Tag Cloud
The Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op has become a battleground for Middle East politics as some members are trying to get the board of directors to sign off on a boycott of Israeli products.
Arguing that Israel is violating human rights by occupying Palestinian territories, the group of members says that the co-op should not sell products from Israel because that supports human rights violations.
All co-op members are considered partial owners as well.
Co-op General Manager Paul Cultrera said he does not support the boycott in the store.
“We’re here to run a store,” he told The Sacramento Press Wednesday. “I think that the issue about Israeli human rights violations – it’s a valid issue. I’m not taking a side on it, but we’re not here to be political.”
The products in question, he added, mainly consist of six to eight varieties of bath salts from the Dead Sea. The manufacturers are all American companies, and one company gets it from the Jordanian side of the Dead Sea, while the others get the salts from the Israeli side.
Some matzo products are carried as well. During Passover, he added, some wines from Israel are brought in and stocked until they are sold out.
He added that Israeli products make up about $13,000-$14,000 in sales annually. Total annual sales are about $26 million.
“We didn’t bring the products in because they were from Israel,” Cultrera said. “We brought them in because customers wanted them and buy them.”
An ardent supporter of boycotting Israeli products is longtime co-op member Maggie Coulter, who has written several times on The Sacramento Press about the issue.
Coulter said the co-op board is violating its bylaws by not putting the issue to a vote of the membership after a signature-gathering initiative that gained momentum in January and a proposal to the seven-member board at its monthly meeting Feb. 1.
According to Coulter, more than 1,000 signatures have been gathered since the initiative was launched in June of 2010.* The 1,000 signatures include letters and emails that have been collected, sent or submitted to the board, Coulter wrote in an email Thursday. Those included both members and shoppers and supported the initial boycott proposal to allow members to vote on the initiatives.
For the Human Rights Initiative, 250 member signatures were gathered, and 100 are required, she added. For the Restore Co-op Democracy initiative, 175 member signatures were collected.
Some of the signatures were gathered outside the co-op at a table, while others were mailed in, she said.
“The human rights initiative would allow the membership to vote whether they want the store to support Palestinian human rights be boycotting Israel until Israel stops violating the rights of Palestinians,” she said Wednesday.
She compared the issue to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s in the United States and gay rights issues.
Two others who have posted on The Sacramento Press about the issue are the co-op’s board president, Steven Maviglio, and Director of the Jewish Community Relations Council John Boisa, also a co-op member, neither of whom was available for comment Wednesday or Thursday.
In the conversations of the various articles, questions have been raised about why the group targets Israel specifically.
Cultrera said there are many countries guilty of human rights violations, and they sometimes have products carried in the store.
“We do have items from China – frozen vegetables occasionally come from there, and they are labeled,” he said. “There are probably a few other products from China in the grocery department.”
He mentioned China’s human rights violations in Tibet, and said other countries can be seen as violators of human rights as well, and their products are uncontested at the co-op.
“People claim the U.S. is guilty of quite a few human rights violations,” he said. “You might ask some people down in Guantánamo. We carry a lot of U.S. products. We also carry products from Greece, Italy, Spain, France, Chile and Argentina.... You could probably accuse any of those countries of various violations.”
Coulter acknowledged other human rights violations and said the reason she and others focus on Israel is because, to be successful, any campaign needs focus. And she said that allowing customers to simply not buy the products is not the focus needed to make a change.
“The co-op, for example, doesn’t carry products tested on animals,” she said. “It doesn’t leave it up to consumers. I think that’s fine. Let’s make a statement that we’re not going to carry Israeli products.”
Boycotting Israeli products is not a new concept, and it was attempted at the Davis Foods Co-op a couple of years ago, according to Davis Foods Co-op Marketing Coordinator Melanie Madden.
“It was in late 2009 and early 2010 that a small group of (Davis) co-op shoppers proposed a boycott initiative,” she said. “The wording was found to be ineligible by our board.”
The board said the boycott did not follow its bylaws.
To read the board’s conclusion on the issue in Davis, click here.
