Home > Relish Austin > Archives > 2010 > January > 28 > Entry
Whole Foods to offer bigger discount to healthier employees
Earlier this week, Jezebel posted about a new program for Whole Foods employees that allows them a greater in-store discount if they don’t smoke and have low blood pressure, cholesterol and BMI, or Body Mass Index.
Part of an initiative from CEO John Mackey to reduce the company’s health care costs, the program will allow employees who have a BMI of less than 24, blood pressure of 110/70 and a cholesterol of 150 to get a discount of 30 percent on purchases from Whole Foods. The sliding scale leaves employees with BMIs above 30, as well as those who choose not to participate, with the standard 20 percent discount.
This program comes less than six months after Mackey’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that argued for less government control over health care. “Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health,” Mackey wrote. “This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.”
What do you think? I’m the first to admit that I’d love a discount on, say, the cost of my own health insurance if I can prove a low BMI and blood pressure, but this Jezebel writer has an important point — and please note the sarcasm: “Because if public health research has taught us anything, it’s that reducing people’s buying power totally makes them healthier. Stay classy, Whole Foods.”
Organizations like the Sustainable Food Center work hard to make the public aware that access to affordable healthy food isn’t a reality for many people, most of whom don’t have the luxury of getting a discount at stores like Whole Foods. Everyone knows a burger at McDonald’s costs less than a pound of apples, so how do we make sure that people who are most in need good-for-you-food can afford to buy it?
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment Categories: Chewing the fat, Food in the news
Comments
When commenting, we ask that you keep things civil and abide by our Visitor Agreement. To report comment abuse, click here.
By Sean
January 28, 2010 9:54 AM | Link to this
I think it’s important to remember that Whole Foods isn’t lowering the discount for employees that don’t meet the high health standards. All employees will still receive the same 20% discount they have been given for years. Instead they are trying to create an incentive to improve. It seems to me like a great idea and I just don’t understand the backlash against this. Why would anyone complain about “only getting 20% off.” Getting a discount at all is a benefit. Good for Whole Foods for giving their employees a chance to get more of a benefit. I’m sure the program isn’t perfect, but it also isn’t fundamentally flawed in my opinion.
*full disclosure I used to work at Whole Foods, but no longer do.
By staff
January 28, 2010 10:02 AM | Link to this
Hey, Sean! Thanks for your comment. I agree that 20 percent is a pretty generous discount in the first place, and you’re right, an incentive to improve your health is hardly a bad thing. I wish most people understood that being healthy (eating right, not smoking) saves you money in the long run, regardless of where you work.
By Matt_M
January 28, 2010 10:24 AM | Link to this
This is a good idea, but BMI is a bad idea. They should use body fat percentage. Don’t discriminate against muscular people!
By Jodi
January 28, 2010 10:41 AM | Link to this
I can understand why this program leaves a bad taste in some peoples mouths and is easy to make fun of. However, the facts are:
-Whole Foods has in the past, and will continue to offer a 20 percent discount to all full time employees. -As an incentive for employees to improve their health, and as a reward for those who already do, they can get a higher percentage by being healthier. -However, I don’t think that the 10% difference between a full time employee who doesn’t qualify for the program and the one who reaches platinum is really a big FINANCIAL incentive. I think this is more of a gold star, you’re doing a great job and badge of pride kind of thing.
By cary
January 28, 2010 12:30 PM | Link to this
I don’t disagree with incentivizing good health, but Mackey’s op-ed piece played on the fears of government intruding into people’s private lives by mandating health care. Why would I be any more comfortable with a corporation intruding into my private life? Given the choice between a national standard for health care (that can’t be taken away) and Mackey’s attempt to improve his bottom line (which could be taken away anytime you fail his random testing), I think I’ll take what’s behind door number one…
By Matt
January 28, 2010 3:18 PM | Link to this
Great article except for the last two paragraphs which are out of context for the Whole Foods program. First, the Jezebel writer may have a good point about the inverse relationship between reduced buying power and the ability to afford healthy food, but WF aims to INCREASE its employees’ buying power, giving them even greater ability to purchase healthier food options. Second, while the work of groups like the Sustainable Food Center is laudable for what it does for society at large, it’s an inappropriate comparison to a program obviously designed for a specifically targeted group.
By kunde
May 10, 2011 3:05 AM | Link to this
Lots of good reading here, many thanks! I had been browsing on yahoo when I observed your article, I’m going to add your feed to Google Reader, I look forward to additional from you.