Talk:Stonyfield Farm

Untitled

This article had a 'reads like advertising' tag and I rewrote it in a NPOV. it still doesn't have any sources or references. Mtl1969 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder about the phrase: "Its milk continues to be sourced from New England and Midwest dairy farmers". This article says that at least a portion of it's milk is sourced from New Zealand Organic farms, powdered, and reconstituted in New Hampshire. I wanted to reference the controversy on the main page but I figured that it deserved some discussion here first.Ecksii 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

interesting Businessweek article and i think it would be fair to bring some its content into the wikipedia article, properly referenced and labeled as 'criticism'Mtl1969 19:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Business Week article doesn't say they source milk from New Zealand. It says "Sometime soon a portion of the milk used to make that organic yogurt may be taken from a chemical-free cow in New Zealand, powdered, and then shipped to the U.S. ... What to do? If you're Hirshberg, you weigh the pros and cons of importing organic milk powder from New Zealand. ".

I found the source used for some of the information in our article. It comes from a Stonyfield farm press release, which is probably reliable for facts such as when and how many shares Group Danone brought. I wasn't sure how much to trust its claims for #3 yogurt maker in the US, so I used an older, independent source which said they were #4 in 2002. They very well could be #3 now, though. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Brown Cow (yogurt)

Hi! I think Brown Cow should be merged into this article because Brown Cow is a brand of this company. Furthermore, Brown Cow does not have very much content at this time and perhaps does not have a lot of standalone notability. Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Brown Cow was a separate brand for 20 years. Although it was purchased in 2003 by Stonyfield and now is actually owned by the parent company Danone, which purchased Stonyfield in 2004, it is still a separate brand and will continue to be made. Additionally, the history of a "home grown" California company that used local raw milk to make its yogurt is a historically significant event. I would cross link the two articles rather than merge them. If you merged Brown Cow into Stonyfield, it would be logical to merge Stonyfield into Danone. In both cases, the history and significance of each of the two companies in the natural foods movement in the US would be diluted and perhaps lost. Thank you. Bhneihouse (talk) 12:44 PM, 12 March 2015 (EST)

I did not know that Brown Cow was owned by Stonyfield - it would make sense to merge the two. And, if Stonyfield was 100% owned by Dannon, and not rather 85%, then Stonyfield ought to be a subsection of Dannon in its entirely.

Also, I believe it is worth mentioning that a Harvard Case study was done on Stonyfield Farms in 2000. They called them rather Natureview Farms, to cover the name for the sake of students not knowing what company was truly being spoken about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:83E4:4F10:B977:5143:A27:116F (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - I am against merging company articles simply because they are subsidiaries of a larger company. "Subsidiary" is a valid option in Infobox company, and Bhneihouse's comments above are good reasons to keep the two articles separate. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversy over Use of Children in Deceptive Ads

Question for Ken Gallager: I see you've made edits that put Stonyfield in an exceptionally good light despite the controversy over its use of children to convey misleading advertising messages. I note you're in New Hampshire, where Stonyfield is headquartered. Would you mind disclosing your ties, if any, to the company?

Incidentally, Stonyfield was sold by its former owner Group Danone to Lactilis, another French company. -- RichardBennett (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure. No ties. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears we have a campaign underway to place a paragraph into the article with no input from other users. The problem with the text as it stands right now is that it does not adhere to a neutral point of view. We cannot start off a section with words like "fearmongering". While I understand the editor's indignation at having the entire paragraph removed, my attempt to make the section neutral was also immediately reverted. Let's talk about how to include this information so that it is neutrally written and does not overbalance the rest of the article. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

A couple of editors, including me, have trimmed it. The issue is not that big a deal, but it's worthy of a mention, I think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

A probable employee of Stonyfield is now removing information on controversies from the page. The IP address 134.43.0.1 is registered to Dannon, but it's uncertain whether the record has been undated since last fall's sale of Stonyfield from Dannon to Lactilis. The IP address removed the entire discussion of added sugar. RichardBennett (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Added sugar? Good grief ... well, 15 years in wikipedia has taught me to find better things to do when fanatics decide to play with an article, then come back after their attention has wandered and resurrect it. - DavidWBrooks (talk)

My edits to the Controversies section

Because this has been a bit contentious, I wanted to give specific reasoning for my various edits to the Controversies section. In general, the Controversies section was almost half of the article and gave undue weight to the subject, so I've tweaked it so it is more in-line with Wikipedia:Criticism.

I've reworded the Clinton section a bit to make the text more neutral, and adjusted the ref to a more neutral source (US News & World Report). Because I couldn't substantiate some of the claims in a source less biased than Mother Jones, I've removed some claims about the motivation or impetus behind the actions, while leaving the thrust of the section in-tact.

I've removed the High Added Sugar Content section because, while the Business Insider report does list some of the Stonyfield brands at the top of the list for sugar content, I was unable to locate a reliable source which indicates there is significant controversy around this subject.

Finally, in the section about the anti-GMO campaign, I adjusted the wording for NPOV, and removed a couple of sources (notably the Forbes article, which was published in the Opinion section and generally should be attributed to specific quotes if it used per WP:V

-- Sykes83 (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)