Draft Product Selection Policy In Full

[Terri Roberts]

Text of Discussion Item or Proposal:
We, the product committee, offer the product selection policy to open a conversation and to be enacted as an ordering tool to guide ethical standards of purchases.

Explanations:
Knowing the sources of our foods directly and choosing sustainability together are a part of what makes the coop unique from other health food stores. We want to ensure all the members that when they pick up any item off the shelf they are making a conscientious purchase that benefits their individual health and the community's well being, without causing environmental or social harm. The coop is here to be a catalyst for change, to provide a vision for the rest of this city and state for eating ethically in cooperation. Let's keep the coop original and ethical.

The Missoula Community Co-op Product Selection Policy

The following document defines the product selection policy here at the Missoula Community Food Co-op (MCFC), located at 1500 Burns Street in Missoula, MT. This policy will follow these principles*, prioritizing first (1) environmental and consumer health impacts of the product and company, (2) local items, (3) social responsibility of the company, and (4) fair prices.

In addition to committing to ethical and quality products, MCFC will also integrate education and community outreach to promote socioeconomic and environmental justice and awareness. MCFC will research products and the cooperatives/companies they come from and provide that information to the members. MCFC will provide workshops for the community about product nutrition, cooking and general health and well-being.

This document provides criteria to ensure products that will be purchased fall within the standard of these principles. MCFC products have been categorized by food items and non-food items.

Food products –
 Dairy & Meat
 Fish
 Produce
 Whole Foods (Single-ingredient items)
 Other Foods (Multiple-ingredient items)
 Coffee, Teas and Spices

Non-food products –
 Cosmetics
 Toiletries/Personal care
 Cleaning supplies
 Arts and Crafts

Each category is subsequently listed below with specific conditions for purchase.

The accompanying flow chart (appendix 1) explains the product selection process and offers a decision-making diagram for member use. This document will be revisited annually based upon member input to the product committee. Any further specifications or amendments that are voted and agreed upon will be implemented.


Dairy & Meat

Environmental & Consumer Health Impacts
o Organic (for benefits of an organic diet see http://www.anthromed.org/Article.aspx?artpk=216) – USDA certified organic, or Homegrown Montana or products that follow USDA organic regulations (see http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/organic/ under Regulation ).
o Pasture raised, open range, or free range for entire life span.
o Product packaging should be minimal, recyclable packaging, without toxic ink and with post-consumer recycled content.

Local
o Montana (unless product is unavailable within MT limits). The closest distance in miles from Missoula, based upon availability of product. The MCFC will supply produce grown within the United States to buffer local economies and ensure ethical cultivation of products.

Social Responsibility of the Company
o MCFC will support companies who:
 give workers fair wages, benefits and working conditions
 are democratic, transparent organizations
 support community development (i.e public events or workshops promoting culture, arts, education, and the environment).
 have cooperative or private ownership.


Fish

Environmental & Consumer Health Impacts
o Non-farmed fish and sea food only. Prioritize best choices options from the Monterey bay aquarium SeaFoodWatch site. MCFC will avoid carrying any items from the ‘avoid’ category (see http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_regional... i)
o Product packaging will be minimal, recyclable packaging, without toxic ink and with post-consumer recycled content.

Local
o The closest distance in miles from Missoula, based upon availability of product.

Social Responsibility of the Company
o MCFC will support companies who:
 give workers fair wages, benefits and working conditions
 are democratic, transparent organizations
 support community development (i.e public events or workshops promoting culture, arts, education, and the environment)
 have cooperative or private ownership.

Produce

Environmental & Consumer Health Impacts
o Organic – USDA certified organic, or Homegrown Montana or products that follow USDA organic regulations (see http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/organic/ under Regulationi)
o When organic produce is either unavailable or unaffordable, MCFC will consider conventional produce that are rated within the top 20 produce with little pesticide residue published by the Environmental Working Group (EWG, see http://www.foodnews.org/ i)

Local
o The closest distance in miles from Missoula, based upon availability of product. The MCFC will supply produce grown within the United States to buffer local economies and ensure ethical cultivation of products.
o
Social Responsibility of the Company
o MCFC will support companies who:
 give workers fair wages, benefits and working conditions, (Fair Trade Certified or United Farm Workers)
 are democratic, transparent organizations
 support community development (i.e public events or workshops promoting culture, arts, education, and the environment)
 support environmental sustainability (i.e through minimal energy use, sustainable material choices, small ecological footprint, and low waste)
 have cooperative or private ownership.

