Eden Foods: Opposed to Birth Control But Sells Soy Milk?

by Kaayla T. Daniel Healthy Living, The Naughty NutritionistComments: 447

by Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD

stop birth controlEden 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 at 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 milks 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 the deaths of their babies fed soy milk in lieu of 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 right action? For me the “right action” is clear: Boycott Eden Foods.


For more information about Eden’s lawsuit:



For more information about soy formula and the effect soy milk and other soy products on reproduction, The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food.

About the Author

dr kaayla danielKaayla T. Daniel, PhD, is the author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food endorsed by leading health experts, including Drs Joseph Mercola, Larry Dossey, Kilmer S. McCully, Russell Blaylock and Doris J. Rapp.

Kaayla has been a guest on The Dr.Oz Show, PBS Healing Quest, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy, and many other shows.

Kaayla  is known as The Naughty Nutritionist because of her ability to outrageously and humorously debunk nutritional myths.    You can read her blog at www.drkaayladaniel.com.

Comments (447)

  • me

    There is some serious misinformation in this post. First, the reason to not pay for birth control was NOT based on bogus science, it was based on a particular religious conviction. Second, studies regarding the effect of soy on fertility have NOT produced anything conclusive regarding women or men; generally, studies have been based on limited numbers of participants or animal-based trials, or require further studies.

    “In conclusion, we found an inverse association between consumption of soy foods and sperm concentration which was more pronounced at the higher end of the sperm concentration distribution and among overweight or obese men.”

    “In summary, we find that women with a high intake of isoflavones have an increased risk of never becoming pregnant and being childless when they are at an age where they are at the end of their childbearing period (aged 41–50 years). Both sociological and biological explanations may be put forward to explain our findings. The stronger relationship in women who reported problems becoming pregnant is, in this context, interesting. However, we call for further studies, preferably prospective studies, to either refute or confirm our findings that isoflavones have a significant impact on childbearing.”

    July 3rd, 2014 5:57 pm Reply
  • TruthSeeker

    Soy foods do not contain estrogen, although they do contain isoflavone phytochemicals that fall in the “phytoestrogen” or “plant” estrogen grouping. Clinical evidence indicates that soy foods do not feminize men, lower their testosterone levels or lower their sperm concentration. Soy foods may actually offer men specifically several health benefits. For example, evidence suggests soy foods may be protective against prostate cancer. [1]

    Source: http://blogs.webmd.com/healthy-recipe-doctor/2011/03/four-soy-food-myths-exposed.html

    November 2nd, 2013 6:52 pm Reply
  • Pingback: The cow’s milk of human greediness: Another vegan soy milk company bites the dust. | the veganomaly

  • Thom

    Perhaps just as ironic is why Eden Foods would WANT their immoral and unnatural employees to reproduce. If it were me, I’d announce that coverage for contraceptives is included but only for the slimey fornicators and adulterers out there who we no longer want in the gene pool…LOL!

    May 8th, 2013 10:59 am Reply
  • X

    This is sooooo stupid.

    Forget the “boycott” which is already stupid, but really, Eden Foods is responsible for infant deaths!?!?

    Why is any company liable for stupid parents. Not even cow milk is a viable replacement for formula. Formula is stupid itself. Only breast milk is good for a baby, period.

    And as someone who eats soy, i have had no problem adding to my family any time i have wanted.

    This whole article is a ridiculous waste of time…

    May 3rd, 2013 6:47 pm Reply
  • Ex-fan

    “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.”

    Now that you’ve allowed a guest post based on bogus “logic”, ignorance about catholic teaching, disrespect for people’s religious convictions and ignorance about how (hormonal) birth control or IUDs work (while exaggerating the dangers of soy- yes, soy is not healthy, but somehow people in Asia manage to reproduce despite the soy…), I don’t trust you to provide me with information on clean food and healthy nutrition based on good science. I won’t be refering to your page anymore, and I will unlike it on facebook.

    Extremely disappointed, a catholic (convert) from Germany

    April 26th, 2013 6:34 am Reply
  • Goodbye Eden

    I used to buy Eden foods regularly but will never again. There are over 7 billion people in the world and the world can barely sustain them without resorting to bioengineering and non-organic farming practices on a large scale. Eden is indirectly contributing to the problem of overpopulation, which is a contributing factor for many environmental problems. Contraception is not a radical idea. There is something of mob hysteria in many of the above comments. Of course if your belief system is thousands of years behind the times, then birth control must be very threatening–what else can you do but rally behind your martyr? Meanwhile the population grows and all those mouths need feeding. It will not be Eden soy that goes into most of their mouths.

