all the information surrounding this program and our healthy eating initiative as a whole. There are countless programs that are available to tm's if they want to participate. Through our insurance company, we can sign up for an online assistance program for weight loss, healthy eating, ect.. (Kind of a support system like this, but also includes interaction with nurses and docs) There is also a free smoking cessation program available to all TM's.
As far as how can they tell if someone is a smoker: all tm's who participate in the program will go through a screening process, including a saliva swab to test for nicotine.
It would be great if actions alone could be verified. But, we don't live in an honest world. Someone could say that they had poached salmon for dinner, but actually went to McDonalds. They could say that they ran a mile, but just sat on the couch watching tv. Positive changes and actions can lead to measurable results such as the biometric tests being utilized. I know that BMI is very contraversial, but it is a test that can be easily done at a health screening. A more ideal test would be % body fat done in a water tank, but that is expensive and not readily available everywhere.
I strongly believe in personal responsability, my company and this program and I wanted to set the record straight!
M-
Submitted by tcmahunt on 01.28.10 at 10:57.
"Sardonic - Your suggestion would also be "unfair" as those who are in close to optimal shape would not have the same opportunity to incorporate "positive changes"."
I should have put "positive changes" in quotes; I was using the phrase because tcmahunt had used it. A fair system would just reward positive behaviors.
The contrast between not smoking and the rest of the criteria is really the basic point. Not smoking is a good behavior--the rest of the criteria are like rewarding you for not getting lung cancer. And all the online assistance programs in the world won't help you with that if cancer (or high cholesterol, or high blood pressure) run in your family.
Submitted by Sardonic on 01.28.10 at 11:59.
Sardonic- I may be oversimplifying, but is it your view that 100% of people who have family histories of various diseases and disorders, will also fall to the same fate and therefore should not even attempt to make positive behavior changes?
Submitted by tcmahunt on 01.28.10 at 04:05.
I think the point is there's a group of TMs that can't receive the augmented discount, even though they're healthy, not that said TMs are not going to get it because they've acknowledged their pre-existing condition and decided to eff it all and be the local WF obese lush.
Honestly, I think Whole Foods should go ahead with the program, and be aware that the stipulations are a bit restrictive, and therefor should have an appeals program for those denied the discount. Or it should be managerially approved.
Submitted by Mr. Mohawk on 01.28.10 at 04:11.