Education and Community Outreach
o Produce selection will be a focal point of the MCC’s dedication to education and community outreach. Produce will be visibly labeled to inform consumers of its origin, company/farm, and seasonal availability. Produce that is out of season will be offered infrequently and highlighted as exotic.


Whole Foods (Single-ingredient items)ii

Environmental & Consumer Health Impacts

Preferably organic. Free of additives and irradiated ingredients (follow the avoid and should avoid guidelines of Center For Science In the Public Interest’s Food Safety/Food Additives list http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm i)
o Product packaging should be minimal, recyclable packaging, without toxic ink and with post-consumer recycled content.

Social Responsibility of the Company
o MCFC will support companies who:
 give workers fair wages, benefits and working conditions, (Fair Trade Certified or United Farm Workers
 are democratic, transparent organizations
 support community development (i.e public events or workshops promoting culture, arts, education, and the environment)
 have cooperative or private ownership.


Other Foods (Multiple-ingredient items)

Environmental & Consumer Health Impacts

o Preferably organic. Free of additives and irradiated ingredients (follow the avoid and should avoid guidelines of Center For Science In the Public Interest’s Food Safety/Food Additives list http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm i)
o Product packaging should be minimal, recyclable packaging, without toxic ink and with post-consumer recycled content.

Social Responsibility of the Company

o MCFC will support companies who:
 give workers fair wages, benefits and working conditions, (Fair Trade Certified or United Farm Workers
 are democratic, transparent organizations
 support community development (i.e public events or workshops promoting culture, arts, education, and the environment)
 have cooperative or private ownership.


Coffee, Teas and Spices

Environmental & Consumer Health Impacts

o Free of additives and irradiated ingredients (follow the avoid and should avoid guidelines of Center For Science In the Public Interest’s Food Safety/Food Additives list http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htmi)
o Product packaging should be minimal, recyclable packaging, without toxic ink and with post-consumer recycled content.

Social Responsibility of the Company

o MCFC will support companies who:
 give workers fair wages, benefits and working conditions, (Fair Trade Certified or United Farm Workers
 are democratic, transparent organizations
 support community development (i.e public events or workshops promoting culture, arts, education, and the environment).
 have cooperative or private ownership.


Cosmetics

Environmental & Consumer Health Impacts

o Minimal # of ingredients
o The Co-op will prioritize products that are fragrance free or essential oil based only (see, http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/special/whatnottobuy/i) and organic.
o Rates within the ‘low hazard’ in the SkinDeep database provided by the EWG (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/i). If the specific product of interest is not rated in the EWG database, a product committee member will do further inquiries within the database.
o Product packaging should be minimal, recyclable packaging, without toxic ink and with post-consumer recycled content.

Local

o The closest distance in miles from Missoula, based upon availability of product.

Social Responsibility of the Company

o MCFC will support companies who:
 give workers fair wages, benefits and working conditions
 do not test on animals
 are democratic, transparent organizations
 support community development (i.e public events or workshops promoting culture, arts, education, and the environment)
 have cooperative or private ownership.

Toiletries

Environmental & Consumer Health Impacts

o Minimal # of ingredients.
o The Co-op will carry products that are fragrance free, or essential oil based only (see, http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/special/whatnottobuy/i) and organic.
o Rates within the ‘low hazard’ in the SkinDeep database provided by the Environmental Working Group (EWG, http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/i). If the specific product of interest is not rated in the EWG database, a product committee member will do further inquiries within the database.
o Product packaging should be minimal, recyclable packaging, without toxic ink and with post-consumer recycled content.

Social Responsibility of the Company

o MCFC will support companies who:
 give workers fair wages, benefits and working conditions
 are democratic, transparent organizations
 support community development (i.e public events or workshops promoting culture, arts, education, and the environment).
 have cooperative or private ownership.


