To: PrivateLabel Customer Service

Cc: "Jessie Walker (CE CEN)" , "Travis Bohmann (SW SWC)" , "Rachael Gruver (CE CEN)" , "Courtney Mudge (CE CEN)" , "Karen Roberts (SW WIL)" ,

Dear Ms. Riggs:

Your email response* is deceptive at best. First, you accuse OCA of making inaccuracies during their press conference but you do so without providing any specific examples. Second, your email uses the old and tried argument that the rest of the non-organic and commercial manufacturers use all the time: "Even if our product contains such and such chemical, we don't believe that our product represents a health risk."

You can believe whatever you want.  But when it comes to my money and my health, I choose to avoid all products that contain any cancer carcinogens. Third, your email states, "these products ... are not in excess of California's Proposition 65 Safe Harbor level for 1,4-dioxane." The California's Proposition 65 Safe Harbor level for 1,4-dioxane is listed at 30 micrograms per day.  OCA in its study found 365 products such as the Everyday Value Dish Liquid, Everyday Value Shampoo, and Everyday Value Shower Gel to contain detectable amounts of this chemical carcinogen at 1.6, 2.2 and 20.1 micrograms per gram, respectively.

While your last statement appears to be factual at face value, OCA is making the argument that when laboratory animals are tested with this chemical carcinogen at parts per billion, they still developed cancer over the animal's lifetime.

So, who is right?  The customer is always right--even when they are wrong. I strongly suggest that Whole Foods Market and its Private Label company stop playing the Public Relations and deflection game and get down to either refute the results of OCA's study OR remove from the shelves of Whole Foods Market the products that contain even minute trace amounts of 1,4-dioxane and/or other chemical carcinogens.
Sincerely, Name withheld to protect privacy of consumer

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/Aug2005StatusReport.pdf http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single120806.pdf http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/DioxaneResults08.cfm http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/DioxaneFacts080314.pdf
_______________________________________________________

*On Mar 24, 2008, at 7:00 PM, PrivateLabel Customer Service wrote:

Dear David,

Thank you for your email. Karen Roberts from the Wilcrest store also wrote us on behalf of you.

Thank you for your concerned email about the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) study on 1, 4-dioxane.

The allegations that the OCA made during its press conference contained inaccuracies. We are launching our own investigation into the allegations that some of our products contain 1,4-dioxane. Even assuming that the OCA data is accurate, we believe that these products do not represent a health risk and are not in excess of California's Proposition 65 Safe Harbor level for 1,4-dioxane.

For shoppers who are looking for alternatives to the products named by the OCA, we carry numerous USDA organically certified personal care products in addition to other products that meet our own Premium Body Care standards. Our standards have been designed utilizing the most current research and resources to evaluate products in key areas of safety, naturalness, efficacy, environmental impact and labeling.

Again, we appreciate your email. Let us know if we can help you with anything else.

Thank you,
April Riggs
Customer Service Specialist, Private Label
____________________________________
Message:

To Whom It May Concern: I am a frequent shopper at your store (probably spent $300- $400 per month at your store. I find out that one of the products that I am using, purchased from your store, is the 365 Dish Liquid which the Organic Consumers Association has tested for petrochemicals and this product apparently uses 1,4- Dioxane--a cancer causing petrochemical. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7qe4zfhDLY
I want the Wilcrest manager to call me to remedy this situation by first refund this product (I will return the recently opened bottle). And secondly, to remove such products that use this particular toxin and cancer causing petrochemicals.

David

PS: I expect WH to act quickly on this matter--no only might WH loss customers for false advertising, but WH may be sued for endangering the health of its customers through neglect and false advertising.