digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at awesome.goodmagazine.com

Who Owns All The Organic Companies? (Chart)

awesome.goodmagazine.com — You may be surprised to discover which big businesses are making your organic foods.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • GuerillaC, on 03/14/2008, -6/+77Fantastic chart. I had no idea about most of these. I love how far companies will go to appear like the farm next door, when it's really a multi-million dollar corporation.
    • rickytan, on 03/14/2008, -0/+51A lot of these companies started up independently and were purchased up by the big players.
    • antifreze, on 03/14/2008, -5/+14And just because they are owned by a large company doesn't mean organic is bad. Organic will still be healthier because its free from pesticides, genetic modification. Just don't think you're helping out a local farmer. And the more you buy organic, the more these big money driven companies will shift their resources from industrial agriculture to organic agriculture.

      Now the type of farming that is superior to both industrial and organic agriculture is Sustainable agriculture. Basically, buy fresh, buy local. Buy from a farmer that turns waste into resources for other parts of it's farm.

      A good listen on agriculture is this:

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
      (Michael Pollan talking about his book "The Omnivore's Dilemma")
      • jbmcb, on 03/14/2008, -3/+11> Organic will still be healthier because its free from pesticides, genetic modification.

        There is no proof that foods prepared without insecticides or GM are healthier than the regularly prepared foodstuffs.

        Listen to the second segment from the following:
        http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podc ...
        http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podc ...
      • ViperDaimao, on 03/14/2008, -1/+9why is it healthier to have insect ridden food grown in *****? I'll take my large, cheaper, GM'ed, pesticided, irradiated fruit thank you very much.
      • quandrum, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3Plus, there's really no way to tell if that "Organic" food is grown without pesticides or GM'ing. It's a meaningless label that can be applied willy nilly to just about anything because no one checks up on these companies. Right now you are paying a 50% premium on a promise from these companies that they won't use all the advanced agricultural techniques they have spent years and millions developing so they could cut cost on their goods. Do you really think they are trustworthy?
    • slowmo, on 03/14/2008, -0/+6Burt's Bees is owned by Clorox and Ben and Jerry's is own by Unilever(makers of fine products such as Axe body spray and Slim Fast).
      • WhiteRaven, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2True. What is your point?

        For the record, this kind of thing should serve as proof that "big business" is ultimately responsive to customer demands. So many people try to depict cooperations (in America) as all-powerful but the simple fact is, when customers want something, busienss is left with little choice but to provide it.
    • johnpaul191, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4But remember most all of these were founded independently. Burt's Bees, Ben and Jerry's, Tom's of Maine etc etc. Ben + Jerrys was a major financial success and acquired as a smart business move on any page. The acquisition of things like Burt's Bees etc is partly because these huge corporations want an organic line. It's easier/cheaper to buy an indie that has some brand presence than starting a new one from scratch. It also gives them a nice founding story for the website or product package.
      I kind of put Ben and Jerry's in a different category because they were just a flat out financial success. They were not popular because they were organic or healthy, they just were on the forefront of that kind of ice-cream. The founders had a lot of lefty/hippie political leanings, but at the end of the day ice cream is junk food.
  • blackolive, on 03/14/2008, -17/+45I feel betrayed.
    • godzillaWax, on 03/14/2008, -3/+39Why? Shouldn't you be encouraging major corporations to produce organic food? As far as I'm concerned I hope companies like Kraft see the most profit in their organic brands.
      What's more worrisome is how the standards that qualify something as "organic" are applied (there's no one government body that oversees this).
      • dondara, on 03/14/2008, -3/+14The term "Organic" is regulated by the USDA and is required to be certified as such. Wal-Mart tried to buy the committee and reduce the organic standards but they were stopped. The term, "Natural" on the other hand is just a marketing term that means nothing but "organic" means certified organic. Now are the certifiers and companies complying as required? Well, you never really know now do you. But anything that discourages pesticides and GMO's is a good thing and should be encouraged. People complain about the cost of organics but it's just your body and health, why would you spend money on that?
        • godzillaWax, on 03/14/2008, -1/+5How far does the organic label extend? If chickens are boxed up and never see daylight, can their eggs still be considered organic? Does it guarentee that the cows are free range? I'm not being sarcastic, I genuinely want to know. I just suspect that the term "organic" is not so strict as it should be.
          • darkstar949, on 03/14/2008, -1/+5Depends on the country that is giving the label - some are stricter than others. As for right now, the Organic Certification applies more to grown foodstuffs [1] than it does to meat. The label Free Range would apply to chickens, however, the United States really doesn't regulate the term too much and all it means is that they have "access to the outdoors" which could be as little as a window in the chicken coop [2]. However, if you happen to be in the EU, then it is a specific legal term that requires the chickens to have daytime open air runs.

            [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification
            [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_range
        • kamilmarkowicz, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1I'm pretty sure that most organic eggs are from cage-free hens, however I don't know if the term organic specifically implies 'cage-free'. I just look for 'cage-free' and 'vegetarian fed' and I know that I'm safe...
      • root1657, on 03/14/2008, -2/+4Why should the gov oversee it? we dont need a federal nanny for EVERYTHING. Some things we are perfectly capable of doing ourselves ya know...
    • drmangrum, on 03/14/2008, -14/+12Why? It shocks you that food corporations own...food companies? Honestly, you make it sound as if non-organic is some kind of sinister evil. It's just food. You can choose to eat it or not. Some of it good for you, some of it isn't. In the end, is the organic that much better for you? Do you honestly believe the "organic" granola from Kashi is so much better for you ( and worth the price) than normal granola?

      Organic is just a buzzword that signals the stores to charge 20% more.
    • DrDragun, on 03/14/2008, -4/+11Why? Because "big companies" are selling you these goods? Look, most farm workers get a better gig working for big companies where they at least get a stable income instead of the constant risk of ups and downs from running your own small farm. It's hard to support a family with that kind of insecurity, and it's also a more expensive economic model.

      I went to a pretty good school (Tufts) and took a business class in which the professor asked "How many of you believe that most large companies are unethical" to which everyone raised their hand. The prof's jaw dropped. There is a sort of hyper-awareness of corporate corruption in the country that leads to a misperception that any big company is some kind of evil cheating monster.

      In truth, most of these large companies listed in this chart employ honest Americans and even at the white collar level most people are ethical and honest on important matters (thought lots of people lie a little here and there on paperwork in a tedious beaurocratic company with a quality-control system). There are a few cheaters and assholes out there in the corporate world but don't let that make you hate ALL big companies just because they are big companies.
      • Euph0rik, on 03/14/2008, -4/+1The reason most people "believe that most large companies are unethical" is because the basic goal of any Corporation is to make money. And in order to make the most money (profits) possible, Corporations will do most anything – layoff people in favor of automation, add synthesized chemicals instead of organic compounds, and lie about it all. People didn’t just get up one morning and decide that Corporations were bad, they were taught by the Corporations themselves due to their enduring unethical practices. Read: The Corporation, then talk to us about resounding public opinions.
        • root1657, on 03/14/2008, -2/+4The reason most men believe that women are cheating whore is because the basic goal of any woman is to be in a stable and health relationship. In order to get that relationship, they are willing to do almost anything - break up with abusive assholes or looser, get to know a few different people to see if they are that guy, etc. Men didn't just get up one morning and decide that women were evil, they were taught by the women themselves due to their enduring practices. Read: anything, because everything you read is totally true.
          • kday, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1You obviously know nothing about women.