Cleaning Supplies

Environmental & Consumer Health Impacts

o Minimal # of ingredients
o The Co-op will prioritize products that are fragrance free or essential oil based only (see, http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/special/whatnottobuy/i) and organic.
o Product packaging should be minimal, recyclable packaging, without toxic ink and with post-consumer recycled content.

Social Responsibility of the Company

o MCFC will support companies who:
 give workers fair wages, benefits and working conditions
 are democratic, transparent organizations
 support community development (i.e public events or workshops promoting culture, arts, education, and the environment)
 have cooperative or private ownership.


Arts and Crafts

MCFC will provide local artists and craftsmen a place to sell their items year round in Missoula (not only during people’s market). Due to the limited space, the focus will center on items unavailable via other stores in town such as D and ME Handcrafted Wood Toys and Quilts (http://www.dandmewoodtoys.com/toys/Scripts/default.asp), Claire Emery’s art (http://www.emeryart.com/) and many others.

Environmental & Consumer Health Impacts

o Produced with toxic-free material. Recycled or soundly harvested.

Local

o The closest distance in miles from Missoula, based upon availability of product. The MCC will supply produce grown within the United States to buffer local economies and ensure ethical cultivation of products.

Social Responsibility of the Company/Artist

o MCFC will support companies who:
 give workers fair wages, benefits and working conditions
 are democratic, transparent organizations
 support community development (i.e public events or workshops promoting culture, arts, education, and the environment).
 have cooperative or private ownership.

[Terri Roberts]

This posted for Bob Oaks.

Since Kate invited the possibility of making comment on product selection here, here one is.

I want to encourage member wide participation in the discussion on the product priorities. They are listed as (1) environmental and consumer health impacts of the product and company; (2) local items; (3) social responsibility of the company; and, (4) fair prices.

I want to know if the last of the listed priorities should be value-ranked as less important than the others? That seems to be the case, the way the policy is stated on the website. This was very much a question that came up in the co-op's early organizing days. Personally, I've always wanted to see the co-op provide a valuable service for the surrounding neighborhood and less affluent Missoulians and not be a place that's too expensive for those folks to shop. I know we try to attain the lowest possible prices, but, in some cases, that doesn't seem possible if the first three priorities always trump the last.

This weekend I experienced some sticker shock when I looked at a package of Shelton bone-in, skin-on, frozen chicken breasts priced at $16.46. That worked out to $6.33/lb. The same cut, different company, fresh in the meat case at the GFS was $3.99/lb. I don't know the ethical ramifications of the brand of chicken at GFS but I'd frankly rather not stock the Shelton chicken, at all, if we can't get better pricing. I keep thinking about a first time visitor experiment-shopping at the co-op who picks up a package of frozen chicken that is more than $16 and what that person might tell her friends about the co-op's affordability after she walks out, pissed off. Adios Amiga.

Also, in terms of priorities I still think that "local" should almost always be ranked higher than "certified" organic and that viable and more affordable alternatives to "certified" be prominently featured if it helps folks meet their families' budgets. As the store capacity expands, I'd like to see some more choices that include some more conventional items -- not predominantly, but visibly, so. I think getting people in the door to shop by having a range of products that include some more familiar ones, will encourage people to try some of the other healthier and more PC choices. Wouldn't that help promote our educational mission?

BTW, I love our co-op and think starting a conversation about this is a great thing for the product committee to be initiating.

[Hermina Harold]

Hello,
When I first became involved with the co-op, as a social work practicum student in January 2008, I was blown away by the mission this particular co-op strives for. I had never heard of such a real, preventive-based approach to social justice. By making healthy food available to all those who want it, and by offering the education that could lead people to want it, it occurred to me the potential this small co-op in Missoula, Montana has to revolutionize how class barriers are broken down.... and do so with something I had never thought of as a revolutionary tool: Food. I love this about my co-op. I am proud to punch keys on the cash register and proud to try to change the ink cartridge on the label maker. I am proud that we all choose to be on the same level in our co-op by working our hours- coming together to provide health for all who want to participate.

