comments_imageCOMMENTS: 22

Who's Really Behind Organic Food Brands Like Amy's and Odwalla?

Over the past decade many small organic food brands have been snapped up by giant corporations. Clearly, this can be bad for standards and quality.
November 2, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

I’ll never forget the time I first tried an Odwalla tangerine juice. It was back when tangerine juice was a seasonal offering, during a short window of time in January and February.

I’d just finished a long uphill walk on an unusually warm winter day in San Francisco, and that bottle of juice was manna for my thirsty body.

Then Coke bought Odwalla and seasonality went out the window, along with the pure natural taste of unadulterated juice. Now, if you could find a plain Odwalla tangerine juice not all dolled up with some “functional” additive, you’d be hard-pressed to distinguish it from generic orange juice.

It’s no secret that there’s been consolidation in the organic and natural foods industry over the past decade or so. And clearly, consolidation can be bad for standards and quality.

These Who Owns Organics? charts have been passed around The Internet for years. Most people are shocked the first time they see them (Hershey’s owns Dagoba?).

Organics have always been big money, even in a recession. This attracts well-capitalized companies who want to invest, and who can blame them?

Mega packaged food companies and investor groups buy successful organic brands that were started by visionaries who began the companies with a commitment to the organic ideal of family farms, a clean environment, and simple food without additives. But often, when the big companies buy in, this ideal flies out the window.

I’ve chosen ten of the more prominent organic and natural brands to survey. I’m comparing the stories they tell their customers to the  likely (and often proven) reality, based on who owns them.

I purposely put all of the prominent, still-independent brands in this list because I want to tell their stories. But this isn’t a story about small vs. big, small being good and big being bad.

All the independents listed below are big companies, but they have the ability to uphold higher standards and work within their missions because they aren’t beholden to the intense scrutiny of the money managers.

Just for fun, can you guess which ones they are?

Amy’s
Amy’s Kitchen is the real deal. Named after the actual daughter of the company’s founders, Amy’s mission was to create a line of vegetarian food products for busy families that would be healthier than typical convenience, frozen, and packaged foods. Started in Petaluma, Ca., the company remains an independent, family-run business to this day and Amy herself blogs about her life as a college student (including her organic agriculture classes at Stanford). The company headquarters is still in Petaluma where the founders live. All Amy’s foods are vegetarian, but not all are organic. I get a kick out of looking at the old photos of the early days on the company website. I try to cook everything from scratch, but if I’m going to eat a frozen meal, make mine Amy’s!

Arrowhead Mills
Owned by Hain-Celestial, which also owns many other natural and organics brands. The good thing about Hain-owned brands is that they don’t generally try to fool their customers. They come right out and say it. The story on Arrowhead’s website is a folksy one about founder Fred Ford in the Texas panhandle, but it clearly states when the company was purchased by Hain. The other good thing about Hain is they specialize in natural and organic foods, so I feel a bit better about buying their brands. But Hain is also partially owned by Heinz, so that’s the reality.

I like Arrowhead because their product line is not processed. They sell mostly whole grains, beans, and nut butters (high quality ones at that). I do wonder where they source their raw ingredients, especially with this line: “bringing deliciously wholesome choices from America’s Heartland to your table.” Though it may not be, that line sounds like pure marketing to me. It’s true that many of these crops can be more cheaply grown in China and I’m not saying that Arrowhead sources from China. I can’t find any evidence of it (or that they buy from anywhere outside the US), but then again, their website and none of the product packages I surveyed for this article state country of origin information. Your guess is as good as mine.

Cascadian Farms
If they have to tell you it’s a real place, there’s something not quite right. Oh, and General Mills owns Cascadian Farms. Founder Gene Kahn was featured in the excellent book, Organic, Inc. defending himself against those who would say that he sold out. General Mills also owns Muir Glen and Small Planet Foods, both of which are mentioned on Cascadian Farms’ website, while General Mills is not. General Mills is one of the largest packaged food companies in the world and has a joint operating agreement with Nestle. In the fourth quarter of 2009, General Mills posted revenues of $3.646 billion. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, but it sort of brings the pastoral image into question.


Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: health, progressives, organics, silk, white wave


Comments are closed-

How About Real Food?
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Nov 2, 2009 2:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of quaffing a bottle of fruit juice which, organic or not, still has a lot of sugar, why not just eat a piece of fruit?

Somewhere along the way we've let ourselves be convinced that it's necessary to drink fruit juice.