            Women look to break up with the nice guy to be with the abusive asshole. You have it all backwards.
          • itsinmyeyes, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1you completely missed the point
    • roosterjm2k2, on 03/14/2008, -0/+15Keep in mind to that "ownership" != "total control"

      I was sitting next to a bigwig from kashi on a flight to San Diego last year. We were talking about how Kellogg's bought them...but Kellogg's has almost no control over the company..they basically just invested in them to get some of the profits...part of the purchase contract was the part that only gave Kellogg's like 10% of executive control...so basically, they could be the tie-breaker in a decision, but not near enough weight to throw around and force change...
    • mike17032, on 03/14/2008, -3/+3Instead of feeling betrayed, you should feel like a sucker because thats exactly what you are.

      Congrats on buying into the latest marketing trick, because thats all this "organic" nonsense is. Thanks for helping to drive up the cost of food by buying inferior product.
      • Euph0rik, on 03/14/2008, -2/+0Exactly! Just like Kraft uses the word Real® as a registered trademark to market their ‘dairy’ foodstuffs. This Organic label is nothing more than a gimmick to persuade the health-conscience consumer that THIS modified foodstuff is BETTER than our normal name-brand modified foodstuff.
      • kday, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Continue to eat your Saline injected, hormone fed chicken. Continue to eat those foods where 80% of the ingredients are food additives you can't even pronounce. Atleast on most of the organic advertised products, you can actually read the ingredients.
    • monkeybacon, on 03/14/2008, -3/+3He feels betrayed because it doesn't fit into the self righteous liberal lifestyle to buy products from, gasp, CORPORATIONS! Oh the humanity!
      • greenw40, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0Even in a simple thread about organic food, jerk offs like you still find a way to add "stupid liberal" comments.
        • WhiteRaven, on 03/15/2008, -1/+1Uh... actually, this is a very logical place to make such a statement. The organic food movement is certainly a liberal thing... and true to form, it's irrational on pretty much every level. It's poor efficiency means it's not good for the environment and it has no benefit on human health.
    • TypeEE, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1You will felt more betrayed when you found that Horizon organic milk is really not so organic. Please looked through this survey http://cornucopia.org/dairysurvey/index.html and this is what is said about Horizon: http://cornucopia.org/dairysurvey/FarmID_134.html

      "It has, according to widespread industry reports, very little access to pasture. Unlike the majority of all organic dairy farmers in the United States, who concentrate on the health and longevity of their cows, caring for them from birth, the Dean/Horizon Idaho farm sells off all their calves. Later, presumably to save money on organic feed and management, they buy one-year-old conventional animals on the open market. These replacements likely have received conventional milk replacer (made with blood—considered to be a "mad cow" risk), antibiotics, other prohibited pharmaceuticals, and genetically engineered feed. Many practices on a farm of this nature put ethical family-scale organic farmers at a competitive disadvantage."

      If you are out for real organic milk, go for the real thing and not an half ass organic. (BTW, the reason I am going for organic milk is because of reading stories of Monsanto providing hormones that are prohibited in any other first world countries other than USA)

      • WhiteRaven, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2Please do not equate "ethical" with "organic". It is not unethical to use modern science to promote growth and productivity.
  • amiecn, on 03/14/2008, -15/+7just when you thought it was safe to buy organic
    • lajaw, on 03/14/2008, -1/+7That's why you ought to go to the local Farmers Market and support your local farmer. Those that sell at the market would like for you to come out to the farm and see how they do things. Then you can judge the food you buy by the farmer and his/her operation.
      • imbetterthanu, on 03/14/2008, -0/+6We purchase the majority of our produce from our local farmers market. It's cheaper than the grocery store and the quality is much better. We even purchase our Chrsitmas tree, halloween pumpkins, and various herbs and flowers to plant in our flowerbeds there.

        We've never lived anywhere (we're in Raleigh now) that had something like this open seven days a week year round. It's a fantastic resource.
        • TypeEE, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1I can't imagine them to be cheaper than supermarket, the last time I check ,it's quite expensive.
          • lajaw, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Depends on the market. I always price below Wal-Mart.
    • Zera, on 03/14/2008, -0/+16WAIT - WAIT - WAIT ! I thought Organic Food was about how it was healthier and good for the future of plant diversity. Even if it does consume far more resources to produce the same amount of food, I thought maybe there were maybe some valid reasons for Organic.

      But look at all these comments on Digg! Are the justifications for "organic" just a facade for hating corporations? This is crazy talk. I'm shocked too see so many people complaining about FORTY brands of organic, just because they were purchased by some company they've learned to hate.
      • rossmcd, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2Where did you get the idea that organic foods take more resources to produce than non-organic?
        • Zera, on 03/14/2008, -0/+6Because they do. The whole idea of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides used in "normal" farming result in far greater yields. Therefore, that increase over "organic" methods becomes a ratio, and since all farming has the same inputs (tilling the fields, spreading fertilizers (both 'organic' and not), planting the fields, tilling planted fields to reduce weeds, harvesting, and transporting (not to mention the production of the seeds used); Therefore, these inputs are "sunk" costs. If you have a bumper crop, or an "organic" crop, it still took the same effort to grow. And if a normal bumper crop results in twice the yield of an organic crop, then the resources needed to grow that organic crop is double per bushel, per crate, per pound, per whatever measurement you want to use.

          This is purely why "organic" foods cost so much more. The increase in cost is primarily tied to the higher resources used, although the property tax of owning that farmland also plays a larger role in the price, and since you're getting less produce per acre, the price of that produce has to be higher in order to pay those taxes. The majority of the cost increase of organics though goes to pay for fuel for the tractors, and labor for the farmers.

          And I will add one more way that organic food consumes more resources and that is that USDA organic standards ban many techniques that keep produce from going bad on the way to the store/on the shelf/in your fridge. Every piece of food that goes bad before you buy it, you do ultimately pay for anyways, and with more food going bad in transit, less of it reaches consumers, but yet still took resources to create.
          • lajaw, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1"Organic farming produces the same yields of corn and soybeans as does conventional farming, but uses 30 percent less energy, less water and no pesticides, a review of a 22-year farming trial study concludes."
            http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/organic ...
          • rossmcd, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2Zera -

            I think you've mistaken cost to the producer for true resource cost of production. Large agrobiz has externalized some of the costs. Conventional farming uses synthetic fertilizers, which are made by chemical reactions at high temperature. These reactions are heated by fossil fuels, the costs of which are subsidized in many ways by the government. Run-off of sprayed-on fertilizers and pesticides cause problems in nearby water tables, which local governments have to pay to purify at water treatment facilities. Yes, conventional farming is better for transporting foods long distances... partly because costs of transporting goods to market are tax deductible. So once again, taxpayers are helping foot the bill. Organic only really works when it's produced roughly near to where it will be sold. This doesn't break down strictly by organic/conventional, but farms that use corn feed lots for cattle (rather than pasture-raised) are again taking advantage of corn subsidies.

