Eden Foods bills itself as the “oldest natural and organic food company in America” and is best known for its EdenSoy line of organic soy milk.
Most of Eden’s products are organic and nearly all are vegan.
It’s a very familiar brand in health food stores and marketing studies have shown it to be a favorite of female and liberal customers.
These customers, to put it mildly, are not pleased with the news that Eden hired the Thomas More Law Center to file a lawsuit against Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other government parties, associated with the Obama administration’s rule on contraception.
The lawsuit claims the contraception rule violates Eden Foods owner Michael Potter’s religious freedom under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by requiring him to provide his employees with medical coverage for contraception.
Potter believes contraception “almost always involves immoral and unnatural practices.”
Irin Carmon at Salon.com launched the story yesterday (April 11, 2013). Predictably enough, it has gone viral, with a massive outcry on Facebook and other social media.
In brief, protesters are not pleased by Eden’s pursuit of a right-wing ideological agenda and its espousal of Catholic church teachings on the evils of contraception. Thousands of people have already voiced their intent to stop buying Eden products, including Facebook commenter Cheryl DeMarco who summed up the issues particularly well. “Now that you’ve sued to avoid providing birth control coverage to your employees based on bogus science, I don’t trust you to provide me with clean food based on good science. I won’t be buying your products.”
As yet, the debaters have not pointed out the supreme irony of Eden Foods — one of the top manufacturers of soy milk — coming out against birth control. All soy milks — including organic soy milks — include high levels of the plant estrogens known as isoflavones. Over the past seven decades, scientists have linked isoflavones to reproductive problems in all animal tested, including the human animal. For women, soy contributes to anovulatory cycles and other symptoms indicative of infertility; for men, it causes adverse effects on the quality and quantity of sperm.
The illustration posted by Salon.com — and posted here — was surely not intended to be literal. But yes, this product can make birth control unnecessary!
Indeed, in the 1970s the World Health Organization funded a $5 million study through the University of Chicago and sent researchers out in the field in search of all-natural contraceptives. The idea was to find a safe and effective alternative to the high-dose birth control pills of that era. Researchers visited dozens of native cultures to discover which herbs and plants were being used to prevent pregnancy, examined hundreds of plants and analyzed their phytochemicals. Although they found many contraceptive plants — soy, prominently among them — they ultimately abandoned the project. Not because “natural” methods didn’t work, but because the side effects were similar to — and just as serious — as those of the birth control pill.
The obvious conclusion here is that customers who consume EdenSoy “soy milks” are unwittingly —and almost certainly unwillingly — swallowing liquid birth control. Lest any readers at this point think soy milk might a good “all natural” form of contraception, however, my advice is don’t count on it! Soy isoflavone content varies from carton to carton, and any contraceptive effects would depend as well on the amount and duration of consumption.
Eden Foods furthermore has a shabby track record in terms of supporting the health of babies. In 1990 the FDA investigated after a two-month old girl in California was hospitalized with severe malnutrition. Her parents had fed her EdenSoy brand soy milk instead of infant formula. Because of this and a similar incident in Arkansas involving the SoyMoo brand of soy milk, the FDA issued a warning on June 13, 1990, stating soy milk was “grossly lacking in the nutrients needed for infants.” The FDA asked — but unfortunately has never required — all manufacturers to put warning labels on soy milk so that they would not be used as formula substitutes.
Since these tragic incidents, most brands of soy milk — but not EdenSoy — include warning labels in tiny print on their packaging.
Sadly, babies continue to be hospitalized and die because of EdenSoy and other brands of soy milk. At least four couples have been found guilty of the deaths of their babies fed soy milk in lieu of soy infant formula. Many of these parents were health conscious, well-meaning vegans who truly thought they were doing a good thing for their babies by choosing organic soy milk instead of commercial soy formula. The myth that soy is a health food and Eden’s irresponsibility led to these tragic deaths.
How many more unnecessary and tragic cases of malnutrition and deaths will occur before Eden takes the right action? For me, the “right action” is clear: Boycott Eden Foods.
Sources
For more information about Eden’s lawsuit:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/organic_eden_foods_quiet_right_wing_agenda/
For more information about soy formula and the effect soy milk and other products containing soy vegetable protein on reproduction, The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food.
Eden sells awesome organic dried beans and fruit! Just some info for those looking to support them without buying soy.
