Lidl Highlights Lack of Coop Affordability
Dear Editor,
I appreciated very much Anita Bushell’s January 20 article on the Park Slope branch of Lidl, a new German grocery story on of which I was unaware. Among other things, she highlighted items in several categories that are more affordable at Lidl than they are at the Coop, including mandarin oranges, multigrain bread, and croissants. All but one variety of apple there are also on offer at a lower price. All this with no work requirement.
Bushell prefers the quality of goods and feeling of community at the Coop. I do too, but her survey highlights an important reality: Increasingly, we are a place less about affordable foods and more about elevated (or some might say snobby) preferences and responsible (or some might say politicized) sourcing.
Our markup was “temporarily” increased to 25% from 21% nearly six years ago and with spiraling health care and other costs, reporting out of the general meetings makes clear there is no return on the horizon to the original lower food prices. For the past year, I’ve found it cheaper to have coffee delivered from Finland than to buy it at the Coop, to give one example.
Meanwhile far more members seem interested in engaging in geopolitical debates than with costs and affordability. Instead of turning up our noses at Lidl, we should consider how to replicate their tight mission focus and efficiencies. Or we should at least be more honest about the fact that affordability, for those of us who don’t qualify for special programs, is slipping away at our beloved Coop.
In cooperation,
Ryan Tate
Receiving shift (Lifter)
Regarding Lidl’s Review
Dear Coop community,
Anita Bushell’s January 20 article on the relative merits of Lidl and the Coop (“Cheap Croissants but Lidl Charm“) misses the mark. The Coop and Lidl are fundamentally different, but it hardly warrants pooh-poohing Lidl.
In truth, many Coop products are expensive, and Lidl is generally cheaper. As Ms. Bushell observes, the Coop wins on quality and variety. But many products at Lidl—like fresh breads—are actually superior to the Coop’s. Lidl produce, while not as good as Coop produce, is decent and mostly cheaper than what’s for sale at Trader Joe’s. It’s hardly fair to diminish it as “an okay option for last-minute dashes.”
Frankly, I find Ms. Bushell’s mockery of discount promotions as features of a “a glorified mini-mart” deeply out of touch when affordability is such an important issue. I also struggle to relate to her lamenting the loss of the semi-suburban Key Foods parking lot and ruing its replacement with housing units, many set aside for affordable housing. (N.B. It was community leaders who advocated for an affordable grocery store in the development.)
Lidl is not especially warm or charming; most groceries aren’t. It employs the same antitheft gate system used across Europe. If this system reduces the shoplifting that chain supermarket operators often cite as reasons for avoiding certain neighborhoods, it’s a reasonable trade-off. Lidl has been expanding across the city, often in neighborhoods lacking affordable alternatives. It’s also open to anyone who walks off the street—unlike the Coop.
I rather like the Coop, which is why I’m a member, but that doesn’t mean I look down on Lidl. I do however wholly disapprove of mocking a discount grocery store’s food as “technically edible.”
Sincerely,
Daniel Stone
Paging Compostable Bags to the Bulk Aisle
Dear Coop members:
As a newer member of the Coop, I’ve been impressed by the sustainable practices in place: a robust composting system, food donation to CHiPS and other food rescue organizations, reuse of delivery boxes for shoppers, and much more.
I’m curious about one, albeit small, area where we might be able to do better: the plastic bags used for pre-packaged bulk items and bread. I recognize there may be considerations I’m not aware of—cost or performance issues with compostable options—though given compostable bags are available in the produce section, I wonder if there’s potential to transition these remaining plastic bags to compostable (or at the very least non-plastic) alternatives.
Part of my motivation for writing this letter is to see if this is something other members would support pursuing. The Coop’s commitment to sustainability is a large part of what drew me to the organization, and I would love to help continue to drive this core part of our mission: “We strive to reduce the impact of our lifestyles on the world we share with other species and future generations.”
Kindly,
Kristen Mashikian
Food Holds Energy With a Message
Dear Coop members,
In 2015, when my daughters were 5 and 4 years old, I joined the PSFC. Our family enjoyed all the organic goodies we are so blessed to have available. My friend Anna, also a PSFC member, pointed out how I would bring carrots and a peeler with me to the Children’s Museum; my nephew would laugh at how my stroller would be full of food and called me a refrigerator.
We would not leave home without all our food.
In the book Food Rules, writer Michael Pollan observes how much of what he sees for sale doesn’t “deserve to be called food.” Instead, he prefers to “call them edible food-like substances.”
Having growing up in Tunisia and in Switzerland, I was alarmed at the quality of food sold in the US. My studies confirmed what my intuition was telling me: food is more than calories and nutrients. It holds the energy of the farmer, the farm, nature, and the intention behind the making of that food. Food holds a message.
I started cooking for my community to have conversations on ethical food and why we need to know where our food comes from. When we eat local food, it’s easier to know the energy it holds. We want to give money to people who are caring for our land and taking good care of their employees and animals. I don’t want to eat anger and pain, do you?
Guided by that philosophy, I do not buy ingredients from Israel, and I’m in favor of boycotting all goods from there until Israel ends what an overwhelming number of human rights organizations and authorities on international law say is a genocide, and Palestinians live freely.