            The point I am trying to make is that part of the higher price of organic food is an artifact of our economic incentives. Since conventional farming introduces more pollution into the environment, perhaps we should rethink what exactly we are using OUR money to incentivize.
          • Zera, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1lajaw - great! everywhere will be switching soon with the savings!

            Ross - yes, well said, and good points. Our government should stop subsidizing everything because while the subsidies often help some minor problem the moment they are put in place, long term subsidies just hurt everyone as markets and technologies change. But since subsidies ***** with everything, there is no way to know exactly what would be most effective, so I'm inclined to agree with your what-ifs, and I'm down with removing all subsidies, but lets agree to re-open the debate on what is less resource intensive once those things are gone.
          • rossmcd, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Zera -

            In response to re-opening the debate without subsidies - absolutely. But we still should factor in externalized costs that aren't subsidies per se. Mainly, pollution to the environment and direct health problems from pesticides and fertilizers. For example, people exposed to pesticides are 70% more likely to develop Parkinson's disease - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16802290 This is a societal cost, resulting in a weakened workforce and (in the case of medicare) hospital bills payed with taxpayer dollars. It has no direct impact on the price of apples, so we tend to ignore it. That doesn't mean the costs disappear though.

            In response to your sone-liner back at lajaw: Business decisions are not made with the next 22 years in mind, but more with returns in the next quarter. Just because something is better in the long term, doesn't mean the market will embrace it. Look at the Detroit lobby fighting against fuel-efficiency reform.

            A concrete example within the organic vs. conventional discussion: Genetically-modified pesticide-resistant crops work great at first, but over time the transgenes spread to nearby weeds and crops. As weeds pick up the pesticide resistance, your pesticide is no longer effective. It's analagous to antibiotic-resistant strains of tuberculosis starting to pop up. In the long run, an over-reliance on certain technologies undermines their effectiveness. That doesn't affect decision making in the short term.
          • Zera, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Yes, but those are people exposed to high doses of pesticides, specifically, people who are applying them. And even since the 90's, awareness of dangers like this have caused substantial efforts to be taken to protect those farmers and ranchers. And there's nothing to say that we won't be able to devise pesticides that don't have those drawbacks.

            Lajaw's link did not say that it takes 22 years to see the same results, it was merely a study that lasted 22 years. Farmers are not the bumbling rednecks that most people think they are. Farmers are very attune to new technology and new ways of boosting yields, saving cost and reducing wasted resources. I have no doubt that the results of the study lajaw linked to made it into any of the MANY farming technology magazines and it's validity debated and discussed at length. I know it's the primary topic of discussion at every family get-together of mine, where three uncles and my grandpa all discuss the latest and greatest in farming news, technology, etc.

            Your last paragraph you got a little confused, mixing up pesticide with herbicide. Herbicide kills plants, pesticide kills pests, bugs. But other than that, yes you are right to some extent, but if that continues, and more plants become resistant to herbicide, then the cost to continually invent new herbicide will likely make farming techniques that rely on herbicide less cost effective.

            And here's one example that noone likes to make about herbicides. As GE crops like "Round-Up Ready" corn and beans have become widely used, this has resulted in FAR FAR less pollution, because now you can fill a 3,000 gallon sprayer with 3,000 gallons of water, and 2, 2 gallon jugs of special round-up. Since the corn and beans are resistant, you don't need to spray very much to get the job done. Compare this with previous herbicide attempts that required many different herbicides to be mixed (for all the different plant species targeted) and to fill a 3,000 gallon sprayer it would take literally 6-12 50 GALLON DRUMS NO JOKE.

            For all the bad press GE crops get, this is one HUGE BENEFIT to the environment that never gets a mention. :/
    • tugger, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1'Organic' (at least in europe, although I understand it's the same in the US) is a measure of the cleanliness of the soil. To qualify as organic a farmer must have soil free of pesticides and other manmade chemicals.

      The thing is that my brother works for an 'agro-chemical' company, and spent 10 years working around the soil cleanliness laws.. For example his company currently sell a 'gel' that the seeds are coated with. This gel has all the hormones, pesticides, and artificial fertiliser the plant will need for it's short life. Very clever, as the soil is clean, but the fruit of the plant are as full of ***** as non-organic counterparts!! This gel is highly dangerous and the farmer needs elbow-length thick protective gloves when preparing the seed for sowing.
      There are lots of other ways around the 'organic' regulations too.

      It really ***** me off that it's impossible to buy 'clean' food. Ben & Gerrys aren't allowed to put 'Hormone Free' on the side of their tubs, thanks to active lobbying by the dairy industry. As usual, the consumer is being ***** up the arse by corporate greed.
      • fasda, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3Those chemicals are completely organic... there's lots of carbons in them
        • rossmcd, on 03/14/2008, -2/+1you get a B+ in chemistry and an F in nutrition
      • WhiteRaven, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Because misinformation in pop-culture has given a falsely negative connotation to the use of hormones, I think it's faintly dishonest to attempt to trade on that connotation.
  • theblackgecko, on 03/14/2008, -5/+18Damnable Coca-Cola, ruining the unpastuerized juice market.
    • jonnyboy1544, on 03/14/2008, -1/+5Can you blame them? People pay 5 dollars for a bottle of "organic orange juice" for the same benefits that come in Tropicana. But those pesticides might cause cancer in 90 years.

      This is bottled water all over again.
      • cpussman, on 03/14/2008, -4/+3Bottled water > Tap
        • DesignEx, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1No way, when you drink tap water you get drugs... for free!

          I don't see bottled water making similar claims...
        • NoNom, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3Bottled water = tap water from somewhere else
          • cpussman, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Tap water from Fiji?
          • Frustian, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Bottled water is just cola without the sugar/flavouring. It's ordinary tap water.
          • vault, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2No it isn't, dumbasses...that's just Aquafina/Dasani. Not all bottled water is the same.
    • BobaFettTDG, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Odwalla juice isn't unpasteurized, it's flash pasteurized.
  • MTessa, on 03/14/2008, -4/+6The big brands have been buying them up. Everyone wants to be cool.
    • scamper22, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1correction: everyone wants to make money.
      • root1657, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1and rightly so. Not much of a long term business model in 'not making money'.
  • rabidmonkey1, on 03/14/2008, -7/+143Look, I don't care where it's coming from as long as it meets real organic standards. If a company figures out how to mass produce it, isn't that a good thing for everyone? My concern would be that they are fudging over those organic standards in order to produce more efficiently/at a lower cost.
    • shockbeton, on 03/14/2008, -12/+5I matters because large corporations lack principles that are in line with the "real food" movement. They are run by groups of people interested in growing their business, not growing healthy food in a sustainable way. I don't trust Kraft to provide me with such a product. As many have suggested on this forum, locally grown fresh food is the best alternative. Factory farming even if is certified "organic" by what is no doubt a heavily industry controlled government or private body probably isn't the most trustworthy way to make sure the food on your table was grown with sustainable farming practices.