“The whole political thing – we’re a grocery store,” Madden said. “We’re politically neutral. Politically based initiatives aren’t really appropriate.”
There are Sacramento grocery stores, however, that do boycott Israeli products. One of those is the Palestinian-owned Red Sea Food Market, 6968 65th St.
“At this store, we never have carried and never will carry products from Israel,” Manager Jim Morrar said Thursday. “We have no problem dealing with Jewish companies and products, but I do have problems dealing with Israeli companies and Israeli products.”
He said most of the food products exported from Israel to the United States come from the occupied West Bank.
“Anybody using Israeli products is in direct support of that action,” he said.
Cultrera, however, agreed with Madden’s take on the role of grocery stores.
“I’d like the two sides to take their issue somewhere else,” he said. “I think the co-op is being used as a place to work out this issue, which has not been worked out at the U.N., in Washington or in (Tel Aviv, Israel). It’s an issue that’s been going on for a long time and will probably continue to go on.”
Coulter, however, said she believes the co-op is inherently a political institution, which takes stands on other political issues.
“Testing on animals is a political consideration, and sustainability is a political consideration,” she said.
At Tuesday’s monthly board meeting, Coulter said an amendment to the board’s bylaws was proposed that would block groups from calling for boycotts based on national origin or for political reasons.
The Sacramento Press will follow up with more details soon.
The co-op is located at 1900 Alhambra Blvd.
*Editor's Note: Information was added to this article after it was published to clarify the 1,000 signatures collected.
Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow him on Twitter @Brandon_Darnell.
The real question is...for an institution that understands it is just as important as how far something travels as much as whether it is organic...what in God's name do they need from Israel to justify the carbon cost of shipping it here???
The Olympia WA Co-op voted to support Palestinian human rights last July by taking Israeli products off the shelf. This 2-store Co-op is thriving and, according to one of the boycott proponents who is Jewish, has the best selection of Jewish foods in Olympia. In 2007, members of the Ann Arbor MI Co-op collected signatures to put a proposed human-rights based boycott of Israeli before a vote of their membership. It went on the ballot and did not pass, but one of the proponents said that her Co-op was not harmed in any way by honoring its bylaws and letting people vote. She is proud to be a member.
This is not an issue to be decided by the Co-op management or the Board. This is an issue that all Members of the Co-op need to decide – that is why we want it on the ballot as is mandated by the Bylaws. Those who oppose the initiative don't want people to be able to table at the Co-op about human rights violations against the Palestinians or about these initiatives. And they certainly don't want Members to be able to vote.
Hopefully, the Board will come to its senses and uphold the cooperative principles of democracy by putting the initiatives on the ballot so that Members can vote and allowing Member tabling about this important issue by all sides.
She also knows that it has been the Board of Directors at the Davis Food Coop and the Port Townsend, Wash. food coop -- the last two coops to reject the boycott -- and not membership. The Cooperative Principles and the Sacramento Food Coop's Bylaws give the democratically elected Board the responsibility of governing the store for the interests of ALL owners.
Since their founding, Co-ops have been free of international politics that have absolutely nothing to do with food or our coop's mission. Let's keep it that way. The Board of Directors has received strong support for its decision to reject this attempt to make our store a soapbox for Ms Coulter's politics. We thank our owners and shoppers for their strong support.
I'm a vegetarian. I'm a member of the Co-op. How about you spend your time excluding all meat/poultry/fish products from the store. That offends me more than a few products from Israel. And how about you and your crew stop harassing me when I go to shop, with your petition? A petition that very neatly hides within it that the main thing you are looking to do is boycott Israel. Lots of other things are mentioned, but you have to look really hard to find the part that deals with the Israeli boycott issue. I noticed that you all backed off the blatant campaign, and now hide it all within a much longer document so members, who are NOT taking time to read it, don't understand it's the same campaign as before.
