Whole Foods, Target, playing same game of consumer deceit with seafood

Posted: January 29th, 2010 - 12:43pm by Doug Powell

Seafood in Kansas sucks.

Of course it does, we’re at least 20 hours from any major body of water.

 But the available choices became a bunch more confusing.

I chuckle when one of the local upscale restaurants advertizes mussels from Prince Edward Island (that’s in Canada) for some outrageous price to pay for the air transit. They’re mussels, a buck a pound in Ontario.

Whole Foodies announced a few days ago they would continue selling farmed fish, but only under the Whole Foods Market Responsibly Farmed logo, verified by third-party auditors, which is completely meaningless.

Now Target Corp., another of our regular shopping destinations, has announced it has eliminated all farmed salmon from its fresh, frozen and smoked seafood sections at stores nationwide.

The discount giant said it wanted to ensure that its salmon was "sourced in a sustainable way that helps to preserve abundance, species health and doesn't harm local habitats."

The Minneapolis company said salmon farms could hurt the environment through pollution, chemicals and parasites.


So who’s right? Whole Foods or Target? I want aquaculture, to save the oceans, and don’t buy into some third-party auditing bullshit.


 

Your rating: None
Bookmark and Share

Comments

Jason says:

Target can't source farmed seafood to the standards it's consumers demand at the price point that makes their model work. Therefore, they are moving to less expensive wild fish. They could source farmed fish at the price they want, but they would have to rely on producers who used antibiotics, land-animal by-products, steroids and more. I'm pretty sure you left out the important word, "some" in your "The Minneapolis company said. . ." line. This is an easier and more cost effective move by Target to relate it's standards to consumers. Whole Foods took the other approach by focusing on farms which do meet a set of standards. If you don't see the significant differences in the two retailers approaches, goals and desired outcomes, why not? If you do see the differences, why are you unfairly equating them? I hope that it's just a result of brevity, and that you have a over-arching point. . . what is it?

Posted on February 8th, 2010 - 4:14pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.