I am honored to serve the PSFC with my food. I offer a vegan Tunisian sandwich called LA TUNISIENNE, free of cruelty. Find it Sundays in the grab and go fridge.
Sincerely,
Nadia Ketoure
Tear Down This Wall!
Dear Coop,
Later this year, the GM will likely consider whether to repeal the undemocratic supermajority requirement for boycotts. This rule, devised by those seeking to prevent the PSFC from joining the BDS movement, mandates a 75% “yes” vote to approve any boycott. Adopted in 2016, it supersedes the practice that governed our decisions on at least nine boycotts we’d observed since our founding in 1973: approval by simple majority vote. That’s the same way we make all other membership decisions except for changes to our bylaws (which require a two-thirds majority in favor). Members considering repeal deserve to know the history behind this departure from longstanding Coop precedent.
Advocacy for a BDS boycott at the Coop began in 2009, during an especially virulent Israeli campaign targeting Gaza. Longtime General Manager Joe Holtz voiced his strong opposition. In 2010, he wrote a Gazette column (PDF) recommending that “all boycotts be passed by a two-thirds majority from now on.” The suggestion gained traction a few years later, following the defeat of a proposal to hold a referendum (Coop-wide vote) on BDS and the introduction of a measure to boycott SodaStream. In 2013, Jesse Rosenfeld proposed requiring an 80% supermajority for boycotts. At the January 2016 GM, an updated version setting the formula at 75% was approved. According to the Gazette’s GM coverage (PDF), the meeting featured confused instructions from the Chair Committee and expressions of bewilderment from members, such that the result “did not have a feeling of finality.”
In 2017, a GM voted on whether to join a boycott of Tom Cat Bakery, whose management had fired 21 workers in cooperation with ICE. The measure fell victim to the supermajority rule, failing despite solid support (a 59% “yes” vote) (PDF).
The supermajority rule is a wall to keep out justice. High time to dismantle it.
Sincerely,
Jan Clausen
Have Rachmones: Imagine Menstruation Where Import of Hygiene Products is Banned
Fellow Members,
Perhaps you’ve heard someone ask: Why Israel? Why do thousands of Coop members demand a boycott of Israeli products, especially now that there’s a ceasefire*? Let’s take a closer look and use an Israeli newspaper as a source. On January 22, 2026 Haaretz reported a “shortage in basics such as beef, poultry and hygiene products, caused by Israel’s decision to ban the entry of these products…”.
These banned hygiene products include menstrual supplies and diapers. Last week, I received a charity request to fund period kits for menstruating women and girls in Gaza. I was ready to donate, but then wondered: would these even make it through the blockade?
In the Yiddish-English home of my girlhood, my mother would often tell me to “have rachmones” (empathy or compassion) for others. Whether or not you’ve ever menstruated, it should be easy to imagine how wretched it would be to have no products to absorb your menstrual blood, and how much more of a horror it would be if you were living in a freezing cold refugee camp with extremely limited toilets or clean running water, and let alone privacy.
Every time we member-owners stock, sell, and buy Israeli products, we contribute to the economy of a country that has chosen to keep Palestinians in Gaza without period products and diapers.
Have Rachmones,
Alyce Barr
* It’s hard to understand what Israel considers a ceasefire, since Israeli forces have killed over 470 Palestinians during the current ceasefire.
Antisemitism Is Real, so Is State-Sponsored Violence
Dear Coop members:
In the two most recent issues of the Linewaiters’ Gazette, members continued to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Zack Zaban’s letter of Jan. 20 quotes the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism Report which states “that “anti-Israel rhetoric, however well-intentioned, demonstrably contributes to violence against Jews,” suggesting that we should not even speak out against injustice if it is committed by Israel. But the Torah demands that “we not stand by the blood of our neighbor,” (Leviticus 19:16)
As of late January, the “blood of our neighbor” continues to flow.
On Tuesday, Jan. 20, the Guardian reported that “Israeli crews started bulldozing the headquarters of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees in occupied East Jerusalem and fired teargas at a UN vocational school in Qalandia, in the West Bank.”
On Wednesday, Jan. 21, an Israeli airstrike killed three journalists, according to the New York Post. Eight other people, including two 13-year old boys, were also killed by Israeli forces, per the BBC.
More than 470 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire since the “ceasefire” took effect on Oct. 10, 2025.
Answering the call to boycott Israeli products is a non-violent means of pressuring the State of Israel to end the systematic oppression of Palestinians. Coop members are free to disagree about what terms to use in characterizing Israel’s actions, as well as how or whether we as a Coop ought to respond.
But as members of the Coop, we believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility, and caring for others.
Antisemitism is a real problem and these are dangerous times. We need real solutions, not self-serving arguments. Political differences within the Coop are not a threat to our safety. We must resolve questions of Coop policy through democratic processes, not suppression. I look forward to the vote on a boycott of Israeli products at a future GM.
In cooperation,
Rebecca Schoenberg-Jones
Some See Upside to a “Looming Collapse”
Dear Members,
I read recently of a “looming collapse” of Israel’s agricultural exports market. Whether or not we boycott Israeli goods at the Coop, this collapse could achieve what so many courageous amongst us have campaigned for: a better world.