I am dismayed with the direction of this co-op; it seems to me that it's more about being a profit making corporation, paying off a very large incurred debt from the past board's heavy push for a gigantic investment in a second store in Elk Grove, than a democratically directed co-op. The members turned down the second store during the first member vote, but the board kept on pushing past the members' wise instinct, hiring consultants to push the boards second store agenda. The members should be allowed to be involved in the co-ops direction; I 'd like to see the members and the community get the best pricing on organic food and also, let the members decide which products to carry due to the conditions around how that product was produced (such as no animal testing, no child labor, sustainability etc,) and where (how far away, origin in illegal settlements etc.) that food was produced. To those that says it's too much trouble the meat counter at the Co-op is only carrying sustainable fish. This can be done with a little knowledge and effort.
We should ban food from France, because they restrict women's rights to wear religious clothing
We should ban food NOT from France, because they stopped the patriarchal view of women's clothing.
We should ban meat, because killing animals is cruel.
We should ban cheese, because enslaving animals is cruel.
We should ban foreign produce, because of the environmental impacts of transportation.
We should ban products in boxes without soy-based inks, because they seep toxins into landfills.
We should ban high-fat, highly processed foods, because of the children.
We should ban soy, because the jury may still be out on the hormone thing.
We should ban non-raw food, as it promotes a non-healthy lifestyle.
We should ban bottled water in all forms, because of the landfills.
We should ban conventional produce, because organic farms are better for the soil.
We should ban alcohol, because of the problems it causes in the body and society at large.
And when the only thing left in the co-op is a single display of organic, county-grown avocados from the most inoffensive family farm that gave everybody throughout their organization and supply chain fair living wages and a full health plan, all the shoppers will finally be happy.
By the way I support France in that they are finally willing to stand up for rights as a Western civilization, instead of having ridiculous Muslim or "shrea laws" imposed upon them and employers. Also China as opposed to how they've treated evangelical Christians, the only "oppression" they've really put on Fulan Gong, is declare it a stupid cult.
There is a term for that--anti-something....
http://www.israeliproducts.com/2ndlevelpages/foodandwine.html
There is a term for that--anti-something....
The Sacramento Press ran a story a few weeks ago about how the seafood department at the co-op was ranked number 1 or 2 in the state of California for it's sustainability efforts, and if you know anything about fisheries, you know it's a highly political issue. Why? Because the personal is the political. I have a problem with a lot of people in the comments here pretending like they should be able to go to the co-op and not have to think about this stuff. That's why you are going to the co-op!!! If you wan to mindlessly spend your money on your food then go to Savemart or Raley's for crying out loud.
As a co-op owner, I support the right for other owners to vote on what their store should sell and how it is ran. That's the point, after all.
First, I can choose to be an owner because I like shopping there and I get money back for being an owner. I feel like that's why the majority of us join.
Second, while I would not mind voting on this issue, I do understand that the co-op has bylaws and boards for a reason. This is not an unstructured direct democracy. It is a form of representative corporate ownership and governance. It is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be in your comment. In fact, this and other comment threads endlessly engage around the issue and it is a reasonable one.
All in all, I wouldn't mind a vote and I don't mind this debate. I think it makes for a stronger set of governing principles for those principles to be debated in public. And for many of us we rely on the co-op to do just that and then provide us great food and service. To many of us who are less active members that is what a co-op can be.
The Co-op also provides a great alternative to the massive industrial agricultural business that relies on pesticides and fertilizers to produce monocropped produce, meat raised in cattle feed lots rather than pastures that are loaded with anti-biotics and farmed fish bereft of the natural omega threes. That should not be interpreted as making the Co-op fair game for any individual's political agenda, but instead celebrated as its own social good.
As Board Members, we are accountable to the whole membership, not one interest group and we are doing our best, despite the outrageous behavior and allegations by Maggie Coulter, Josh Cadji and their supporters to act on behalf of the membership as a whole. The Co-op, unlike many other grocery businesses *is*, in fact, accountable to its membership and that is why the Board has given this issue some consideration. However, this group does not represent the whole membership and has ignored the Board's many attempts to explain its position and process. As President Steve Maviglio said, we have heard from many Co-op members who support our position and we intend to move forward in the interest of the membership as a whole. As our Vice President Sonny Eboigbe said, quoting his African tribe's saying, "Individually, we move faster, but together, we move farther." Let's not forget the long history of the Co-op's efforts to run a business based on those things on which we can agree and which have brought us so many benefits in the pursuit of our mission.