      And that's the key, really. It's not enough for food to have a low residue of pesticides. The process by which it is grown should also not pollute ground water, right? And minimize runoff of fertilizers into streams. And not use slave labor to harvest it. And not deplete the soil. Etc., etc. Again, I don't trust Kraft or Heinz to uphold these principles. They make money by "adding value" to raw food. I strongly suspect they would buy the raw produce from whomever will provide the lowest price without much regard to the details of production.
      • DrDragun, on 03/14/2008, -2/+9Please don't be an uncompromising hippy... open your mind to other models for sustainability. It is possible for a large national distributor to have sustainable and organic practices. Don't immediately call foul on any company that is not small+local.

        If a company truly allows transparency to the public in its production process, then consumer awareness / boycott is the best policing possible.
        • Andrew988, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1One of the largest benefits to locally grown food is that it isn't drenched in oil by the time it makes it to your table. . . I don't see why you wouldn't want to eat locally grown food to be honest
      • Stennie, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4You think these companies have no interest in sustaining the very land they use to produce their products? You say their interests are purely financial, but I would imagine it would be in their financial interests to keep their land sustainable for farming.
      • Tweekster, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4If the quality is there, I dont give a ***** who actually made it or for what motivation.
        The motivation factor is meaningless to me. I just want quality.
        The biggest annoyance about organic food, the goddamn hippies.
      • WhiteRaven, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Your "real food movement" has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Only your blind arrogance led you to expect anyone to abide by your expectations.
      • vault, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1This chart is priceless...that anyone feels organic food is somehow less 'organic' because a large company makes money off it shows you hypocritical they are. Environmentalists are the same way, though...the green movement is less about the environment and more about sticking it to capitalism.
        • Andrew988, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1but your wrong. . . the big organic food companies are not nearly as good for the environment as locally grown food is, for the most part because it doesn't have to be shipped, with oil
    • Gupfee, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1They already have "fudged" them...
      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/business/11organ ...
    • raclan, on 03/14/2008, -2/+4Who do you think controls what "real organic standards" are?
    • lajaw, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2yes, the imported (Chinese) organic products do not get inspected using USA standards. It's still buyer beware. You should demand COOL (Country Of Origin Labeling) if you want to make informed decisions concerning your food.
    • iii9ix3, on 03/14/2008, -2/+3www.batterblaster.com, proof that USDA Certified Organic is BS
    • willy3121, on 03/14/2008, -0/+9A lot of people like to buy from local farms for the sake of supporting the little guy working in one of the most difficult industries in America to stay afloat in. Also, closer proximity translates to fresher produce and less gas needed to get the goods to you.
      • Tweekster, on 03/14/2008, -1/+0That is why those people pay attention to what city the produce was made in not the name brand
      • DrDragun, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1That is a very good and sensible argument for buying local... but you shouldn't necessarily exclude national distributors entirely from your list if you can research that they use ethical and sustainable practices.

        And when it comes to the environmental factor... try to weigh fuel emissions for transportation vs. increased efficiency of big producers. Yes, usually transportation fuel will dominate this consideration and favor locals. But there are exceptions. What i mean is, a small farmer may require 100 acres of land to grow the same food that a large corporation can grow in 70 acres of land due to improved efficiency of irrigation and harvest (particularly in crops that have multiple harvests/year where the big boys automated equipment helps a lot). So that's more wild land cleared for the local guy vs. more gas used by the national guy.
    • XZanatos, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Your believing in 'standards' is what makes the joke on you. Its these very companies appearing as many small companies that goaded the government into creating national organic standards in the first place. They almost got away with ridiculously lax standards too, except the REAL believers in organics kept an eye on the Gov and didn't let them pass those standards. Read up on your organic-legislative-history.
  • sepllcehck, on 03/14/2008, -2/+21Are they "making them" or distributing them?

    I'd honestly like to know... Is the company relationship a parent/subsidiary or is it divisional?

    • thinkart, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4well, as i understand they just own them. im sure in each situation it is different. according to a NY times article about clorox buying burts bees http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/business/06bees. ... they are not changing the way burts bees is run. they are only using them to teach them better practices. yes, i am aware that they pay people to say the "right" thing to the media BUT what if?
  • sneakeykop, on 03/14/2008, -18/+33the illusion of choice...THE AMERICAN WAY!!!
    • Zera, on 03/14/2008, -1/+6But the products ARE organic and therefore a real choice. So.......
  • georgemason01, on 03/14/2008, -14/+4If I was a farmer in one of my past lives (and chances are I probably was at some point) then I very much miss growing and producing all my own food.
    • itsgotyou, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3In your past life you raped my wife, you burnt my house and you stole my land. In this life i will digg you down!
    • texpundit, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4Actually, I grew up producing most of my own food. It's a lot of hard work, but the pride in cooking a good, healthy meal with vegetables and meats (we also raised cattle, chickens, rabbits and pigs) that are the fruits of your own hard labor is something that can't be summed up in words.

      Part of me misses it greatly.
      • TimDigg, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2I've never liked you texpundit until just now.

        Well at least now I understand you to be a small town conservative. So I'll give you a pass.
        • texpundit, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Try backwater libertarian...or Founding Fathers conservative...or even Classical Liberal...but I get your point. :)

          I grew up in the sticks in South Texas...dirt poor by most standards, but not really by my own standards. I worked hard with no gov't assistance to get where I am and am proud of it. I really *do* believe that if I can come from my roots and end up in Washington DC working for an influential think tank, anyone can do just about anything (within reason, of course...we all know politics is rigged).
          • TimDigg, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1where do you work? Homeland security(FEMA) guy myself in Chinatown
          • texpundit, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1At a think tank up at Dupont Circle. (Sorry, not gonna get any more specific than that on a public board. :))
    • jameswfischer, on 03/14/2008, -2/+1Why was this buried? Most of us were farmers....put down the keyboard and spend some time outside. Outside is not Mc drive-through fatty.
    • DarkSamus, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1looks like it's farmers' day today
  • chris9902, on 03/14/2008, -4/+61Is there really a company called Garden of Eatin'? That's so awesome.
    • TheWorm, on 03/14/2008, -2/+3Yeah, they make some pretty good corn chips and taco shells.
      • rex84, on 03/14/2008, -1/+4with GMO corn
        • lajaw, on 03/14/2008, -3/+1and lard from patented pigs.
        • fasda, on 03/14/2008, -5/+2Whats the problem with GMO it takes the guess work out of breeding. and please don't come out with some ***** saying we don't know what we're doing with GMO most GMO is simply transplanting certain genes that we already know what they do from one thing into another (haven't you seen those pigs that glow in the dark) and after that they are tested to see if they are edible.
        • Frustian, on 03/14/2008, -2/+1Why is fasda being buried? He's right, GMO Food is just different combinations of plants we are already eating. Combining the best aspects of a corn that grows well in harsh conditions, one that is tasty, and one that grows fast for example. It's not 'frankencorn' or something, it happens naturally, we just accelerate the process to an end result that is good for farming.
        • TheWorm, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1People who are digging you up don't know what they're talking about. I challenge you to find proof that they use GMO in their corn, because I can guarantee you that they don't.
  • CDWMobile, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3The real winner is Mattson and Company. They're the ones that develop most of these companies healthy choices.
    http://www.foodcom.com/mattson-in-the-news/
  • bpende, on 03/14/2008, -3/+7We buy about 80% of our stuff from a coop that delivers, but we do buy some of our stuff from the grocery store. This is a -great- cross-reference chart.
    • naterpoke, on 03/14/2008, -11/+2why do you waste your money on something that's purely superficial and probably less sanitary/pure than non-organic
  • displaced1, on 03/14/2008, -3/+21As long as the food sold is actually what is advertised, does it really matter who owns the company? I am assuming people are eating organic to try and live a healthier lifestyle.
    • aethelberga, on 03/14/2008, -5/+2Do you actually believe the products are as wholesome as advertised? More likely it is a big marketing ploy to make you think that. Like Heinz owning Weight Watchers & Nestle owning Jenny Craig. They have you coming and going.
      • CATSCEO, on 03/14/2008, -1/+4Yep, is all a big conspiracy to make you fat and sick, instead of making money.