I have read a lot of these comments, and I can see points all over the place. I don’t agree that it’s hypocritical on Eden’s part (perhaps they just aren’t convinced of the dangers of soy…many aren’t). I personally don’t see how the religious freedom stance conflicts with producing soy (because I don’t believe it’s contraception in a carton…sorry, that was extreme). But this isn’t my page, so thereyago. We all grow at different rates, and I’m happy to be wrong. What I don’t understand is why a company that is obviously trying to do what’s right (and does a lot right) is called out, while companies like Herbalife and Visalus (def. not the only ones…just examples) are left completely alone. Both of those companies teach people to indulge in shakes as a way of healthy weight loss, using extremely processed powders that are very heavy in soy and both contain artificial sweeteners. They will say that the soy is non-GMO and the sweetener amount is tiny, but it’s still there, and we know enough to call BS on that argument. Could we pick on the worst offenders first? These products are far more popular than EdenSoy, and educating on them would help more people and wouldn’t focus instead on hurting one business. I guess overall I love Sarah’s page and have learned much. This article, however, was IMO written with a really snarky tone, classified people unfairly, and the abrasive nature of it made the argument seem less valid. BTW…I think choosing healthy food is for everyone…not conservatives, not liberals, but everyone. Let’s quit judging and pigeon-holing people and worry more about educating them. If you educate well, they will make good decisions on their own, and there will be no need to taint good information with the negativity of calling for a boycott.
Eden has good food, generally.
Sarah, considering the amount of commentary this article has invoked, I implore you to respond to the criticisms, other than to say you don’t get it. Thank you.
cmmom,
I agree. I think that would be a good idea. There are a lot of thought-provoking responses on here, it would be interesting to get her take on it all.
Trudy,
I just wanted to let you know I have learned a lot from your responses. Your knowledge
and articulation of this issue are impressive. Maybe one day you’d prayerfully consider
running for an elected office? Even if it’s just a school board one?
coachswife,
Thank you so much for your comment. Words cannot express how much it means to me to hears that something I’ve said or done has benefited someone else.
As far as running for an elected office one day, it’s so strange that you would mention that because that has been an idea that has been unexpectedly creeping up on me a lot lately. I always shake it off by reminding myself (and God) that I do not have the qualifications nor skills to do something like that. Your comment has literally made me reevaluate my whole lack of confidence and mentally scold myself for not being more open to God’s will, no matter how terrifying it may seem.
I also would like to thank you for reading my responses and being open to learning. A lot of people have posted great responses on here, and, as controversial as the article is, I could not be happier that Sarah posted it.
Thank you, again, for your comment. It really means a lot to me.
Many think soy is good for you-many don’t agree. Many are against birth control-some embrace it. Lets stop picking on Christian based businesses. They provide employment for many people & take the risks. I am self-empoyed in the accounting field and have seen many small business owners struggle and refinance personal homes,etc. to keep their businesses going for their employees.
Angela,
Your rights are life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Wether you can afford something does not an entitlement make. Some people think cell phones are a right, and since they can’t afford it it should be given. Our hospitals never turn down care to anyone. You WILL get treatment if your need it. Obama is GOING TO MAKE YOU buy healthcare or face fines and penalties.
Is that the “human right” your referring to?
Of the various polls and studies done to determine the happiest countries in the world, the common denominator in the top scoring countries are that they are democracies with strong social safety nets (education, health care, unemployment, etc). So it seems that studies show in the pursuit of happiness, support of universal health care provided by tax payers would be key.
If that were true, we would be very happily healthy since dollars spent on health care (indicating a strong health care system) would mean better health. Despite paying so much for health care, this country does not enjoy good health. That is because “health care” is mostly pushing drugs and their side effects to relieve symptoms and not curing the root cause that produces these symptoms. Our government pushes lowfat, soy as protein and drugs while pushing aside the keys to wellness, clean eating, healthy fats and holistic treatments. This government can not lead our country to a state of health or provide health care. Everything that has been done by the government in my lifetime has had the opposite effect of helping Americans to become healthy.
If we’re healthy, who will keep big pharma in business?
Do you trust the government to provide for you in your retirement? Have you heard that is not likely despite our dollars going into social security?
Then they’re obviously spending it in the wrong places and on the wrong people. If you can be high in government health care spending and still not be offering universal care, I don’t know what to say. I would be curious to see HOW the money spent in the US on healthcare stacks up by category to those other countries spending less and offering universal care.
Yes, it’s spent in the wrong places but we have no control over insurance coverage. And many holistic treatments are not covered at all. I pay for these out of pocket. Universal health care will just be the same quality of care but for more people, many of them who are currently uninsurable, and the rest of us will end up paying even more. We need high quality care, not more of the same.