    April 22nd, 2013 8:13 pm Reply
  • bigskybabs

    Oh, please. Babies aren’t dying because of soy milk, they are dying because of moronic parents and lack of breastmilk, not lack of formula! Your “facts” on soy are loosely upheld and don’t bother to differentiate between isolated soy protein and whole soy products. While I don’t agree with EdenSoy’s stance on birth control, I do support an American’s right to stand up for what he believes, especially if it is likely to cost him dearly. That’s called integrity.

    You nourishing traditions folks who think cow milk is meant for humans need to get your screws tightened and wean yourselves! When babies are weaned from their mothers, it’s because they can eat SOLID FOOD, not because it’s time to switch to the milk of another species.

    April 22nd, 2013 7:08 pm Reply
  • Sam

    Eden sells awesome organic dried beans and fruit! Just some info for those looking to support them without buying soy.

    April 21st, 2013 4:44 pm Reply
  • Jodie

    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.

    April 20th, 2013 1:38 pm Reply
  • Patricia

    Eden has good food, generally.

    April 19th, 2013 3:04 pm Reply
  • cmmom

    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.

    April 19th, 2013 9:38 am Reply
    • trudy


      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.

      April 19th, 2013 2:37 pm Reply
      • coachswife


        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?

        April 19th, 2013 6:07 pm Reply
        • Trudy


          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.

          April 19th, 2013 7:46 pm Reply
  • Elaine Adamick

    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.

    April 18th, 2013 6:00 pm Reply
  • Marissa


    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?

    April 18th, 2013 4:57 pm Reply
    • Meg

      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.

      April 19th, 2013 2:20 pm Reply
      • EC

        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?

        April 19th, 2013 4:18 pm Reply
        • Meg

          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.

          April 19th, 2013 4:29 pm Reply
          • EC

            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.

            April 19th, 2013 4:52 pm
          • Meg

            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 $$.

            April 19th, 2013 5:00 pm
  • Angela

    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.

    April 18th, 2013 4:27 pm Reply
    • Trudy


      “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?!

      April 18th, 2013 7:53 pm Reply
      • Angela

        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.

        April 19th, 2013 11:15 pm Reply
        • Ryabinka


          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.)

          April 20th, 2013 12:41 am Reply
          • Ryabinka

            Correction: “I don’t think you are being fair.”

            April 20th, 2013 12:42 am
        • Lisa G

          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.

          April 20th, 2013 9:30 am Reply
          • Angela

            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.

            April 20th, 2013 12:14 pm
          • EC

            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.

            April 20th, 2013 1:32 pm
          • Ryabinka


            “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?

            April 20th, 2013 2:18 pm
          • Meg

            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.

            April 22nd, 2013 6:40 pm
        • Trudy


          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

          April 20th, 2013 8:35 pm Reply
    • EC

      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.

      April 19th, 2013 11:08 am Reply
    • Meg


      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.

      April 19th, 2013 12:09 pm Reply
      • Angela

        :-) Yep, seems like people are against the common good until they need to depend on it themselves.

        April 19th, 2013 11:04 pm Reply
  • DeirdreTours

    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?

    April 18th, 2013 9:56 am Reply
    • Ryabinka

      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.

      April 18th, 2013 2:43 pm Reply
  • Meg

    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.

    April 17th, 2013 10:50 am Reply
    • CMMOM

      Meg, if that is your perogative, then your company is free to offer that option to YOUR employees.

      April 17th, 2013 11:29 pm Reply
  • Lisa G

    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!

    April 16th, 2013 10:56 pm Reply
    • Angela

      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.

      April 17th, 2013 1:34 am Reply
      • Trudy


        They can pay for it themselves. It’s pretty cheap.

        April 17th, 2013 3:21 am Reply
        • Angela

          If you make $15,000 a year stocking shelves and have two kids to support, $40/month is not that cheap.

          April 17th, 2013 3:27 pm Reply
          • trudy

            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?

            April 17th, 2013 5:58 pm
          • trudy


            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.

            April 17th, 2013 6:28 pm
      • Ryabinka

        “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 

        “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.”