Here is what is making me nervous about the proposed product policy: Ensuring the co-op only provides the most high quality, ethically produced, healthful products does not realistically keep the co-op accessible to the majority of the people in the neighborhood. Our co-op model’s purpose is to make healthful food affordable by keeping the overhead costs of store operations low. The mark-up is currently 25% (even lower on dairy I think), which is amazing. However, the prices are not low enough, and the products not recognizable enough, to lure folks from some of the lowest income brackets into the store. Why did we plant ourselves in this neighborhood if we are not going to try to reach out to those who could really benefit from the information, the community, and the food the co-op brings?

Here is a scenario I like to hope is possible: All the local, ethically-produced, organic, fair trade, items co-op members want are on the shelves. Next to these items are a number of healthful food options that are more conventional (co-op members want these too, judging by the Tillamook butter that has been a popular seller lately). These items may not follow the product policy in question, but they could offer people the choice to purchase affordable food without supporting Wal-Mart or other ugly giants. While these people are shopping for their comfortable, conventional items, they see an item boasting “Fair trade” or “Organic” or “Homegrown”, and they get curious over time, and the prices on all items start to drop as the person shops more often for their comfortable items. The person tells their friends what a bargain this co-op is! We get more and more members. The prices drop more. We no longer have to brainstorm incentives to get people to shop more. They are addicted to the service the co-op provides! Then, one day, this person who has never considered organic food looks sheepishly over their shoulder as they peel a new and strange item off the shelf out of utter curiosity. And they’re hooked!

I do not in the least take for granted the work the product committee has put into this policy. I realize it has been a tedious, intense research process with only positive outcomes in mind. I hope to utilize the information the committee has gathered, and I know it is important to hold companies accountable. I would like for everyone to have the choice to support only products that are ethically produced. I think getting there will take some balancing, and I don’t want affordability to lose its place on our co-op’s priority list.

Thanks for reading.

[Molly]

I want to commend the product committee for putting this document together. Laying out a decision tool for us to decide amongst choices based on our product policy will help the co-op immensely.

Because this reply follows those of Bob and Hermina, I will first speak to their comments and concern about price. My comments from there, deal with more nitty-gritty formatting and content suggestions.

Regarding price residing in the fourth position. I was on the product committee when the current ranking system was tabulated. The tabulation was based on a store-wide questionnaire which asked us to rank these items in order of importance. These rankings reflect the results of that questionnaire. I completely agree that price (as in any economic, environmental, or social sector) is going to be a driving force at our co-op. I believe our board and staff are able to understand this along with our long-range goals. As I understand it, we currently have a 25% mark-up because without it the co-op couldn't exist. I also understand that once we're a bit more financially viable this mark-up will begin to take a downward spiral. I know our board will continue to serve our owners along with our surrounding community. I hope that they will continue to make low-income ownership options available and continue to advocate for this demographic to participate at our co-op. At the end of the day I also hope our staff and those serving on the product committee, when put in the hot seat to make a decision about whether or not to carry a product, will do so with their best judgment and interpretation of the policy aims and this decision tool. I also know that we have a vocal ownership that, I hope, will keep all of these rankings in check.

1. To this end, perhaps Bob and Hermina's concerns could have been addressed if 'fair price' was a category under each of the 'food products' and 'non-food products'. We did this for 'environmental/health', 'local', and 'social responsibility'. This is going to be a difficult task, but I think the product committee could define a base-line for 'fair price' to which we try and strive for under each of the food types.

2. I would also suggest that the co-op, continually evaluate the rankings. Product committee, can we add a motion at each annual meeting for an owner request to fill out a questionnaire which ranks the decision criteria? Outreach committee, can we try to conduct a yearly survey (like Maxine's effort) of our surrounding community, which includes an evaluation of product ranking categories? Product committee could you, in turn, adjust this tool to reflect the desires of the owners and surrounding community each year?

3. If we're going to use the word 'unaffordable', provide a link or definition (like we do for 'organic') which defines this term for the co-op.

4. Under 'meat and diary', do we want to mention that by requiring organic, this also prohibits the use of growth hormones. I'm thinking owners would want to be assured of this criteria.

