Pepsico's 'Naked Juice' to feel the pain after boycotting Prop 37

Naked Juice is the next company to feel the hurt, after their parent company, Pepsico, contributed $2.5 million against Proposition 37, the ballot initiative for mandatory GMO labeling in the recent elections.

Digital Journal reported recently on the attack on Cheerios' Facebook page, in retaliation for General Mills' support of the "No on Proposition 37" campaign. Now there is yet another company feeling the strain. 

 

Did you know that Pepsico owns some of your favorite "organic" and "natural" brands, including Naked Juice, Tostitos, Tropicana, Tazo, Loóza, Izze, Sabra, Smartfood, Stacy's, Mother's and Near East? And that Pepsico contributed $2.5 million against GMO labeling in the recent elections in California? 

 

Well now, Organic Consumers Association has started a campaign against Naked Juice and is calling on consumers to boycott the product. Concerned citizens can send an email to Mike Torres, senior director of communications for PepsiCo, telling him they're all done buying Naked Juice - or any other Pepsi brand - until PepsiCo and Naked Juice support GMO labeling and product transparency. 

 

Anti-GMO protesters and activists are also invited to share their thoughts and speak their minds on the Facebook page for Naked Juice, and will find plenty of company amongst all the comments already pouring in. 

 

 On top of this, it is interesting to note that Naked Juice is the subject of a class-action lawsuit for fraudulently promising that its beverage products are "100% juice," "all natural," and "non-GMO." 

 

According to the lawsuit, Naked Juice uses soy ingredients that are genetically engineered "by design or by contamination." (Naked Juice doesn't use certified organic or verified non-GMO soy.) 

 

The lawsuit also accuses Naked Juice of intentionally using misleading language to give consumers "the false impression that the beverage's vitamin content is due to the nutritious fruits and juices, rather than the added synthetic compounds such as calcium pantothenate (synthetically produced from formaldehyde)" and "Fibersol-2 (a proprietary synthetic digestion-resistant fiber produced by Archer Daniels Midland and developed by a Japanese chemical company), fructooligosaccharides (a synthetic fiber and sweetener) and inulin (an artificial and invisible fiber added to foods to ... increase fiber content without the typical fiber mouth-feel)." 

 

The plaintiffs in this class-action suit are requesting compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an injunction against Naked Juice stating that its products are 100 percent juice, are all natural and that they contain no genetically modified organisms, when this is clearly not the case.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339270

Cheerios' Facebook page hijacked by anti-GMO protesters

Following the recent demise of Proposition 37, the ballot initiative for GMO labeling, many companies are being boycotted for supporting the wrong side. One of these companies is the owner of Cheerios, who mistakenly tried some social media marketing. 

Unfortunately for them, this month General Mills, the Cheerios guys, decided to try and engage with their customers through Facebook.

Big mistake.

As reported by triplepundit.com, "What was supposed to be a warm-and-fuzzy page dedicated to childhood odes to Cheerios has turned into an anti-GMO (genetically modified organism) rant." The image at the top of their Facebook page reads, "Your moments. Our timeline. The story of Cheerios as told by you." And boy, did people tell their stories! 

One recent comment reads,

"Instead of wasting your money on campaigning against labeling GMOs you should have saved that money and changed your labels. Maybe your values are misplaced. Maybe you have GMOs in your products and you were afraid of losing business? Well, guess what? You are losing customers anyway because you didn't support labeling and joined the opposing team with monetary support. That told customers the answer they were searching for even without the label. Great job! Geez! I used to like Cheerios. Shame on you."

They even went so far as to ask customers questions, like: "What are your favorite memories of childhood?" To which one commenter wrote:

"As a child, my favorite cereal was Cheerios."

However, they immediately added,

"Now that I have my own child, I don't let him eat it. I will not support a company that supports GMO's."

Another question was, "This Thanksgiving, we’re grateful for you, our fans, for showing us that the most simple things can bring great joy. What are you thankful for?" To which some protesters responded:

"I'm thankful I have a choice NOT to buy your GMO product and I CAN buy organic products."

And another:

"I'm thankful for social media making it easier to call out big corporations that only have profits in mind, not the health of families...esp kids."

Along with many, many more - I could keep this up pretty much all day! In fact, perusing the comments on the image, where they asked their question, there don't seem to be any positive comments at all. 

Most of the offending remarks on the timeline itself have since been removed, but new ones are cropping up all the time, like:

"Boycotting until the GMO's are gone! People over profits! You don't exist if we choose not to support you. Plant that in your modified fields :)".

And another reads,

"Genetically modified Mills, I have stopped buying your products."

And yet another:

"TRUSTED........ NO WAY!!! How can we trust a Company..... who contributed over $1.1 million to "NO on 37"??? Why don't you want labeling of GMOs (genetically modified organisms)??? What are you hiding from us???"

One more:

"I will not spend one red cent on ANY product produced by a company who spends their capital $$ lobbying to block the labeling of GMO usage in our food. Get with it, General Mills."

In fact, perusing the Cheerios photo page is a hoot, each photo has more anti-GMO comments. 

The main barrage against General Mills was apparently headed by GMOInside, a coalition that aims for GMO-containing products to be properly labeled. However other anti-GMO activists were not slow in getting into the action.

General Mills, the owners of Cheerios, contributed a whopping $1.1 million to the "No on 37" campaign. Being on the "No on Proposition 37" list, probably means that the company uses genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their cereal.

Come on guys, all the protesters really want is a little transparency.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339052