I read the comments and can understand the confusion on the issue, the groups at work, and where the connection is with the coop and any sort of US policy overseas. My opinion, I suspect many others share this, is that today the average American has minimal influence in what our government does abroad (even in light of this economic crises and spending cuts debate). Example; Support for various tyrannical governments from the Cold War history up to today around the world, resulting in backlashes to our country (look at Afghanistan of both the 80's and today with support of President Karzai). This policy continues as long as select groups and lobbies control the most influence with our leaders, for their own benefit (or "National Interest"). Given the inequalities of our lobbying system (gross inequalities in campaign finance/fundraising), one of the areas citizens can regain influence is with their spending power/boycotts.
So where is the connection in this case??? The occupation is actively supported by US aid to the government of Israel which uses US hardware (US and Israeli corporate interests) to subdue and control the populace there. This is heavily protected by very influential groups in our congress that reward or punish candidates in election cycles such to ensure the only leaders with enough support are their candidates. Average citizens can not compete with this financing battle and if one wishes to influence US action, through the pocket book they go by ending support of private companies that benefit or are associated with the activity, as they are profit minded. Eliminating profit incentive is more effective than hoping politicians suddenly develop backbone to challenge a US ally, engaged in a occupation surrounded with private interests.
Why Israel rather than other human rights abusers? They are the very top recipient of US aid, military and economic, so the US government has a direct hand in what is happening (they have officially taken sides), not clear in the other examples mentioned.
Another reason is that this human issue has had discussion stifled/avoided to a great level beyond all the other examples because its about a very close ally of the US preserving blanket (blind) support policy, people in turn frame this as a political issue ("I don't want to start any crap! I just want my Israeli bath salt! Lets avoid all controversy."), as a anti-Semitic/racist claim ("You are a self-hating jew or anti-Semite because you don't support or criticize Israel"), or suggesting that the critics/activists are terrorists or affiliated with terror/security risks. Calling out that our government funds and own spending habits support a powerful foreign ally in illegal activity, violating human rights is not a political or anti-Semitic claim, its pointing out governmental abuse, advocating different policy, participating in democracy, it is expression for the concern of other humans and their rights.
I hope Sacramento Press that you continue to follow what our local Sacramento people are doing in this very important exchange that is occurring. I hope readers consider the various views being advanced here and think through one's make the most sense.
A little history about US government aid to Israel. It was a bribe for Israel to make "peace" concessions to those still committed to the genocide of Israel. It was also a bribe to Arab governments like Egypt and Jordan to make nice and play along. Egypt and Jordan are the #2 and #3 largest recipients of American government foreign aid. Funny how you leave that out....
You're darned right I suggest "that the critics/activists are terrorists or affiliated with terror/security risks." You are. And 25 years ago you were good KGB pawns, too.
Any useful Israeli products I can buy? I am stockpiling from here on.
I support Ms. Coulter and everyone else who has the courage to stand up against oppressors, no matter how irrationally popular they might be.
"Slow genocide"? Like the rockets fired into Israel intent upon killing a Jew here and a Jew there?
If those are not blood libels, what are?
http://musliminsuffer.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/israel-palestine-the-maps-tell-the-true-story/
Watch the maps, I just see land being gobbled up. And I still do not hear about any slow down in settlement expansion or the wall coming down. The government of Israel is totally isolating it self and sadly the US government is being dragged down with it for not calling them out on their crap! This is not very different from when settlers wanted to appropriate all the land of the Natives here in the states. Israel is carrying out a 'manifest destiny' and that is illegal and morally wrong. These boycotts need to continue and I hope that the Occupy Wall Street movement brings some drastic change to the way our foreign policy is conducted...perhaps we will support less criminals and tyrants abroad.
I make my own decisions about what to buy and what not to buy, and I don't appreciate it when someone else takes it upon himself to make the decision for me. If SNFC boycotts Israeli imports, I pledge to go out of my way to seek out and try Israeli products. And if I find some I like, I'll spread the word.