5. The phrase, 'have cooperative or private ownership,' under 'social responsibility' seems to be hanging out there format wise. Maybe this is only on ning, but if not, collapse it under the previous bullet or make it it's own bullet.

6. I like the large definition of 'social responsibility' under 'produce'. Why does this definition not exist under the other product categories (meat, dairy, fish, toiletries, etc.)?

7. I was going to originally suggest that we collapse like bullets under one large bullet at the beginning. But, after reading the complete document, I like the repetition. I think it makes it easier to use this document if each of the criteria are spelled out under each product type. Way to go!

8. Under 'coffee, tea, spices', I think we need to include 'preferably organic'. Is there a reason the committee did not include this under this product type? Also, do we want to mention the value of 'shade grown' under this category?

9. The definition of 'local' under 'toys and crafts' seems to be addressing 'produce'. We should fix this to reflect this category. I would suggest local under this category to only be Missoula area. It seems like Missoula has a large enough craft sector that we could source from. If I'm wrong, expand local accordingly.

10. The last half of the document is in bold. I would keep the same formatting through out.

Please email me if anybody has any questions regarding my suggestions. Above all, please post a reply to this discussion if anybody wants to counter my suggestions. This is our process for making the co-op the best place to shop!

Peace,

Molly White

[Pedro]

The last three posts have done a fantastic job of laying out some concerns I also share concerning the product purchasing guidelines. For myself, the guidelines are right on the mark. To bring about the new paradigm of food self-sufficiency and a new era of healthy living, we have to reconnect to our food- and that means avoiding the heavily processed and long-traveled food our country has blindly consumed for too long. The Co-op is truly breaking ground in this respect and I am proud to be a part of it.

The reality is that we are a huge minority in the world of food consumers. And the co-op's immediate neighbors likely have food-buying habits consistent with the dominant paradigm-- want it cheap and familiar. We that shop there recognize our local favorites and natural food suppliers we trust. Those labels might as well be in Chinese to many of the co-op's neighbors. There has to be a way to make a bridge to get people into the store that normally would dismiss the co-op as too eco-groovy or just plain pricey. If we continue buying strictly according to these guidelines, the co-op will grow, but growth will be slow... slower than it could be. Below are some scenarios of the way I see this process evolving:

A) Co-op sticks to purchasing guidelines. Extra energies will have to placed into outreach and educational initiatives that will hopefully bring our neighbors in the door. These will incur expenses the co-op currently can't afford, but maybe will be able to afford down the road via grants, students, volunteers. This process is energy intensive on our side and doesn't necessarily get the gorgeous $0.88 local plum in someone's mouth.

B) Co-op sticks to purchasing guidelines. NMCDC's proposed cafe and community kitchen opens in the same building. The Cafe's goals are numerous, but among them are to serve local residents and become a food source, particularly for lunch and dinner. Faced with running a business, the cafe may have to (the economics of all this are still in initial stages) provide low-cost meals including some conventional products. Even something as simple as a rack of Mars candy bars might get local families in the door and the ball rolling. At this point the co-op has a chance of becoming more accessible-- potential members are already in the door, and friendly people at an info booth as well as signage and samples get people interested in the co-op.

C) Co-op maintains purchasing policy but, recognizing need to attract local community, begins offering some staple food items similar to those found at Safeway, etc. Products are exaggeratedly labeled as within Co-op buying guidelines or "Conventional". Shoppers then are faced with the choices we all face at say, the O Street Food Farm. Do you go "organic" and "local" and pay slightly more or do you pocket the money and go conventional.

I admit I haven't fully swallowed the implications of option C. But the co-op is currently offering a foreign menu to our neighbors AND requiring that they work in the store. More people will come...but how long will that take?

Are there other incentives the co-op could offer to get more people in the door, thus enabling a more strict adherence to the buying guidelines? Such as membership discounts to people living within 3,4,5 square blocks? Offering family memberships? Offering differential work scheduling for immediate neighbors? Answering some of these questions would help me understand which of the co-op's policies are the most set in stone.

Hope this helps...