Sincerely,
Damien Neva
Know the Facts Before You Vote
Dear Coop community:
As we gear up for what’s sure to be a contentious discussion (and, finally, a vote!!) on the boycott of Israeli products, it’s essential that members reach out and learn the facts about previous and current organizing efforts.
Please DO NOT believe claims of antisemitism (I for one am proudly Jewish) and other emotional appeals to secure votes against a boycott. Some members weaponize such claims, and it behooves all of us to understand the facts and vote our consciences.
The Coop has a long, proud history of boycotting products from countries and entities that fail to act in accordance with our Mission Statement. I urge all members to familiarize themselves with that Statement and the importance of boycotts in the struggles worldwide for justice.
Yes, this issue brings “conflict” among us and, yes, discussions on these matters can be challenging, but I believe in the Coop, its Mission Statement, and the integrity of our members to proceed with the facts and in a spirit of cooperation
Sincerely,
Carol Wald
Trying to “Join the Conversation” Would Be Easier With Some Transparency, Please
Dear Coop members:
I’m writing with questions about the December 30 “Join the Conversation” memo announcing a facilitated conversation about conflict in the Coop community, capped at 12 participants, with work-slot credit for attending. The memo emphasized confidentiality and directed members to apply online.
I applied almost immediately, but wasn’t selected. I understand that there was likely limited capacity, but when shift credit is offered for a limited-access event, the selection and approval process should be transparent.
Questions I hope the Coop can answer:
- Will there be additional sessions, and will members who weren’t selected this time get priority or another clear path to participate?
- What were the selection criteria? Was it first-come/first-served, a lottery, or based on other considerations? If so, what were they? Was race, ethnicity, religion, or identity considered?
- Who approved this as eligible for shift credit, and under what policy or category? What safeguards ensured it was administered fairly and consistently?
- Where was this discussed publicly within Coop governance? I don’t recall seeing it in General Meeting materials or minutes, but I’d appreciate a pointer if I missed it.
Sincerely,
Vivek Bhagwat
Coop Work-Slot Credit
Dear Editor:
On January 12, I participated in a Coop event for work-slot credit to discuss how conflict at the Coop “affected your experience as a Coop member.” It covered “your experience as a Coop member during times of conflict, especially if it feels personal,” and was not about making “decisions about a boycott or convincing anyone of a particular view.” (Quoted text is all pulled from the document from the moderators). Six people took part.
We agreed to no audio recording and no names. Moderators were asked what they were bringing back from this session to the Coop community. They said they were not providing any information to the Coop.
I argued that the Membership needs to obtain value for holding this session as the Coop provided the site and work slot credits to the participants. It is not a breach of confidentiality to provide a high-level report, which does not include names or direct quotes.
I noted that I could write a letter to the Gazette, following those guidelines. One participant was against any letter writing. The moderators who had advised that they were not decision makers, now ruled against my right to inform the Coop. At that point I left the session.
If the moderators want to hold this type of meeting under the “No Feedback” to Members rule, then it should not be held on Coop property. It is really a private activity. The Coop should not host or provide work-slot credits for something that doesn’t inform the Members and directly or indirectly, benefit the Coop.
I respectfully request that any future sessions be canceled.
In Cooperation,
Stewart Pravda
In the Land of “Broken Land Dreams” (With Apologies to the Boss)
Dear Coop members,
My magical realism novel, Broken Land Dreams, out in Kindle and print, mentions the Coop and Park Slope. It’s not just for Boomers, guys in search of themselves, or Brooklynites, but those in need of a Hired Power, progressives, mindfulness types, literary mavens, utopian dreamers, and young superheroes with contemplative and critical thinking powers.
The book defies a conventional linear narrative. In Part I, Jacob Traum, a grumpy, retired high school social worker and meditating lefty boomer, tells us his wife Maya has left him and warns him he needs to recover from himself. He describes the puzzling and socially unjust things he broods and dreams about that contribute to his disposition and emotional absence.
In Part II, the surreal story begins. With the help of his dreamt-up, gender-fluid, hired power with superpowers from the future, Jacob embarks on a Dante-esque, pandemic-era personal journey. In Hell Inc. he’s confronted by, then manages to escape three right-wing rats, leaders of the Ratocracy conspiracy—Ratty Ghouliani, Ayn Ratnd, and Pete the New York Pizza Rat. The rats seek revenge by infesting his former high school with Ratocratic values and plan to take over Brooklyn. With the help of his Park Slope (Purgatory) men’s group, the Brooklyn Codgers, and his high school students’ socially conscious meditation group, imbued with their own superhero powers, Jacob must face himself as well as the Ratocrats in a final showdown to reach Heaven (the Brooklyn Botanic Garden), save Brooklyn, and earn back Maya.
In our post-pandemic and Trump-redux era, this re-telling of Dante’s cosmic journey will appeal to many of us facing an uncertain future and to those who appreciate how truth, love, and Brooklyn-style dreams triumph over meanness, greed, fake news—and New York rats.
Sincerely,
David Forbes