Supermarket CEO issues stark warning about availability of popular products: 'We will not be able to source certain things'
"We will hit certain points where we're not able to source certain things," said Jason Buechel, the CEO of Whole Foods and the VP of Amazon Worldwide Grocery Stores, in an interview at the Food Tank Food Summit held at this year's Sundance Film Festival.
Citing egg and dairy shortages over the holidays as an example, Buechel warned: "We're going to see that with more products within our grocery stores."
Buechel said it's critical that customers understand what's happening to food supply chains
as warming temperatures cause extreme weather events to become more intense and frequent. According to Bayer's 2024 Farmer Voice Survey, more than 60% reported "significant revenue loss" due to adverse weather over the past several years.
"We have to bring some of these things to broader awareness so customers know these things are happening, which can tie back to climate change," he said.
While access to products or increased prices are challenging for consumers, it impacts farmers even more. That hits close to home for Buechel, whose grandparents were dairy farmers.
"Being a farmer isn't easy alone, but one weather event could affect the entire crop for their business for that year," he said. "Because of the volatility with climate events," he said some farmers are wondering, "Is it worth it?"
When grocery stores do have a challenge sourcing products like berries, impacted by destructive flooding in Brazil last year, they are usually able to find that product from another country, "so customers don't feel the pain as much as farmers within our supply chain." But Buechel said that's not always going to be the case.
What's the most common reason you end up throwing away food?
Bought more than I could eat
Went bad sooner than I expected
Forgot it was in the fridge
Didn't want leftovers
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
While customers may not see it in the stores, there's a lot happening behind the scenes at Whole Foods to address one of the biggest sources of emissions: food waste.
"This for me is a personal passion project," Buechel said. "At the end of the day, it's actually rotting food in our landfills that's a bigger contributor of methane gas than cows. For us, [the question is,] 'How do we tackle that issue on all fronts?'"
That includes:
◉ Partnering with their suppliers to ensure they aren't over-producing or over-ordering to line up supply and demand ◉ Making surplus products available to the food insecure through food donations in every metro area, and where necessary, turning extra food into animal feed◉ Offer customers discounts on food that may otherwise be heading to the landfill through partnerships with apps like Too Good To Go, a program Buechel says has diverted over 1 million pounds of food over the past year while offering a 50% discount on bakery and other items
In the United States, food waste is estimated at 30-40% of the food supply, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Buechel also spoke about Whole Foods' mission to help people "eat healthier, have more delicious food, and do things better for the soil and the farmers." Its "Sourced for Good" program highlights products that are good for the environment, good for workers growing those products, and good for the community.
Take bananas, for example, many of which are sourced from Earth University, an organization that seeks to improve the working conditions of banana farmers while also taking care of the environment. "Sharing those stories helps influence the decision around what customers are going to buy," he said.
"As retailers … as storytellers, we have to figure out how to find the best ways to connect with this generation and harness the influence that they're going to have in creating the changes that we need in the industry," he said.
"What I get excited about is that [the next generation] truly are making buying decisions in line with their values."
Just as important as the products Whole Foods sells in stores, Buechel said, "It's actually the products and items that we don't sell, is what differentiates us," referring to over 500-plus banned ingredients the company doesn't offer because they don't meet standards.
Buechel hopes Whole Foods can become a model for the industry.
"Our goal is having a ripple effect. We want other folks to copy us," he said. "We constantly challenge our competitors: 'Join in.' We want to help protect our food systems and nourish people and the planet."
