I forgot the link..sorry

Here is a link that might be useful: corporate organic

Why would you expect organic food industry to be structures much differently than conventional sector? Consolidation into fewer and fewer agribusiness conglomerates continues. "Big Government Certification" sets a universal standard best adapted to the interests of Big Agribusiness, not the small "organic" entrepeneur. Facts of life, Baby!

Ya know, I generally like the OCA. But this article was entitled "Non-Corporate Shopper's Food Guide Who Owns Who" ... but it would be more useful if it also listed companies NOT owned by the biggies ... true independents, 'cuz I know they're out there, but when one is shoppin', its hard to know who's who and it its more useful to me to know who the good guys are as well as who the big boys are.

On another level, this shows how "invasive" the capitalist system really is. 30 years ago, many of the enterprises now shown as being owned by big congolomorates were radical enterpises run by radical back-to-the-earth hippies (what others on these forums have call RDDBs). They've been gobbled up by giant corporations; sometimes willingly (the originators often make more $$$ selling their business than they ever made running it!) and sometimes kicking and screaming (Ben & Jerrys is an example of the latter, tho' they made a killing in the end).

I still belive removing corporate "personhood" and making stockholders, boards of directors, officers, and employees of corporations personally (though proportionally) responsible for the actions of the corporations and the harm (enviornmental, social, and economic) caused would do much to move us to a just society. I also believe it is a pipe dream, 'cuz the corporate big boys have the $$$$ and the influcence much more than the common folk ... and they have the media with which to manipulate the common folk, to boot.

Peace,

- Sequoia

Today I called the company who produces the Michael Angelo's chicken parmesan. I called the phone number provided on the package.
The women who answered said, " This is Nancy." I had to ask if this was the company that sells the chicken parmesan. Nancy resonded by asking me which store I purchased it from. I told her, it shouldnt matter, all I wanted to know is if the product was organic or not, the lable says NATURAL and chickens raised with out antibiotics.

She said it does matter. That the chicken ordered from wholefoods was organic however, if you purchased the same product from Walmart it was not organic.

Amazed that they could even do that, I asked her to repeat that statement. SHe went on to say that the same food is packaged at different times at the same location - the area is cleaned out of the organic and the other is used during walmart production. And viseversa. I asked if the chicken in Walmarts had any chemicals in it and she said that is was not labled as organic but was natural as described by the dept of Agriculture and within their guide lines of raising chicken and the ingredients for sale to the public.

I told her to tell her company that I was only comfortable purchasing organicly raised foods with out the use of poisons. She said she understood and would pass that along. I also told her that I would buy the product again if it became certified organic and that the facilities only cattered to organic products, in otherwords that organic and chemically treated foods should not be housed and in production at the same location and share space.

Glad I shop locally and know my farmer by name and face!

Personally, I am not against "big government certification" -- it does help protect against the very problem Sue ran into re unclear labeling. But a label that says 'natural' is not the same as a label of 'certified organic' although the labelers of 'natural' products seem to want the confusion.

I've been reading the requirements for federal OG certification, and they seem to be in line with the OG outlook: no poisons, pesticides, herbicides, etc. to be used in the production. So far, my only hesitancy would be that the soil has to test free of pesticides for only three consecutive years, and while applicants must note non-OG neighboring sites, so far I haven't seen what, if any, allowance is made for the OG farmer who has an adjoining herbicide-spraying farm-neighbor. Truly, I don't see that any allowance is or would be made, but instead it appears extra testing of soil and surroundings may be required.

Actually, I am sufficiently impressed with the requirements made for OG certification, that I would buy a commercial product carrying OG certification before I would buy from an unknown [person or company] that claims to be OG but has not been certified. Too many folks out there like the extra $$ OG will bring, but they don't want to take the care and effort that true OG requires.

There remains much unclear labeling; the main purpose of the USDA organic certification process for to clarify "organic" in the market place. Unfortunately, other than to disallow claims to higher standards, the Rules do not deal with such terms as "natural", eco-friendly, etc. Companies can still claim to be pesticide-free with whatever testing protocol they care to use.

The matter of contamination is handled traditionally by establishing buffer zones between conventional and organic producing units, or in the case of processed products, do an organic run after thorough cleaning of the processing line.

Pesticide drift is a greater problem than soil residue because the latter tends to decline with time and land to be certified must not have had application of prohibited material for three years prior to certified crop.

Any idea how many of these companies have the same people sitting on the board of directors? That is, does Mr. X happen to sit on the board for Heinz and for Pepsi and for Kashi, while Ms. X is on Unilever and Kellog and Kashi? or maybe it would be more interesting to know who owns a sizable share of stock in each of the companies. Money is still power even when represented by a stock certificate.

No idea; however, there is a Corporate Watch group with web site; Althea probably knows that one by heart.

Wow! I don't even know that by bookmark.

If you can't come up with a clever search strategy to see if someone has already compiled that information, you could wade through EDGAR filings in hope of discoving what you are looking for.

This is from the 10K Annual report filed 4th quater 2005 by Heinz regarding Hain:

"SPECIAL ITEMS

ASSET IMPAIRMENTS

In the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2005, the Company recognized a non-cash
asset impairment charge of $27.0 million pre-tax ($18.0 million after-tax) on
the HAK vegetable product line in Northern Europe. The charge, which is recorded
as a component of cost of products sold, relates to the anticipated sale of the
product line in early Fiscal 2006.

The Company holds an equity investment in The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
("Hain"), a natural, specialty and snack food company. Hain shares traded at
less than 80% of Heinz's carrying value since late January 2004. Due to the
length of time and the amount that Hain stock had traded below the Company's
basis, the Company determined that the decline was other-than-temporary as
defined by Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 18 and as a result,
recognized a $64.5 million non-cash impairment charge during the third quarter
of Fiscal 2005. The charge reduced Heinz's carrying value in Hain to fair market
value as of January 26, 2005, with no resulting impact on cash flows. Heinz
currently owns approximately six million shares of Hain stock, with a book value
of approximately $20.00 per share as of April 27, 2005. In the future, should
the market value of Hain common stock decline and remain below current market
value for a substantial time, the Company could be required to record additional
writedowns of its investment in Hain. The Company also recorded a $9.3 million
non-cash charge in the third quarter of Fiscal 2005 to recognize the impairment
of a cost-basis investment in a grocery industry-sponsored e-commerce business
venture. There was no tax benefit associated with these impairment charges."

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/46640/000095015205005232/j1304601e10vk.txt

I didn't read the entire annual report. That is just a sample.

You could also look at the websites of the company/s in question to see if they list their board of directors.

HTH

Here is a link that might be useful: Heinz Search on EDGAR results