Roger Berman: Co-op boycott could have opposite effect

Years ago I was a member of the Northampton Food Co-op, on Market Street in Northampton. I was also briefly a representative from the co-op to the Western Mass co-ops, a group of co-ops that joined together to combine buying power and exchange issues and solutions. A big issue at the time was declining membership and sales. There were several reasons, but a big one that several co-ops reported was increasing political and dietary restrictions placed by vocal members on what their co-op could carry. This applied to both pre-order and storefront co-ops.

At that time there were far fewer options, so restrictions had a much greater impact. Bananas from “banana republics” and similar products were banned. Sugar, coffee and other products as dietary evils also were banned. This did not stop people from buying them; they merely bought them somewhere else, while harboring resentment that their co-op would ban something they, an equal member of the co-op, wanted. And while they were there, rather than make a separate trip, they would buy things that they would normally get at the co-op.

The point is that banning Israeli products won’t prevent them from being bought, it will only result in resentment in members having to find them elsewhere (so much easier these days with the internet).

Meanwhile, have the River Valley Co-op boycott organizers investigated the political views of the owners of every product they want to ban? Do they know whether the owners support or oppose the war in Gaza? They could be harming the very people who could have a much greater influence on the war than we can. Should a blanket ban on Israeli products have a financial effect, it could make things worse, not better.

Roger Berman

Florence