Pedro Marques

[Leslie Kitchens Guerreri]

Thank you product committee for all your work to put this together. It is a move in a positive direction. I do have several concerns. One is the requirement for non-toxic ink on product packaging. How realistic is this requirement? How will it affect everything that is on our shelves now? Will we carry no meat if all of it has toxic ink on the package? What if the only non-toxic ink choice is twice the cost of something that we have now? I am a supporter of non-toxic everything, but I anticipate some limitations on this requirement. I am not willing to pay twice the price for non-toxic ink.
My other main concern is with price. I feel that we must stay competitive with members' other choices around town. Some members are very committed to our coop principles, but many are not so much. Good prices are a big incentive to many less committed members. I don't mean we should have no values about our product selection, but cost must be a major factor in what we put on the shelves.

[Terri Roberts]

A documented Product Selection Policy should be a guide based on what our members fundamentally and thoughtfully want and need. I see it as a simple and dynamic document that initially records what members convey (through comments AND shopping habits) as important qualities in the food we stock on our shelves and ultimately in our cupboards. It needs to be realistic and not too rigid. This comment thread is seemingly more focused on quality affordable food than sustainability and organics and I think we need to pay attention. It's a given that we want the most healthful, sustainably produced local food that we can get our hands on and ultimately we can provide a solid conventional option next to the organic one on the shelf. This will be difficult to accomplish with some commonly purchased food items - even when we have grown into a larger retail space. The Sheldon's chicken is a perfect example of this challenge. Concerning chicken - the more local we get, the more far-reaching the price and Sheldon's is the most affordable option available.

All that said, and given our limited distribution here in the Northwest, I would rather not prioritize the principles as drafted. As said before, it seems we are all (members) on the same page as to the importance of the first three principles -(1) environmental and consumer health impacts of the product and company, (2) local items, (3) social responsibility of the company- but I think we need to stick to our original mission of providing affordable healthful food to all income brackets, and we should consider above principles equally with fair prices.

[becca hedgehog]

Dear cooperators all,
It's exciting to find and follow comments from members about our co-op selection policy. Your input is necessary, valuable and timely and very much appreciated by your product committee members who have been working hard in drafting the document. We had our monthly meeting last night (2/3) and were happy for your ideas and values expressed. You have provided a lot to consider and no doubt some big and little changes will be coming. These changes will be presented and discussed at a General meeting this winter, most likely in March so be sure to come. Those who have already commented should look for an email of gratitude and possibly a few questions soon. We would love any additional input you may have. Although the deadline for comments was January 31st members are encouraged to continue to add further comments here or send an email directly to us at [e-mail]. Thanks one and all. And keep looking for your best store at our co-op. ~~Becca Titus and your product committee members.

[Bethann Garramon]

First, my apologies - I meant for this to be a brief comment, but it got away from me. It is not a rant though, rather largely a series of questions, so please take a look. :)

I would like to add my two cents to the discussion about fair prices, and how they factor into my personal purchase decision-making matrix. All the product selection criteria are excellent, and I appreciate the work the committee has done to develop them. I appreciate that I know they have conducted extensive research, thereby assuring co-op shoppers of high environmental and production standards without requiring we individually conduct equally extensive research as we build our personal shopping lists.

However, I think the "ethical" element ABSOLUTELY includes fair prices throughout the market chain - not the least of which is the consumer. I celebrate that our low overhead, due to co-opers working their shifts, results in lower mark ups than most of our grocery stores in Missoula. However, I feel it is essential that we extend the ethics to our neighbors, and not just those directly in our neighborhood.

Additionally, a critical factor in this discussion is clearly the location of the co-op. For more recent members, it may be helpful to review any historical records that the co-op or NMCDC has on file detailing the process which ultimately situated the co-op on the Westside. According to Bob Oaks recently, it was one of nearly (or more than) 10 locations considered. SO MANY FACTORS played a part in deciding the location of that community food hub. It is critical to understand that background, and also the greater vision for that facility, of which the co-op is a part. The co-op is a piece of a larger tapestry being woven at the Burns Street site, and as members, it is important that we a) understand and b) not loose sight of that. Decisions were made before many of us became involved, and are being made around the co-op, for other parts of the facility, even now.