Whether or not these companies are really organic, family owned or corporate owned, the food is still wrapped in plastics and shipped in cardboard boxes, on wooden pallets wrapped in shrink wrap, in trucks that burn diesel to move and run a diesel reefer to keep them cold.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How bizarre! Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: How bizarre! NOT. Posted by: Amy27605
» Make up your mind Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: Make up your mind Posted by: gilliani
» RE: Make up your mind Posted by: osd
» RE: How About Real Food? Posted by: veggiegrrrl

Comments are closed-

Leakman
Posted by: Leakman on Nov 2, 2009 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, it takes time to eat healthy and live a healthy life. Americans are to busy with all the nonsense we have to keep us pacified. I don't watch TV, I read books and articles. I don't watch sporting events, I exercise and train my body. I shop for locally grown produce but I still buy Eden, Amy's, and Organic Valley because I've did my research. People don't take the time to promote a healthy lifestyle. We are a nation of overweight, unhealthy, self-centered, and sullen drones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What do you expect?
Posted by: frantaylor on Nov 2, 2009 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh gee, the movement to eat more healthy food catches on and becomes more popular!

Do you really expect corporate America to just sit back and ignore this phenomenon?

The whole mom-and-pop thing is romantic and idyllic, but it does not reflect reality.

The reality is that modern manufacturing and distribution with their massive warehouses and fleets of tractor trailers are FAR more efficient than local farm stands with their crummy old refrigerators and puny little pickup trucks.

Much of your food dollar goes toward energy costs: refrigeration, transportation, etc.

Just take a look at the prices! When you pay far more at the farm stand, what are you paying for? Their higher prices are due to their lack of efficiency!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What do you expect? Posted by: djkrugger
» RE: What do you expect? Posted by: billslm

Comments are closed-

a return to organic farming
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 2, 2009 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Author Keith Akers, in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), notes that by arguing against the killing of plants, the meat-eater "seeks to reduce vegetarianism to absurdity. If vegetarians object to killing living creatures (it is argued), then logically they should object to killing plants and insects as well as animals. But this is absurd. Therefore, it can’t be wrong to kill animals.

"Fruitarians take the argument concerning plants quite seriously; they do not eat any food which causes injury or death to either animals or plants. This means, in their view, a diet of those fruits, nuts and seeds which can be eaten without the destruction of the plant that produces the food.

"Finding an ethically significant line between plants and animals, though, is not particularly difficult. Plants have no evolutionary need to feel pain, and completely lack a central nervous system. Nature does not create pain gratuitously, but only when it enables the organism to survive. Animals, being mobile, would benefit from having a sense of pain; plants would not."

In determining a boundary between sentient and insentient life, Peter Singer in Animal Liberation suggests that "somewhere between a shrimp and an oyster seems as good a place to draw the line as any, and better than most."

Keith Akers states further, "Even if one does not want to become a fruitarian and believes that plants have feelings (against all evidence to the contrary), it does not follow that vegetarianism is absurd. We ought to destroy as few plants as possible. And by raising and eating an animal for food, many more plants are destroyed indirectly by the animals we eat than if we merely ate the plants directly."

(Meat-eaters indirectly kill ten times more plants than do vegetarians!)

"What about insects?" asks Akers, "While there may be reason to kill insects, there is no reason to kill them for food. One distinguishes between the way meat animals are killed for food and the way insects are killed.

"Insects are killed only when they intrude upon human territory, posing a threat to the comfort, health, or well-being of humans. There is a huge difference between ridding oneself of intruders and going out of one's way to find and kill something which would otherwise be harmless."

According to Akers:

"These questions may have a certain fascination for philosophers, but most vegetarians are not bothered by them. For any vegetarian who is not a biological pacifist, there would not seem to be any particular difficulty in distinguishing ethically between insects and plants on the one hand, and animals and humans on the other."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

a return to organic farming (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 2, 2009 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to see a return to organic farming. In 1989, concern over the use of the pesticide Alar on apples caused many Americans to consider organic produce. We produce pesticides at a rate some 13,000 times faster than we did in the 1950s. Our environment is being flooded by pesticide compounds.

Poisons used to kill insects accumulate on crops, in the soil and in greater concentration in the tissues of living creatures higher on the food chain. The EPA's Pesticide Monitoring Journal reports that "Foods of animal origin (are) the major source of pesticide residues in the diet."

In his Pulitzer Prize nominated book, How to Survive in America the Poisoned, pesticide authority Lewis Regenstein writes: "Meat contains approximately 14 times more pesticides than do plant foods...Thus, by eating foods of animal origin, one ingests greatly concentrated amounts of hazardous chemicals."

A 1976 study by the EPA found the breast milk of mothers who consume animal products to be 50 to 100 times more contaminated by pesticide residues than the milk of vegetarian or vegan mothers.

Organic farming and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) are getting more attention today. These utilize natural insect controls, such as predatory insects, weather, crop rotation, pest-resistant varieties, soil tillage, and other environmentally safe practices.