A 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance in the US. I don’t want to see anyone die due to a lack of care but touting universal health care as a benefit to the majority is just not true. That is a very small number. Meanwhile untested and unintended drug interactions and hospital errors are TOP KILLERS (many people are on multiple Rxs.) If we want to opt out of such a system, which pushes pills, we should have the right to do so. And BC pills are just another synthetic drug with side effects – stroke, heart disease, etc. I don’t want to pay into sick care.
I’m just saying that if other countries can do it for half the price per capita, then so can the US, but it would obviously require a MAJOR overhaul and not just addition of $$.
I’m with you, Meg and Deirdre! 🙂
I think health care is a human right. If someone is too poor to afford health care, they should be provided it. I earn less than $20k a year, and I have a pre-existing condition. I CAN technically afford health insurance, but it would put me in a seriously rocky financial situation. Many millions of Americans are in the same situation. So when you say, “they can just go buy it themselves,” NO – they cannot. You’re lucky that your financial situation is better, but it shouldn’t make you forget what it’s like for the rest of us.
Angela,
“If someone is too poor to afford health care, they should be provided it.” At whose expense??!
I am seriously getting my mind blown over the way you think. Just because you cannot afford something, does not mean that someone else should buy it for you! You are not ENTITLED to the fruits of THEIR labor. Just because you want/need/deserve (whatever you want to call it) something does NOT mean that you should STEAL it from someone else. And, yes, being forced to give up something you own against your will is EXACTLY what that is: being stolen from. Does this concept REALLY not make sense to you??
Furthermore, if you feel that you’re in no financial position to afford to pay for your own insurance policy, what makes you think that every business owner is in the financial position to pay for, not only their own, but their employees’ insurance policies? Would you rather have a less than $20k a year job with no medical insurance or no job at all?! Because that is what happens when businesses have to cut costs: they lay people off. Maybe in our nanny state, where it’s easier to live off of the government than provide for yourself, IT WOULD be better to have no job, but once again, at whose expense? Enough people start closing businesses because of excessive operating expenses as a direct result of government regulations and, as a direct result of that a poor economy, there won’t be anyone left to support those without jobs. Maybe our government can get away with operating in a deficit and printing paper that holds no real value for the remainder of OUR lifetimes (and maybe not), but it is eventually going to collapse. And not in a pleasant way either. Seriously, can you follow the logical flow here?!
Trudy –
I’m a little disturbed to find that you think that helping others through social safety nets is “stealing.” Like Meg said above, I guess the common good isn’t really valued any more. It’s every man for himself, and if people can’t afford health care, food, clean water, clothes, then we don’t care about them! Let’s let little children starve and pregnant women go without prenatal care. They don’t have the RIGHT to food, clothing, or roofs over their heads. Sucks to be them, but who cares. I’ve got enough food, so go take a hike, poor people! I guess it would be better to have a small percentage of people that are safe and secure, and then millions of people starving on the streets. We’ll just walk right by and pretend they’re not there.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m fairly sure Jesus was big on giving away everything you have to help others. You may think it’s “stealing,” but Jesus would think you were just doing your part.
ALSO – yes, hospitals will treat you for free if you have absolutely no resources – no car, no savings, no assets. In other words, if you are so absolutely dirt poor that you can barely afford to feed or clothe your family, then yes, you get “free” health care. I bet that really makes people jump for joy and appreciate their FREEDOM, LIBERTY, and HAPPINESS.
Angela,
Freedom of conscience IS a common good. What’s the use of having free healthcare, good, clothing, etc., and having no conscience?
I don’t think you are not being fare to Trudy at all. She is not against helping others. She is just against entrusting it to the government bureaucracy. (I hope it’s OK that I am answering for you, Trudy.)
Correction: “I don’t think you are being fair.”
Angela – Of course not. That is unreasonable on every level. If what you are saying is the case then we should go ahead and close down every soup kitchen, church outreach center, non-profit charity, clothing program, etc. When people recognize a need in their community, they give money. People are inherently good and really generous. And Christ’s teaching was pretty clear that he wants us to take care of the poor. How often do you donate time or money to the poor? Or do you just rely on some unknown person in the government to get around to helping them eventually? The red-tape that people have to go through to get some food for their family through government assistance is ridiculous. I prefer to help out immediately and give whatever I have available. Which would be more money if I didn’t have to pay for the government to continue driving us into debt. And this is the case for everyone. Not just me. All people would give more money to charity if they had it. Unfortunately, obamacare is about to suck us all dry…Our healthcare doubled this year – obamacare funding has to come from someone right? So tax the middle class until we are bled dry.
I agree that people are in general pretty good…. but I also think they’re selfish. I think that, given a choice, most people would theoretically want to help others, but they would hold on to their money instead. They’d think, “It would be awesome to donate to this soup kitchen, but I also really want to pay down a chunk of my mortgage.” I truly believe that in most cases, the mortgage would win, so even though people DO want to donate to charities, they wouldn’t really donate very much. I think some people, perhaps you, and Trudy, and many others, WOULD give $5,000 to charity a year, but many more people would keep they money. That’s why I think we need a government requirement to give to SS and Medicare.
Maybe if there was a government requirement to donate to a charity of your choice, people would do it. If your taxes would be $6500 a year and you HAD to give it away, but to wherever you wanted…. or if you didn’t have to give it away, but there would be some pretty awesome incentives to do so… now that would be pretty cool. I don’t think the gov’t has to be in charge of charitable giving, but until people are either REALLY incentivized to give, or just plain forced, I think many will spend the money on themselves only, me included.
If it’s required, it’s not really giving, is it?
I help with the oldest running soup kitchen in our city. I don’t hear “it would be awesome to donate.” I hear every week “I’m so glad I already donate via my tax dollars.” The irony is that the soup kitchen is completely privately funded. The red tape involved is incredible, though. I think more food gets thrown out than is accepted because of the regulations for what can be donated. It is privately funded but is required to adhere to various state codes and regulations.
It’s not about money. It’s about time. If everyone donated a little time, we would easily take care of those in need. Everyone could donate a little time to grow or raise food to help the needy. It costs almost nothing to plant a few seeds but takes time to help them grow. Most people are not selfish – they believe they have already done their part with their taxes, much of which is wasted.
It will not work to have the government do it for us, just watch how social security will disappear over the coming years. The government has tried to help the homeless for years and years and mostly the homeless just get moved around.
Angela,
“I agree that people are in general pretty good…. but I also think they’re selfish.”
Is the government not comprised of people? Are they somehow immune to these selfish tendencies?
Why should we trust that the government, if given the power, would act in the best interest of those needing help and not just create programs that employ more bureaucrats and do little or nothing to alleviate social problems. Why should we trust that the government even has an understanding of those problems?
What makes you guys think that charitable programs are efficiently run?
I’m curious as to how much each Catholic charity must funnel back to the Vatican? Does anyone know? Not denying the good that they may be doing, just curious.
Besides, when assistance is provided in the form of ‘charity’ it is viewed as just that, charity, and is demoralizing to the individual in need. When it becomes something that is provided to everyone regardless of circumstance (I hesitate to say ‘right’) it is no longer demoralizing. I would rather give tax dollars to healthcare than give those same dollars to other social programs that an individual had to partake in as a result of having an enormous hospital bill that altered their financial circumstances.
Angela,
I think Ryabinka and Lisa G. answered pretty well for me. I don’t have much to add. Thanks, guys. 😀
“I guess the common good isn’t really valued any more. It’s every man for himself, and if people can’t afford health care, food, clean water, clothes, then we don’t care about them!” I do a lot to help people, and I would do a lot more if it were not for the government taking my money to fund wars, Planned Parenthood, the FDA, etc. Not only do they use my money to pay for things I don’t agree with, they use it in a ridiculously inefficient manner. “By intervening directly and deriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”– John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 48
If you REALLY want to talk about tax-payer funded social programs, then we should be discussing them on a state level, not federal, because that’s where the Constitution leaves that power to. I would even be happy seeing it discussed on a smaller level than state. If you are interested in learning why that would be preferable, you should read about principle of subsidiarity of Catholic social doctrine. No, you don’t have to be Catholic to see the logic in it. Quoting Wikipedia, “Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.”
What I don’t think you are understanding is that I am 100 percent for helping people. I think everyone has a responsibility to the common good, and the poor and marginalized should be of particular concern. I do not think that a government that consistently abuses its power and has demonstrated time and time again that it is not as concerned about the common good as it is neglecting the common good for the ability to give itself more power and create more dependence by the people, should get my support, trust, or money.
“The common good of society is not an end in itself; it has value only in reference to attaining the ultimate ends of the person and the universal common good of the whole of creation.”–Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church #170
It surprises me that you think mandatory health care will be affordable. Have you not read about or experienced increasing deductables over the last five years? Who do you think will pay for the expensive care of others – we all will through higher deductables. One family I know already has a TEN THOUSAND dollar annual deductable. Soon everyone will have similar deductables AND be required to pay their premiums. The mandate will do nothing to help the poor except in catastrophic events – maybe, since providers also have upper lifetime limits. The mandate is only about keeping money flowing. It has nothing to do with wellness.