I have a few questions, to which we may collectively already know the answers. If so, that's great. If not, I think they are interesting questions which could inform this discussion (now and in the future). They currently include the following:
1. How many co-op members live within walking distance of the co-op? (Defined as 10-minutes one-way)

2. How many co-op members shop exclusively at the co-op?

3. If not exclusively at the co-op, why not?

4. How many co-op members (let alone Missoulians who shop elsewhere) make food purchase decisions based on price?

5. If all other things are relatively equal, do you make decisions based on price?

6. How many co-op members choose to spend extra money based on their "food ethics"?

7. How many co-op members are technically below the area median income threshholds for Missoula (est. by HUD - see attachment used at MUD for a basic rubric)?

8. How many co-op members feel that our decisions should ultimately be tested against our mission and vision? See this link to the co-op's website page stating the mission and vision: http://www.missoulacommunitymarket.org/Mission.

9. How do we, as the co-op, define "affordable" food? Is affordable based on a relative comparison to other products in the co-op (or at another grocery)? Is affordable determined by what % of members consider a price cost-prohibitive in its own right? Is affordable determined by how many times the price must be marked down before folks start buying it at a reasonable frequency, etc.?

10. This question is based on the following direct quote from the co-op vision statement: we advocate for and are responsive to the greater needs of the Missoula community.
Part I: How many co-op members pay money and dedicate hours of their life (not required to shop anywhere else in town) in part because they want to see this opportunity made available to their neighbors, wherever they live in Missoula?
Part II: How many co-op members belong to the co-op only because they want to have a personal influence on their groceries, and for no other even remotely socialist or altruistic reasons?

11. How many members consider the buy-in and time commitment to be a minor (or major) hardship, albeit one worth it's pay off?

12. How many members would not be able to meet the co-op work requirement if all adults in their household held one or more full-time jobs each?

13. How many members of the co-op are actually representative buyers for a 2+ person household of at least two adults? Meaning, only one adult of the household is a member. Why is only 1 adult a member?

And the list could go on. My point is that there are clearly a LOT of concerns related to "fair price" which aren't addressed by stocking fair trade coffee. Based on all the previous (recent and otherwise) comments, it is clear that a local fair price is of significance to co-op members and Missoulians in general. If we decide to maintain an intimate elite ambiance, we potentially limit our growth rate, sales rates, and ultimate membership numbers.

I'll finish with my two cents - I do choose based on a matrix of the criteria included in the product selection policy. Sometimes price is paramount, sometimes organic, and sometimes local. It depends enormously on how much I have in the bank, what I know about cultivation alternatives for produce, and if I know something is locally available seasonally or not. I shop the co-op first (if I can keep track of when it is open), but I do not shop it exclusively because I don't find everything I want/need there, and occasionally choose to make lower cost purchases elsewhere. I represent a 2-adult household, with both of us fully employed, but we cannot afford the time or expense to be a 2-member household. I do not live within walking distance (10 minutes one-way), and I have fairly stringent standards for food and household product purchases. I am well below the 80% median income threshold. I'm not sure how to define affordable, but if we haven't we should do so. I consider access to healthful food (encompassing nutrition, social and environmental concerns) a fundamental human right, which is a major factor in my membership in the co-op. The time commitment and buy-in costs are a minor hardship, but I think they are worth it. That doesn't mean we can dismiss that as a potential barrier for participation by others! Finally, I feel strongly that our decisions about product selection, programs we may ultimately offer, etc. should be vetted against our mission and vision. The mission and vision should be our "ultimate authority" and if they do not satisfy the members, they should be revised.

[Kate Keller]

Having evoked some heated conversation, and potential confusion by posting individual comments to our list-serv, I am posting all the documents, letters,and rebuttals that I received in response.

This first, an editorial summary of the product policy and comments posted on the NING site by Mark Wayne.

[Kate Keller]

Secondly, a letter from Dalit Guscio, one of the principal authors of the product selection draft, and member of the product committee.

[Terri Roberts]

Thanks Kate and thank you to all who have commented.

[Kate Keller]

Thirdly, a rebuttal written by Bob Oaks, a founding member with a history in the co-op's development.