A 1979 Department of Agriculture task force of scientists and economists came to "...positive conclusions on the importance of organic farming and its potential contributions to agriculture and society." Until the end of the Second World War, American farmers produced bountiful harvests without relying on pesticides. There is no reason why America cannot do so again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

You can have my share of all this crap!
Posted by: moloko velocet on Nov 2, 2009 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I tried a bottle of Amy's Organic (or "Natural") salad dressing.....it was perfectly horrible; and as for Odwala....I'm just not stupid enough to pay five to six dollars for a plastic bottle of fruit juice!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Organic companies committed to product integrity
Posted by: jrose on Nov 2, 2009 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A common misconception is that large organic manufacturers are held to a different standard than those that operate on a smaller scale. In fact, organic processors and handlers with more than $5,000 worth of annual organic agricultural product sales are held to the exact same set of standards. Set forth by the National Organic Program, these standards outline different categories of organic products. Regardless of the size of operation, products bearing labels referencing these categories must comply with the government-regulated definitions of them. For more information on this and other issues related to organic, please visit www.ota.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

True, BUT
Posted by: goodyweaver on Nov 2, 2009 11:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the fines for violating standards are minimal - especially for giant corporations like WalMart. Further, the larger the operation, the less likely it is that a violation will be caught.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Food Revolution
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 2, 2009 2:28 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had the opportunity to hear John Robbins, author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America (1987) speak at a Unitarian church here in Oakland a few years ago. The church was PACKED.

John writes in The Food Revolution (2001):

"The revolution sweeping our relationship to our food and our world, I believe, is part of an historical imperative. This is what happens when the human spirit is activated. One hundred and fifty years ago, slavery was legal in the United States. One hundred years ago, women could not vote in most states. Eighty years ago, there were no laws in the United States against any form of child abuse. Fifty years ago, we had no Civil Rights Act, no Clean Air or Clean Water legislation, no Endangered Species Act. Today, millions of people are refusing to buy clothes and shoes made in sweatshops and are seeking to live healthier and more Earth-frinedly lifestyles. In the last fifteen years alone, as people in the United States have realized how cruelly veal calves are treated, veal consumption has dropped 62 percent."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

F'Cough
Posted by: moloko velocet on Nov 6, 2009 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
n/m

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

How About Real Food?
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Nov 2, 2009 2:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of quaffing a bottle of fruit juice which, organic or not, still has a lot of sugar, why not just eat a piece of fruit?

Somewhere along the way we've let ourselves be convinced that it's necessary to drink fruit juice.

Whether or not these companies are really organic, family owned or corporate owned, the food is still wrapped in plastics and shipped in cardboard boxes, on wooden pallets wrapped in shrink wrap, in trucks that burn diesel to move and run a diesel reefer to keep them cold.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How bizarre! Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: How bizarre! NOT. Posted by: Amy27605
» Make up your mind Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: Make up your mind Posted by: gilliani
» RE: Make up your mind Posted by: osd
» RE: How About Real Food? Posted by: veggiegrrrl

Comments are closed-

Leakman
Posted by: Leakman on Nov 2, 2009 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, it takes time to eat healthy and live a healthy life. Americans are to busy with all the nonsense we have to keep us pacified. I don't watch TV, I read books and articles. I don't watch sporting events, I exercise and train my body. I shop for locally grown produce but I still buy Eden, Amy's, and Organic Valley because I've did my research. People don't take the time to promote a healthy lifestyle. We are a nation of overweight, unhealthy, self-centered, and sullen drones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What do you expect?
Posted by: frantaylor on Nov 2, 2009 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh gee, the movement to eat more healthy food catches on and becomes more popular!

Do you really expect corporate America to just sit back and ignore this phenomenon?

The whole mom-and-pop thing is romantic and idyllic, but it does not reflect reality.

The reality is that modern manufacturing and distribution with their massive warehouses and fleets of tractor trailers are FAR more efficient than local farm stands with their crummy old refrigerators and puny little pickup trucks.

Much of your food dollar goes toward energy costs: refrigeration, transportation, etc.

Just take a look at the prices! When you pay far more at the farm stand, what are you paying for? Their higher prices are due to their lack of efficiency!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What do you expect? Posted by: djkrugger
» RE: What do you expect? Posted by: billslm

Comments are closed-

a return to organic farming
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 2, 2009 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Author Keith Akers, in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), notes that by arguing against the killing of plants, the meat-eater "seeks to reduce vegetarianism to absurdity. If vegetarians object to killing living creatures (it is argued), then logically they should object to killing plants and insects as well as animals. But this is absurd. Therefore, it can’t be wrong to kill animals.

"Fruitarians take the argument concerning plants quite seriously; they do not eat any food which causes injury or death to either animals or plants. This means, in their view, a diet of those fruits, nuts and seeds which can be eaten without the destruction of the plant that produces the food.