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
7 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Bayer reaches deal over Seattle-area school PCB cases
Bayer AG agreed to settle cases related to a Seattle-area school where more than 200 people were exposed to toxic chemicals made by the company's Monsanto unit. Bayer didn't disclose the financial terms of the accord, but said the cost was covered by a $618.1 million provision taken this month to deal with the company's liabilities for polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, once manufactured by Monsanto. The company's shares rose 2.3% in Germany. Ex-students and teachers at the Sky Valley School outside Seattle sued Bayer and Monsanto over injuries tied to PCBs contained in aging fluorescent-light fixtures. The deal announced by Bayer - already enmeshed in multiyear litigation over its herbicide Roundup - is seen as a positive development in its handling of a wave of PCB lawsuits over Monsanto building materials made half a century ago. "This development suggests progress toward containing PCB liabilities and reducing the risk of swelling," analysts at Jefferies wrote in a note. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion, already has agreed to pay almost $2 billion in settlements in PCB cases brought by states, cities and counties. Separate litigation over Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller has created a drag on the German conglomerate's shares. The company has reserved more than $17 billion for U.S. Roundup suits. Monsanto stopped using PCBs in its products in 1977. Analysts have cast a wary eye on Bayer's burgeoning PCB problem. Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Holly Froum has projected it may cost Monsanto and two other companies embroiled in PCBs litigation - Eastman Chemical's Solutia and Pfizer's Pharmacia - as much as $3.9 billion to settle the remaining cases. The settlement announced Monday covers more than 200 plaintiffs with ties to the Sky Valley School, Bayer said. It doesn't wipe out the 10 verdicts in which juries in Washington State already have awarded a total of more than $1 billion, the company said. Those awards are under appeal. Bayer is asking the Washington Supreme Court to throw out the PCB verdicts based on its legal defenses. The court heard arguments in February, but has yet to hand down a ruling. An intermediate appellate court's backing of Bayer's position on the PCB cases prompted the review by the state's highest court. "While the company remains confident in its legal strategy and defenses, and is fully prepared to defend cases at trial, it has maintained it will consider resolving cases on appropriate terms when it is strategically advantageous to help mitigate the risks and uncertainties of this litigation," Bayer officials said in a release. Washington verdict Earlier this year, state-court jurors in Washington ordered Bayer to pay $100 million to students and teachers exposed to PCBs, which were used used in electrical transformers, paints and sealants for their fire-resistant properties. The compounds were banned in the U.S. in 1979 after researchers found they posed a cancer risk. The company still faces dozens of PCB suits by school districts, states and cities over health exposure and environmental contamination in buildings, landfills and waterways, according to Bayer's 2023 annual report. The case before the Washington Supreme Court is Erickson v. Pharmacia LLC, No. 103135-1, Washington Supreme Court (Olympia) (With assistance from Sonja Wind.) Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Whole Foods employee raises concerns over troubling store policy: 'Just to look good for corporate visits'
Whole Foods employee raises concerns over troubling store policy: 'Just to look good for corporate visits' When Whole Foods corporate leaders roll into town, store teams reportedly scramble to make displays sparkle, even if it means tossing food that could've been donated. What's happening? In a Reddit thread in r/wholefoods, a former employee shared a behind-the-scenes look at how stores prepare for corporate walkthroughs. They claimed they were directed to throw out food "just to look good for corporate visits." "Why does global and corporate leadership want to see their stores wasting so much food? I'm sure the food waste reports on days of global and corporate visits are so much higher than other days which are already a disaster," the original poster commented. Their experience was shared by other workers, who said the practice was not only widespread but deeply frustrating. One former worker recounted having to toss out cheese platters for being a day short of expiration, while another described frantically building an illusion of store-wide abundance that masked inefficiencies and staffing shortages. "It's even better when we go through the facade only to have the person from corporate NOT show up," one person commented. Why is food waste important? Food waste is a major driver of Earth's overheating. Globally, nearly one-third of all food produced is never eaten, and that waste contributes about 8-10% of total harmful gas emissions, according to the United Nations Environment Programme. This is nearly five times more than the aviation industry. When grocers discard perfectly edible products to appear pristine for visiting executives, it's wasteful and harmful. While stores toss out food for optics, millions of Americans go hungry every day. In the online review era, where appearance is everything, many companies struggle with the temptation to prioritize aesthetics over substance. But this doesn't mean that landfilling cheese boards and carefully arranging produce displays just to keep up appearances is the right solution for stores. Should companies be required to help recycle their own products? Definitely No way It depends on the product They should get tax breaks instead Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Is Whole Foods doing anything about this? Whole Foods publicly champions sustainability, touting initiatives like reducing plastic, donating unsold food through local partnerships, and working to reduce its overall carbon footprint. The company has previously promoted programs to divert food waste from landfills, including composting and donation strategies. However, the employee testimonials suggest that store-level practices may sometimes contradict corporate messaging. It's unclear whether these instances reflect localized decisions by specific store leadership or systemic expectations from upper management. What's being done about food waste more broadly? Several cities and states are pushing back against food waste. In California, grocers are required by law to divert surplus food to donation centers under SB 1383, which aims to cut organic waste in half. Organizations like ReFED and Too Good To Go are also working with food retailers to optimize donation logistics and minimize loss. Consumers can help by supporting stores with transparent donation policies, buying "imperfect" produce, and pushing for accountability through feedback or reviews. Meanwhile, grocers can protect both their image and the environment by training employees to balance aesthetics with ethics and making sure sustainability doesn't disappear when the suits arrive. Join our free newsletter for easy tips to save more and waste less, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword
Fast Company
a day ago
- Fast Company
How to truly change your organization
In March 2024, Bill Anderson, pharma giant Bayer's CEO, wrote an op-ed in Fortune vowing to bust bureaucracy, slash red tape, and eliminate layers of middle management to create a more agile and innovative enterprise. 'Our radical reinvention will liberate our people while cutting 2 billion euros in annual costs by 2026,' he wrote. I wrote soon after that what Anderson was doing wasn't genuine transformation but had all the telltale signs of transformation theater: a false sense of urgency calling for drastic action when none is needed, a rushed strategic process (with little or no time for analysis or dissent), and a large, premature public rollout. Today, more than a year later, Bayer's stock remains near all-time lows and investors are increasingly frustrated and it's not hard to see why. Anderson went into an organization that was already reeling and introduced even more stress and disruption, with predictable results. If you want to create genuine transformation, you need to start by creating a sense of safety. The Disruption Mindset By publishing his manifesto in Fortune just nine months into his tenure, Anderson was following the advice of many change gurus: create urgency. Burn the boats. Announce the plan loudly and publicly so there's no turning back. That's the disruption mindset. But was that really necessary—or even helpful? The problems that Bayer faced had been building for years. Its 2018 acquisition of Monsanto made it liable for billions of dollars of lawsuits related to the herbicide Roundup, which is thought to cause cancer. The firm had been building up debt for years and it had long been clear that patents of blockbuster drugs, such as Xarelto, were set to expire. None of this was a secret to anyone. As Anderson himself noted, the stock price had fallen by half during his tenure and was at a 20-year low. It's also not clear how a reorganization would address those problems. Litigation and debt don't immediately disappear just because you eliminate middle managers, nor does it help discover new drugs to replace expiring patents. Consider what the last few years have been like for a typical Bayer employee. First came a massive restructuring after the Monsanto deal. Then came years of public headlines about lawsuits, debt, and falling performance. And now, a new CEO storms in and announces he's eliminating thousands of jobs and redesigning every role and process in the company. Would that make you feel 'liberated,' as Anderson put it? Or terrified? The Truth About Disruption And Performance A key rationale underlying the disruption mindset is that it promotes creativity and innovation. Undermining the status quo, the logic goes, creates space for the new and different. Yet there is little evidence that this is an effective approach and much that suggests a disruptive environment impairs creativity and innovation. In Cultures of Growth, Stanford social psychologist Mary C. Murphy points out that disruption impedes the growth mindset that is so necessary for supporting an innovative culture. In particular, she cites Amy Edmondson's research on psychological safety, which indicates that fear inhibits learning. She also points to laboratory experiments that suggest that performance goals impede working memory, a key component of creative thinking. One thing that you begin to notice when you spend a lot of time around people who perform at a world-class level is that they are more prone to anxiety. So when you shake things up, you're most likely to rattle the very people you can least afford to lose and who can most easily leave. Bayer's business is, on a certain level, fairly simple: As long as it produces a steady stream of breakthrough discoveries, things will go well. But once that dries up, it becomes very tough to make money. Sustaining that flow means attracting and motivating exactly the kind of smart, ambitious people who are most vulnerable to—and least tolerant of—disruptive management. Stability Fuels Innovation My friend Whitney Johnson has argued passionately for the need to disrupt ourselves. It is only through venturing out of our comfort zones that we can explore new things, gain new skills, and push our boundaries. That's what makes the difference between mediocre also-rans and truly top performers. Yet when we had Whitney on the Changemaker Mindset podcast, I noticed something interesting. Whenever she reached a juncture where she needed to disrupt herself, she always mentioned her husband. As we discussed the pattern further, it soon became clear that it was the love and support from her husband that provided the safety and stability she needed to continually disrupt herself. Whitney's not alone. We all need a sense of safety if we are going to take risks. That's why, when IBM was on the verge of collapse, Lou Gerstner made sure his first trip was to IBM's famed Thomas Watson Research Center, not to demand results, but to reassure the scientists that he was committed to supporting their work. When Alcoa was at a similar point, its new CEO, Paul O'Neill, made his commitment to safety, not profits. Many would say that all sounds nice, but naive. The real world is hard-nosed and cutthroat. Yet both Gerstner and O'Neill were seasoned leaders, not wide-eyed idealists, and both took failing companies and transformed them into record-setting profitability in a short time. They did it not by disrupting their organizations, but by making them feel safe enough to embrace change. Creating Safety In 1997, when Clayton Christensen first published The Innovator's Dilemma and introduced the term 'disruptive innovation,' it was a clarion call. His key insight was that, under certain conditions, the basis of competition in an industry shifts, and the strategies that once made incumbents successful can suddenly make them vulnerable. Yet what Christensen didn't anticipate was how seductive the idea of disruption would become. Soon, all manner of pundits—most of whom never read his book or understood his concepts—were preaching the gospel of disruption. Before you knew it, everything had to be disrupted all the time. But the truth was, we weren't disrupting industries, but disrupting people. The unfortunate reality is that when most leaders talk about disruption, they're not thinking about business strategy but elevating themselves. Disruption becomes a personal brand. A way to feel bold, daring, and visionary. Yet while they are glorifying themselves, they're making things harder for everyone else and there's a cost to that. Genuinely visionary leaders know that disruption and safety go hand in hand. The safer you make your organization, the more you empower your people to think boldly, take risks, and explore new territory. The more stress you create, the more you drain cognitive capacity, limit creativity and shrink the space people have for insight, collaboration, and original thinking.