Angela,
I think in the pursuit of individual freedoms sometimes the common good gets lost – I know the common good is not a popular concept. A healthier population with regular medical care and emergency medical care without racking up a huge debt for emergency care (for instance) reduces the reliance on other tax payer assistance – so whether through universal healthcare or other tax payer programs, we pay. I just hope that those taking the hard stance against it never have the misfortune to find themselves in altered circumstances compared to where they are now.
🙂 Yep, seems like people are against the common good until they need to depend on it themselves.
I am astonished by the amount of misinformation in the comments section– It seems that many anti- contraception posters don’t understand even how most birth control pills work (to be clear, they work by suppressing ovulation).
I personally don’t give a damn if Mr. Potter is opposed to contraception. I am opposed to many, many things that my tax dollars are spent on. We do not get to pick and choose what we will pay for. The health care mandate was passed by both houses and signed into law by the president. It was reviewed by the supreme court and found to be constitution. There would be no functioning laws at all if individuals or companies can just claim it offends their religious faith. What if Mr. Potter was a Christian Scientist and as such, rejected ALL medical care? Would his employees then have not right to any coverage?
I am sorry, but you are the misinformed one.
“to be clear, they work by suppressing ovulation”
As has already been said here several times, this is only one way in which hormonal birth control works.
“The health care mandate was passed by both houses and signed into law by the president. It was reviewed by the supreme court and found to be constitution”
No, the health mandate was not reviewed by the Supreme Court. As Justice Scalia said, it would be “cruel and unusual punishment” to have the court go through the health reform point by point. What the Court did was rule one particular aspect of the health mandate – namely, the constitutionality of the fines levied on people who choose to go without health insurance.
“What if Mr. Potter was a Christian Scientist and as such, rejected ALL medical care? Would his employees then have not right to any coverage?”
They would still have the right to coverage. They would just have to purchase it themselves.
I saw one study showing that of 12 developed nations, the US has the highest % of working poor. What is affordable to you isn’t to someone else. I would rather pay for someone’s birth control than have a bunch of unwanted pregnancies walking around my production floor (and having employees on maternity leave, having to provide temporary help to cover their absences, etc.). The effects of those needing birth control and not being able to afford it are broad.
Meg, if that is your perogative, then your company is free to offer that option to YOUR employees.
But this isn’t a tax??? And this isn’t payment to the government. It is a private company covering health care for its employees!
I know, not a tax, I get it. I’m just using war taxes as an example of things we don’t like, but we pay for anyway.
If Eden’s owner were to be successful in his lawsuit, what should Eden’s female employees do if they want contraception covered in their health plan? Find another job? That would mean that the owner is telling his employees, “abide by my religious point of view, or take a hike!” That would be discriminating against employees for not holding the same religious view as the company. Is that what you want? It’s the Christian way, or the highway? At least if you offer contraception in a health plan, you give people a choice of whether or not to use it. If you don’t provide it, then you get rid of the freedom of choice.
Angela,
They can pay for it themselves. It’s pretty cheap.
If you make $15,000 a year stocking shelves and have two kids to support, $40/month is not that cheap.
I don’t like paying my insurance deductibles or the fact that the kind of medical services I want to have aren’t even covered. It’s not someone else responsibility to pay for things just because they’re a financial burden to me.
If someone cannot afford birth control, then they could always go the absolutely free route of not having sex during the time they can get pregnant. Is abstaining from sex a few days out of the month such a burden that you would be willing to say that someone else should pay for you some pills (that have dangerous side effects, too) just so that you can have that extra sex?
Angela,
If someone is only making $15,000 a year, I’m pretty sure that they can get prescription coverage through their state’s Medicaid program. If not, then I’m almost positive that they can get birth control through their state’s Department of Health. If all of that is too much trouble, then they could always walk into their local state-funded Department of Health and get a big bag of condoms for free.
There is absolutely no reason to force your employer to pay for contraception for you when he is morally opposed to it.
“That would be discriminating against employees for not holding the same religious view as the company.”
Discrimination is a terrible thing. I feel discriminated against because contraceptives are provided free of charge, but if I am having a baby, I have to pay all kinds of expenses out of pocket. And my neighbor feels discriminated, because Botox is not covered and her wrinkles make her unhappy ïŠ
“Is that what you want? It’s the Christian way, or the highway?”
No, we just don’t want the government telling people, “You must either violate your conscience or shut down your business.”