"Finding an ethically significant line between plants and animals, though, is not particularly difficult. Plants have no evolutionary need to feel pain, and completely lack a central nervous system. Nature does not create pain gratuitously, but only when it enables the organism to survive. Animals, being mobile, would benefit from having a sense of pain; plants would not."

In determining a boundary between sentient and insentient life, Peter Singer in Animal Liberation suggests that "somewhere between a shrimp and an oyster seems as good a place to draw the line as any, and better than most."

Keith Akers states further, "Even if one does not want to become a fruitarian and believes that plants have feelings (against all evidence to the contrary), it does not follow that vegetarianism is absurd. We ought to destroy as few plants as possible. And by raising and eating an animal for food, many more plants are destroyed indirectly by the animals we eat than if we merely ate the plants directly."

(Meat-eaters indirectly kill ten times more plants than do vegetarians!)

"What about insects?" asks Akers, "While there may be reason to kill insects, there is no reason to kill them for food. One distinguishes between the way meat animals are killed for food and the way insects are killed.

"Insects are killed only when they intrude upon human territory, posing a threat to the comfort, health, or well-being of humans. There is a huge difference between ridding oneself of intruders and going out of one's way to find and kill something which would otherwise be harmless."

According to Akers:

"These questions may have a certain fascination for philosophers, but most vegetarians are not bothered by them. For any vegetarian who is not a biological pacifist, there would not seem to be any particular difficulty in distinguishing ethically between insects and plants on the one hand, and animals and humans on the other."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

a return to organic farming (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 2, 2009 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to see a return to organic farming. In 1989, concern over the use of the pesticide Alar on apples caused many Americans to consider organic produce. We produce pesticides at a rate some 13,000 times faster than we did in the 1950s. Our environment is being flooded by pesticide compounds.

Poisons used to kill insects accumulate on crops, in the soil and in greater concentration in the tissues of living creatures higher on the food chain. The EPA's Pesticide Monitoring Journal reports that "Foods of animal origin (are) the major source of pesticide residues in the diet."

In his Pulitzer Prize nominated book, How to Survive in America the Poisoned, pesticide authority Lewis Regenstein writes: "Meat contains approximately 14 times more pesticides than do plant foods...Thus, by eating foods of animal origin, one ingests greatly concentrated amounts of hazardous chemicals."

A 1976 study by the EPA found the breast milk of mothers who consume animal products to be 50 to 100 times more contaminated by pesticide residues than the milk of vegetarian or vegan mothers.

Organic farming and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) are getting more attention today. These utilize natural insect controls, such as predatory insects, weather, crop rotation, pest-resistant varieties, soil tillage, and other environmentally safe practices.

A 1979 Department of Agriculture task force of scientists and economists came to "...positive conclusions on the importance of organic farming and its potential contributions to agriculture and society." Until the end of the Second World War, American farmers produced bountiful harvests without relying on pesticides. There is no reason why America cannot do so again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

You can have my share of all this crap!
Posted by: moloko velocet on Nov 2, 2009 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I tried a bottle of Amy's Organic (or "Natural") salad dressing.....it was perfectly horrible; and as for Odwala....I'm just not stupid enough to pay five to six dollars for a plastic bottle of fruit juice!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Organic companies committed to product integrity
Posted by: jrose on Nov 2, 2009 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A common misconception is that large organic manufacturers are held to a different standard than those that operate on a smaller scale. In fact, organic processors and handlers with more than $5,000 worth of annual organic agricultural product sales are held to the exact same set of standards. Set forth by the National Organic Program, these standards outline different categories of organic products. Regardless of the size of operation, products bearing labels referencing these categories must comply with the government-regulated definitions of them. For more information on this and other issues related to organic, please visit www.ota.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

True, BUT
Posted by: goodyweaver on Nov 2, 2009 11:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the fines for violating standards are minimal - especially for giant corporations like WalMart. Further, the larger the operation, the less likely it is that a violation will be caught.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Food Revolution
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 2, 2009 2:28 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had the opportunity to hear John Robbins, author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America (1987) speak at a Unitarian church here in Oakland a few years ago. The church was PACKED.

John writes in The Food Revolution (2001):

"The revolution sweeping our relationship to our food and our world, I believe, is part of an historical imperative. This is what happens when the human spirit is activated. One hundred and fifty years ago, slavery was legal in the United States. One hundred years ago, women could not vote in most states. Eighty years ago, there were no laws in the United States against any form of child abuse. Fifty years ago, we had no Civil Rights Act, no Clean Air or Clean Water legislation, no Endangered Species Act. Today, millions of people are refusing to buy clothes and shoes made in sweatshops and are seeking to live healthier and more Earth-frinedly lifestyles. In the last fifteen years alone, as people in the United States have realized how cruelly veal calves are treated, veal consumption has dropped 62 percent."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

F'Cough
Posted by: moloko velocet on Nov 6, 2009 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
n/m

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS