Talk:Eden Foods Inc.

WPFood assessment

I have assessed this article as a start class mid importance article. It is a major company in the United States in the organic foods market segment, a relatively small but growing segment of the commercial food industry. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed links

Cobaltbluetony, the links you removed were to document a section that wasn't written yet, namely one noting that Eden cans did not contain bisphenol-A, and their soymilk was produced using an aluminum-free process (both rarities), but that their products contain Kombu, which for some people is an allergen. I was going to call it Health Issues.

I appreciate that you're editing this, and not just summarily deleting it. But articles are not typically created instantly, and when you jump on one that's only hours or minutes old, you're probably not giving the creator a real chance, or evaluating their final version. I now find I can't add the rest of the information because there's an edit tag. Forgive me for going to sleep for ten hours. Sheesh. FiveRings (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits of this article by CobaltBlueTony to compress the Notable Foods section and remove subheadings for each individual food make this article appear less like an ad and give it a bit more of a neutral point of view. I had tagged the article as appearing like spam, but I am satisfied with the way it currently reads. However, are there any third party sources to attest to the notability of Eden Foods? Jacchigua (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dozens. Did you look at any of the references? FiveRings (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Healthy" or "good for you" (an opinion, whether of scholarly background or not) is not the same as notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say the information now in the article is "notable" (not just healthy) FiveRings (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Healthcare Issues section..

We should probably start a 'controversy' type section on the following.. http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/organic_eden_foods_quiet_right_wing_agenda/ Centerone (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Add to this section that although Potter used religion as the basis of his lawsuit he can not cite any religious reasons for doing so and has repeatedly stated in the media that it is not actually about religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.165.82 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have references from reliable sources, that would be helpful. Also, nothing stopping you from adding this data. Centerone (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There's been a little bit of additional coverage since the original Salon story broke. Here are some articles:

1. News
   1. first follow-up at Salon
   2. second follow-up at Salon
   3. Potter interview at AnnArbor.com
   4. Detroit Free Press article – this is probably the most independent, reliable source I've found so far
2. Other (not to be used as sources)
   1. Original press release by Thomas Moore Law Center
   2. editorial at ThinkProgress
   3. editorial/summary at Slate

It should be noted that Carmon, the Salon author, is something of an editorialist, and may not be as reliable a source as other news outlets, so we should favor sources like the Detroit Free Press when possible. Ibadibam (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please be aware that I removed the statement regarding "angry public reactions" to the healtcare lawsuit. Reliable sources can be found to show both angry public reactions and supportive public reactions, depending on the sector of the public which is represented. (The Detroit Free Press is an incredibly predictable POV publication. No one from the Detroit area is likely surprised by which sector of the public they chose to represent.) Citing only one side of the issue is non-neutral and not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I removed instead of adding a counter-perspective because I feel that vague mention of the public reaction detracts from the encyclopedic value of the article. If someone decides to add a neutral treatment of public reactions back in, perhaps a statistical breakdown would be more in order (if one can be found). Blendenzo (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If you've found reliable sources to show public reaction, please share them here so that a neutral discussion of the subject may be achieved. Ibadibam (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Canned foods

Consider this paragraph from the article:

In 2007 the Environmental Working Group released a report documenting the presence of bisphenol A, a known endocrine disruptor that leeches from enamel-lined food cans, in the US food supply. Eden uses enamel-lined cans for most of its products (the only exception being tomato-based foods), and was subsequently recommended by agencies including the Center for Science in the Public Interest as a safer option for canned food.[9][10][11]

It's saying that bisphenol A (BPA) leeches from enamel-lined cans, but then says that (presumably) enamel lining is "a safer option for canned food". None of the three cited sources even contain the word enamel. Something is fishy here. -- I'm not that crazy (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the problem with the passage is that the first sentence is about BPA in general and not about Eden, so it makes it a bit confusing. I'll remove that content and clean it up a bit. Ibadibam (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Infant recovery

Moved from User talk:Ibadibam § Eden Foods

I have to wonder, Ibadibam, are we trying to share information, or are we trying to make an inflammatory political statement? Facts are facts. Snipping comments and/or statements to adhere to a more negative, less factual slant isn't particularly helpful. However, a simple set of quotation marks, is. So, your correction was corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamer2112 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I recognize that there's a lot of sensitivity around this company right now due to recent politics, and I would like to assure you that I am in no way trying to defame this topic, but working in good faith to improve the quality of the article. The phrase "who eventually recovered with no ill effects" is taken directly from the source, but that source does not attribute that information to anyone. It also does not clarify what kind of "ill effects" were avoided. Did the child merely suffer no ill medical effects, or did the family also avoid ill psychological and financial effects resulting from the illness? I have added another citation that indicates a complete recovery, attributed to the child's physician. I think this information that is better sourced and more specific, and have used that in the article. Ibadibam (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)