        /sarcasm
    • johnpaul191, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2It depends on your motivations. Say hypothetically you are vegetarian because of animal rights. You may feel warm and fuzzy buying something organic and wholesome till you realize the parent corporation is also responsible for a company that tests razors on bunnies, or sprays perfume in the eyes of puppies to see if it causes blindness.
      There is also a lot of confusion about "organic" now. Now that the feds regulate the term, they declare that products have to be something like 98 percent organic. not 100 percent. It is also kind of expensive for the real little independent farmer/business to get that certification. If you go to something like a Mennonite farmer's market nothing will be tagged organic. It's illegal because they did not pay the feds for that certification, yet their stuff may be *more organic* than the stuff you buy at the supermarket. what a concept.
      To put the organic craze in perspective, Walmart is now the largest distributer of certified organic products in the USA. Not by percentage of shelf space of course, but by sheer volume.
    • TheEarthlings, on 03/15/2008, -0/+0You miss the distinction between product quality and process quality. Most people who buy organic food not only want to benefit their own health but also want to contribute to a healthier planet and to more sustainable ways of production. It´s not only about what´s IN the product in the end, but also what goes along with it in the process of it´s production. So it DOES matter a lot HOW and WHERE an BY WHOM it is produced.
  • warlokaz2004, on 03/14/2008, -4/+17"Dagoba" Organic chocolate?

    "Hmmph. Chocolate you be. "

    yummy candy bars with the Force!
    • KyleRayner, on 03/14/2008, -1/+4No, those candy bars are horrible. They have frickin hot peppers in them. Hot peppers in a chocolate bar!
      • BrapAllgood, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2Actually, they come in several flavors. We like the Lavender around here. The pepper-chocolate is an acquired taste that I managed to both gain and lose in one bar. I didn't know they were just Hershey. I won't buy them anymore.
        • mandagrrl, on 03/14/2008, -0/+24 bucks for a HERSHEY Bar!!!! Now I'm really *****.
        • MikeXpop, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2They're not "just Hershey", they're a chocolate bar made by a company who is owned by the Hershey corporation.
          • mandagrrl, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2I am aware of this.. as I have 1)purchased some of the Dagoba bars and 2) been on their website.
      • Aesculapius, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2This place: http://www.vosgeschocolate.com/category/exotic_can ... makes a curry chocolate bar that is quite good.
    • hydroplane, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1How you get so big eating food of this kind?
  • webs05, on 03/14/2008, -4/+3That's why I like Stoneyfield...
    • chr15, on 03/14/2008, -1/+4Yeah, Stoneyfield and Organic Valley are both good.. That Horizon milk company won't even let reporters in to verify their practices.
    • RevRomulus, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4Actually, Stoneyfield is owned by Dannon.
  • drlha, on 03/14/2008, -8/+43***** Organic, which as can be seen by this chart is basically a marketing ploy by big business.

    Sustainable and Local is the way to go if you really want to eat healthy and make a difference.
    • div2n, on 03/14/2008, -6/+3In the long run, organic is the _only_ sustainable model.

      Unless you think there are artificial cows producing all the artificial fertilizer out there somewhere.

      Perhaps there are plants producing the synthesized chemicals for artificial herbicides and insecticides.

      In other words, in 100 years (maybe a bit more), there will be no such thing as non-organic farming.
      • lajaw, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3The term "organic" has been co-opted by the federal government for the corporations. The only reason there are federal standards for organic is because the standards can be lowered to accommodate factory type farming operations. The premiums on organic were just to much to disregard in the corporate world. The standars used to be run by the individual states and were much stricter. I farm organically, but sell locally. That is the most efficient/profitable method for farmers and consumers. You might also check out "Naturally Grown" labels which have no federal oversight.
        • fasda, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2if there is no regulation on naturally grown I could grow something in a vat in a lab with more pesticides and hormones then you can imagine and call it naturally grown so thats a useless sticker.
          • lajaw, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1No, because those that grow under that label are inspected by other growers. And if I inspect your farm, I'm not going to let you cut corners and under sell me or hurt the label. You are advocating government control of the food with that attitude. And a "Naturally Grown " label will allow the consumer to inspect the farm also. Go to naturallygrown.org and you;ll see it is actually a better label. No federal government intrusion.
      • johnpaul191, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2They are totally correct. Organic farming is the same farming earthlings used for thousands of years. It was only in the 1900s that chemical companies convinced farmers they no longer had to worry about leaving fields fallow or rotate crops. Back when chemicals were the way of the future (along with flying cars!) farmers were blown away that they no longer had to leave 1/3 of their fields fallow per season. That's literally like them getting that much extra farm "for free". Too bad they didn't realize that those practices, along with irresponsible cattle grazing, caused the midwest dust bowl.
        Remember the Sahara used to be lush forests, and that desert grows every year. It's the extreme, but it's proof of concept.
        • Csense, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Clarification please! Are you saying that the Sahara desert is a result of the overuse of chemical fertilizers and irresponsible cattle grazing?
    • trickster878, on 03/14/2008, -6/+1Yes, and when we're all broke from having to pay $4 a gallon for gas and twice as much per gallon for milk, you'll be thinking twice about what you're saying. If the food is what they say it is, who cares?

      You're going to have to realize that for us to afford it, it needs to be mass produced. Doesn't anyone get it?
    • 0crabby0, on 03/14/2008, -0/+7Yep, that's why Digg needs a gardening section
      • johnpaul191, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2seriously.... http://www.squarefootgardening.com/
        i heard the guy on You Bet Your Garden a few years ago and set up some in my back yard. Amazingly easy. Nothing more awesome than going out in the morning to pick fresh strawberries, tomatoes, spinach and lettuce for the lunch i am packing. I literally would be cooking on my BBQ grill and walk to my garden to pick lettuce and a tomato, or pull a zucchini and grill it up.
        It's also a lot cheaper than buying fresh vegetables (tagged as organic or not).
    • bobcrotch, on 03/14/2008, -3/+2Blah blah blah. Seriously you're a ***** douche bag. Just because an organic food producer is owned by a larger corporation doesn't mean it's not good, sustainable or healthy. Most likely all of these companies were bought out by the larger corporations due to them not being sustainable financially. It's not practical to produce organic products on a large scale.

      Thats where big corporation investment comes in. If anything companies like Kraft are helping these smaller shops keep their doors open, and letting them keep maintaining their practices and products.

      Its kind of how these things work.
    • fasda, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Except lots of people like myself live in very suburban and urban areas which do not have much farming close by. if you buy only local then unless you live in the southern US the price of an orange would be huge unless you live in Hawaii you do not get to drink coffee or eat bananas, and if everyone does this these suburban/urban people the cost of food would skyrocket due to supply issues.
      • Andrew988, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1you don't eat oranges then, you BUY LOCALLY, which entails buying seasonally. practical? no. idea? yes.
  • Stereotype77, on 03/14/2008, -2/+2LUL @ Garden of Eatin'
  • Accolade1, on 03/14/2008, -2/+10No thanks. I like to keep my additives IN the food.
  • candace21, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Mirrored: http://peachpic.com/out.php/i37_buyingorganicchart ...
  • o0joshua0o, on 03/14/2008, -2/+8I like Trader Joe's brand, myself. I understand they source most of their stuff locally.
    • quietjourney, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2. . . here! here! I agree with you whole heartedly . . . . I was surprised by Coca Cola and Odwalla - Cheers
    • vidaliasweet, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1careful with that, ive seen frozen organic veggies from china there
  • stonewaljacksn, on 03/14/2008, -8/+5This whole organic foods movement type thing is typical of America. It's just the halfassed way to feel like you are eating healthy. If you truly want "organic" food that isnt really distributed by a billion dollar resource consuming corporation, grow your own stuff. Make bread from scratch etc
    • h0ly, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2And don't forget Solidarity Economy.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_economy
      Looking for "true organic" food in the supermarket, where big corps dominate the shelves, is a bit naive.
    • jameswfischer, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1pass, we are birds of a feather
    • Tweekster, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Multi billion is not a dirty word.
      Why should I care if a multi billion dollar company makes a profit selling me what I want? I know profit is a horrible thing...
      Yes you are correct, resources are necessary in producing things I want, thank your Ric Romero
  • jjive, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Naked juice...Go Pepsi.
    That is what you inferred?
  • chemosky, on 03/14/2008, -3/+25Organic is a marketing term, go buy local food. To paraphrase Eliot Coleman, "I don't care if it was grown by elves in fairy dust, anything shipped across country isn't fresh." Organic in it's original concept was food grown without manufactured petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides, sold locally by people who practice agricultural craftsmanship. Seriously, a carrot you buy in a grocery store isn't a carrot, it tastes like oil. Spinach tastes metallic from the high nitrate content from the crap they put in the "soil". There are dozens and dozens of cultivars of every vegetable, they all taste different. You're missing out, go buy local, and support your local economy, or better yet, get off your ass and grow you own.
    • Tweekster, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Proximity is irrelevant, production method is all that counts.
      • chemosky, on 03/14/2008, -2/+0Hardly, fresh food is a completely different thing than the limp specimens in the grocery store. Granted, I'm talking about lettuce, carrots, cucumber, tomato. Storage crops can actually improve in flavor in storage. Proximity is huge when you're talking about trucking lettuce across country in tractor-trailers. It's a huge waste of fuel. Learn to eat seasonally. Why eat a cardboard tomato in january when there's tons of crops that can be eaten from storage or harvested from non heated structures, or even outside in the more southern climates.
  • ashwinashwin, on 03/14/2008, -8/+8organic food isn't all that its cracked up to be. If all food was produced organically, we wouldnt be able to feed the population of this planet. Organic food might feel nice (maybe its more healthy but no one has proven that conclusively) but it takes more resources to produce. If you eat organic meat for ethical reasons, fine, but if you're thinking you're helping the environment by eating organic, you're probably wrong.
    • randomengine, on 03/14/2008, -6/+4Maybe it would be better if we had less people to feed. As long as we continue to grow unchallenged, we will only bring this planet closer and closer to irreversible damages. We could honestly do without so many people in the world. If that means we force people to grow their own food or starve, so be it.
      • mike17032, on 03/14/2008, -3/+4OK, so put a ***** gun to your head and pull the trigger to get things started.

        Oh right, you want OTHER people to die off. As long as your mom keeps bringing your hot pockets down to the basement, you figure you will be fine right?
      • Zera, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Wow, how terribly ruthless. You honestly think we need more genocide. Great.

        More People = More Einsteins = More Technology = Fewer Problems = Less Starvation and Disease
        • itsinmyeyes, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1More people doesn't mean more Einsteins. Also More people means less room and less resources for the people already alive. We have an over population problem. Ever heard of "carrying capacity"?
    • KidDynamo0, on 03/14/2008, -7/+6Organic food is what is best for you. Period. Lets look at good ole logic. Non organic food contains pesticides and God knows what else. While organic foods are made with natural fertilizer and such. Is being organic a new fade, yes without a doubt, but to say that its not healthier is deluding yourself. I personally buy things that are locally grown or raised and organic opposed to not. If you think that the milk you get with all its added chemicals is better for you than milk that doesn't you go right ahead and keep your head in the sand. The fighting against organic products is silly, people always want to fight what they don't fully understand, which is not to say you don't I am just speaking for the general populace. Genetically engineered foods are part of reason people in the US are fat. Have you ever done your research on high fructose corn syrup, its in everything you eat these days. People need to be more aware of the stuff they put into their bodies. Also, genetically enhanced food is not our only solution for feeding the world, if it were people wouldn't be starving at a alarming rate. By the way, what did people do for food before genetically enhanced food? Oh thats right...the did it naturally.
      • Zera, on 03/14/2008, -2/+8"Non organic food contains pesticides and God knows what else"

        Okay, but at levels so low they haven't been shown to cause harm? And the benefits of pesticides mean less wasted produce, and therefore more produce is made with the same amount of farming effort.

        "Genetically engineered foods are part of reason people in the US are fat. Have you ever done your research on high fructose corn syrup."

        High Fructose Corn syrup has nothing to do with Genetically Engineered food, and it is IN so many foods because we have an incompetent government that has subsidized the hell out of corn, and as a result made corn syrup cheaper than cane sugar.

        "Also, genetically enhanced food is not our only solution for feeding the world, if it were people wouldn't be starving at a alarming rate."

        A year ago the number of the world's obese surpassed the number of starving AND malnutritioned. We have all time record lows on starvation. So which is it? Starving is bad, but so is obesity? At least obesity is a choice. Starvation is low purely a result of GE food.

        "what did people do for food before genetically enhanced food? Oh thats right...the did it naturally."

        Yep, they genetically enhanced food "naturally", with grafting and hybrid plant experiments. Somehow we forget that none of the plant species we recognize as food evolved that way on their own. It's all human ingenuity. Somehow when the research moves from a field to a science lab, people freak out.
      • mike17032, on 03/14/2008, -2/+5Hearing a organic-tard talk about using logic is pretty ***** rich since every single one of the "reasons" to go organic are based in myth. You did a good job summing up most of the deluded inaccurate ***** in your post.

        To sum it up, humans have been GEing food for thousands of ***** years idiot. Ever eat corn? Man made.
      • Envark, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
      • Omnianimosity, on 03/14/2008, -2/+4Drink bottled water, eat organic foods, become a vegetarian. I have the best health advice. Stop worrying about every ***** thing that hurts you and everyone else's health. People are living longer now than they ever did before and for the majority of them its longer then they deserve. Instead of enjoying life you have these modern day hippies spouting off garbage with no actual scientific evidence for their so called data. Seriously just shut the ***** up, pay your 200-400% markup on your ***** organic foods, your 6000% markup on your bottled water and enjoy your elitist meal that makes your excrement so ***** golden.
        • toomanytuxedos, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3Organic buyers should know better then to buy bottled water. If not, they are retarded.
        • wbeavis, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1You left out Purell and anti-baterial soaps.
    • lajaw, on 03/14/2008, -2/+2Sure you could feed all the people. There is usually a 3 year transition to organic and after that, the yields are equal to conventional. After a few years, and organic matter builds up in the soil (carbon) yields will be greater than conventional. And it does not take more resources for organic. After you get going organically, the resources become less than conventional. I don't buy fertilizer. I make my own compost from my own cows and other on-farm products. Your information is wrong. Now if you are talking corporate farming, yes, they, even when organic, or not sustainable.
      • mike17032, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3False. Yields are always smaller.

        On top of that, there is not nearly enough organic fertilizer to cover all crops humans require. Not even close. So whats your solution to that?
        • lajaw, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1You are wrong. If you follow the guidelines and test your soils, yields will match or exceed conventional in usually three years. "Organic farming produces the same yields of corn and soybeans as does conventional farming, but uses 30 percent less energy, less water and no pesticides, a review of a 22-year farming trial study concludes." From: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/organic ...
          I know what I'm talking about. It is my profession. What's yours?
    • Tweekster, on 03/14/2008, -2/+1Do you have any evidence to back any of that up ashwinashwin?
      Yeah didnt think so.
    • RevRomulus, on 03/14/2008, -3/+0Even if what you said was remotely accurate, our current food production greatly exceeds the need in the world.
    • TheEarthlings, on 03/15/2008, -0/+0bs.

      Statement by JEAN ZIEGLER, SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD to the UN adressing the general assembly:

      "It is a shame on humanity, that in a world that is richer than ever before, 6 million should children die of malnutrition and related illnesses before they reach the age of five. Yet, according to the FAO, our planet already produces enough food to feed every child, woman and man. It could produce enough food to feed 12 billion people, double the world population of 6 billion people."

      also: it is wrong, that organic food production generally uses more ressources. You have to take into account more than only land use, which is indeed higher most of the time.
      But did you know for example that the synthetic fertilizer used in non-organic food production is actually made using the energy of fossil fules? It´s just another one of these crazy ways of ruining our planet by overusing its ressources and not thinking of the consequences. They are already speaking of "peak fertilizer" btw...

  • PhilipMan, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0ouch!
  • MAChaha, on 03/14/2008, -5/+2At least 2 stories on frontpage at all time, yea right, no gaming going on.
  • jacekpoplawski, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2So when company has a green logo it's called organic?
  • johnso68, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Why is this supposed to surprise you? In todays economy most large company's have smaller brands that do different aspects of the business. So it is no surprise that these national brands own these smaller organic brands.
  • zantos420, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1where's nature's promise?
  • displaced1, on 03/14/2008, -3/+2When I was 8, my grandmother took me into the outdoor grill/butcher area of her farm, showed me the chicken I had been playing with over the last couple weeks and had named him, and put her on the counter. She then took out the butcher knife, cut off her head and let me watch her run around headless. I cried but she told me not to worry because she has more chickens. Dinner was great, but I felt guilty. Anyway, my point is, that is the true meaning of organic, local and sustainable.
    • Tweekster, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1There is no geographical requirement for food to be considered organic. It is about the method, not the proximity.
  • Jovensdesciple, on 03/14/2008, -9/+3Why is there no big story on digg about Obamas rascist preacher friend? Welcome to the mainstream media digg.
    • airburst, on 03/14/2008, -2/+2Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.
    • hierophantus, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Submit it yourself, moron, and watch no one care because it's BS. And while you're at it, check out this radical new concept called "making comments that are at least tenuously related to the topic at hand."
  • theratdotus, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1noooooooooo, kraft n kellogs? thought morning farms was owned by like that newman guy. sigh.
  • emilydickenson, on 03/14/2008, -1/+8t-r-a-d-e-r j-o-e-s.
    • vault, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1o-v-e-r-r-a-t-e-d except for the wonton chips
  • DiggCommando, on 03/14/2008, -3/+4Most "organic" stuff is a marketing gimmick. These companies spend millions on researching loopholes, etc in the law that allow them to make food mostly using the same old methods and still call the product "organic"; it's sad really.
    • mike17032, on 03/14/2008, -5/+3Of course since idiots buy into the idea that organic is somehow better, its working out great for them. Blame ***** hippies and false logic.
  • Rileyper, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1wait, i throw this stuff out at kroger cause nobody gets it and it spoils...naked juice is popular tho i love it and everybody gets it
  • trickster878, on 03/14/2008, -2/+4Why do people feel "betrayed"? Because it's not from "Ma and Pa"? That has gone the way of the dodo in terms of national distribution. Ma and Pa have sold the business to the big corps so that they can go and retire and live a nice easy life. Face it folks, this is what it is, the way America runs. These companies have to exit strategies from all the garbage that they sell and that strategy is to process and sell healthy foods. Just because it's not from a road side stand, with a 50% markup, doesn't mean it's not what you want it to be.

    Grow up diggers, stop living in this delusional world and start seeing things for what they are.
    • Tweekster, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1"If my ma and pa owned a store i wouldnt shop there"
  • thinkart, on 03/14/2008, -2/+1http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/business/06bees. ...
  • em11488, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1who cares. at least their getting the message.
    I'm eating kashi autumn wheat cereal right now. how ironic
  • mogebier, on 03/14/2008, -1/+7So?
    What did you expect?? There is no way in hell that people could afford groceries if everything was made by little farms. It HAS to be made by huge companies.
    This is the same amazement that the Apple Kool-Aid drinkers have when they realize that Apple is a HUGE company and not run out of someone's garage.
    • trickster878, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Thank you, finally some reality.

      I too am a bleeding heart liberal, but come on, let's face facts, life is not what we think it is. In a perfect world, we'd get everything we need from locals and it would all be fresh and blah blah blah. It just isn't like that and due to our greed and consumerism, it'll continue to be what it is now, mass producing to keep prices down.

      I say good for these companies buying up the whole/organic food companies, they take what they've already done and perfect it, make it better and more accessible.
    • lajaw, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Yea, grow a chicken in Alabama, and ship it to California. That'll make it cheaper. Don't let the local farmer there in California grow it and butcher it so you can have real fresh. No, bag it in water and pay 89 cents for that 2.5 cups of water. You seem to forget that the world survived without industrial food since the beginning of time up until after WWII. It could be done again.
      • emotecontrol, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2Why is it more cost-effective to grow a chicken in Alabama?
        • mogebier, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1If it wasn't more cost effective then the BIG companies would not be doing it, would they??
          Seriously people. THINK before you post.
          A local chain of Grocery stores near me gets some produce from local growers, and they advertise this fact. Sometimes I buy it, sometimes I don't. It depends on if I need the item and what the price is. Make it cheaper, and people will buy it. BIG companies make it cheaper.
    • TheEarthlings, on 03/15/2008, -0/+0There are many ways that groceries could be more affordable even with small farms.
      One would be to eat less meat. Huge amounts of fertile land, energy and water are used to grow animal fodder like soy beans. It would be much more effiecient and cheaper for humans to feed on the plants directly.
      Here´s from a little study i found:
      http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/660S
      "For example, producing 1 kg of fresh beef may require about 13 kg of grain and 30 kg of hay. This much forage and grain requires about 100 000 L of water to produce the 100 kg of hay, and 5400 L for the 4 kg of grain."
      and
      "The average fossil energy input for all the animal protein production systems studied is 25 kcal fossil energy input per 1 kcal of protein produced. This energy input is more than 11 times greater than that for grain protein production, which is about 2.2 kcal of fossil energy input per 1 kcal of plant protein produced"
  • minorthreat, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1I've never understood this, shouldn't regular food be considered organic as well? Or is General Mills line of Organic food considered the luxury version of their mainstream grade D ***** food?
    • charlie55, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1no. their organic food is specifically marketed to morons. it really isnt different. there is nothing ot be concerned about. organic food sucks and is for morons. and big corporations have always marketed to morons.
  • mingohills, on 03/14/2008, -1/+3Two points to be reiterated. ashwinashwin is absolutely on target. There is no real connection between organic and environmentally friendly in fact it is quite the opposite and bit elitist to boot. More importantly though, credit to rabidmonkey1. The issue is acutal organic standards. If the standards are valid then who cares if someone can mass produce "organic" goods. The problem is the organic obsession that is used against the consumer by slapping "organic" or "green" or "natural" on the label. Those labels guarantee an upsale of at least 10%.(this is a major understatement on my own part, at least from observation). I just want to know that what I am buying is what is says it is. WholeFoods is killing me with their "organic" prices!!!!
    • chemosky, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0Wrong, look at a satellite image of the coastal waterways in the U.S. All that silt comes from farmers using their water-soluble fertilizers, i.e. super-triple-phosphate and ammonium nitrates, etc. Adding salts to the soils destroys microorganisms that build soil structure. Using cover cropping to add organic matter to the soil holds it in place and avoids all this runoff. STP is simply rock phosphate treated with sulfuric acid to make it more soluble. Rock phosphate doesn't leach, it's made available to the plants via the natural acids produced by microorganisms in the soil-food web of healthy soils. Organic production implies feeding the soil to grow healthy plants. Conventional production means feeding the plants with soluble fertilizers to make a crop. The "soil" is simply a place to hold the roots. Here, learn more... read Eliot Coleman or something on soil ecology (Teaming with Microbes).
    • mingohills, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Touche
  • srodolff, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Isn't a large company capable of producing organic goods? It's all a matter of scale.

    BTW, just remember, death is organic.
    • scamper22, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1no they can't. The big companies will ruin organic with automation, machinery and profit.

      Nothing says organic like back-breaking peasant labor.
  • Trent0090, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3What if it's just food and I gotta eat? I mean *****, most of the world doesn't have a choice in what to eat. How about we work on high yield crops first then deal on if you want sense of pride in your carrots.
    • Tweekster, on 03/14/2008, -1/+0We have crops of such high yield that we dont know what to do with it all
  • eddy23170, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3i bet they have our best interests in mind...
    • Tweekster, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1They have profit motive in mind.
      When the quality is there, their motive is irrelevant.
    • capnjeremy, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Why should a company, whose sole purpose is to create profit, have your best interest in mind? Shouldn't _YOU_ have _YOUR_ best interests in mind?

      This is a serious problem in America.
      • Tweekster, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0Why would you expect anyone else to have anything but their own best interests in mind.
        If my own best interest and their best interest match we do business, if they do not, we do not do business.
        I dont care if it is a dirty word multi TRILLION dollar business or a 2 dollar a day profit local store, all that counts is i get what i want.
  • jameswfischer, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2You wouldn't even know about half of these products unless a larger parent company stepped in with cash. Organic still means 90%. 100% organic still means...you get the point. Or judging by the comments maybe not. The real grift: Watching the FDA and lobbies rewrite the dictionary.
  • pussnuts, on 03/14/2008, -2/+13BREAKING NEWS: Companies who have been in the food processing industry for decades decide to shift markets to stay on top of current trends.

    Holy ***** why are you all so surprised? This is how companies stay in business. God damn some of these comments are so ***** stupid.
  • mandagrrl, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Makes a good argument for local farmers markets.. just in time for my weekly shopping trip even.
    My eyes have been opened.
  • daxsymbiont, on 03/14/2008, -0/+7Organic foods DO NOT exclude genetically modified foods. Look it up.

    They ONLY refer to the kind of cultivation.

    e.g. monstrous genetically modified apple that has a penis sticking right outside of it, organic, if it's cultivated the right way.
  • CriminyCrapper, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2As a "Buddhist Luciferian" I have been a vegetarian for a while and I always got a kick out of Morningstar Farm. The Morning Star. Lucifer. And now not too long ago I saw an add with their veggie sausage and a pitchfork shaped fork. "It only tastes sinful" or something like that being the ad. But I didn't know they were owned by Kellogg, the eugenics loving corporation...and Nestle! Nestle makes it illegal in India to concentrate rain water for drinking or irrigation. Evil company.
    • scamper22, on 03/14/2008, -2/+0As a meeting eating male, I prefer to have meat. All the chemicals and toxins in the world are first processed by the cow before entering my body. It's filtration.

      //hmm mandatory sacrasm.
  • alpha94, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2There's a big difference between slapping organic onto packaging and actually being certified organic. There are different rules in the US than there is in Canada. Probably why I don't recognize almost any of those brands and have never seen them in my organic food section.
    • RevRomulus, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0Really? I rep a few of these brands and know for a fact most of these are well represented at the store level.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.