        April 17th, 2013 4:05 pm Reply
  • Angela

    It would feel better to me if we could all opt-out of any taxes that we have moral problems with.

    Some people would opt-out of paying for contraception, Social Security, and Medicare.

    I would opt-out of paying for any wars, for the Guantanamo Bay prison, among other things.

    Unfortunately, you can’t opt-out. I realize that if I don’t pay taxes, I withhold public education from your children, old age pensions from your parents, and police stations in your town. Paying for war is AGAINST MY RELIGION, and against my moral philosophy. Yet I pay for it every day with money I spend at the grocery store, the post office, at Old Navy. I’m pretty free, but not entirely free. You’re pretty free, but not entirely free. You can fight that if you want, but if you do, you should be fighting to end taxation in its entirety, not just fighting one piece of the puzzle.

    April 16th, 2013 10:54 pm Reply
    • Trudy

      As Lisa G. pointed out, this is not about a tax. Not yet, anyway. But if it were you believe “you should be fighting to end taxation in its entirety, not just fighting one piece of the puzzle”? Really? You have an all or nothing mentality over this? Either fight every single bad thing at once or none at all? Puzzles are put together one piece at a time, you know. Some of us do try to fight multiple evils (wars included :)), but we’re still thrilled over every tiny step of progress. And one more person willing to fight one more piece of the puzzle is one more tiny step toward progress.

      It’s not necessarily converting different points of view that makes the most difference, it’s waking up the people who are too apathetic, too ignorant, too scared, or feel that they can’t possibly make a difference. Even the largest wildfires can come from the tiniest of sparks.

      April 17th, 2013 12:08 am Reply
  • Julie

    I agree with Guest. I’ll be boycotting Eden, but then I never used nor liked their products much. Oh and I’m a practicing Catholic.

    April 16th, 2013 9:44 pm Reply
  • trudy


    “You are free to be whatever religion you want, but you can’t insist that others follow that religion.”

    How is your forcing me to act AGAINST my religious beliefs letting me be free to be whatever religion I want? We aren’t insisting that others follow our religion, but at the same time, we are not going to mindlessly go along with your insisting that I follow your lack of religion. ESPECIALLY if any part of your argument is because “it’s the law”. As has been repeated numerous times in these comments, “If you want to take birth control then pay for it yourself.” No one is arguing that you can’t take it or buy it. They just don’t want to violate their religious beliefs by buying it for you. It’s not complicated and yet the whole “forcing me to follow your religion” argument keeps popping up as if people are just mindlessly repeating it instead of analyzing the situation or even reading the comments.

    If you believe you have the right to take birth control that is fine. However, if you feel you have the right to have someone else pay for your birth control, please walk me through the process of logic that brought you to that conclusion.

    The fact that you defended your position in an earlier post by comparing this to having to pay into Social Security makes me just shake my head in exasperation. Why we shouldn’t have Social Security is another debate that I am in no way qualified to effectively enter into. But to mindlessly go along with something because “it’s the law” instead of questioning the fundamental reasons for, effects of, and authority to create and enforce the laws is what leads to an UN-free society. The government is not a deity, and just because the make something a law doesn’t mean that it should be followed. They only have the authority that we allow them to have and are supposed to be bound by the Constitution. They try to gain more power and it’s up to people like us to fight for liberty instead of fighting for more government.

    April 16th, 2013 4:24 pm Reply
    • Angela

      Well, if you don’t want to pay into Social Security or Medicare in order to care for those less fortunate than yourself, then I think we just have 100% different views on the morality of taxation. I DO question the government, all the time, and I think the majority of the things the government does is absurd. Just look at our Congress… they’re supposedly America’s best and brightest but they can’t even work together as well as a room full of fourth graders. I’m just willing to give up some of my freedom to ensure that others have a chance at health care and money in old age, among other things.

      April 16th, 2013 10:47 pm Reply
      • Trudy


        If you understand Social Security to be something you pay into to help those less fortunate, then there is not much I can say other than you need to do some learning. (I’m not trying to criticize. There was a point in time that I misunderstood Social Security, too. It took a lot of effort on my part to learn about and have a better understanding of our government.) The fact remains, though, that is NOT what Social Security is. And even if it were, you’re right, I do not want to pay into a program that by it’s very design is a Ponzi scheme that will bankrupt itself. I think that there are MUCH better ways to help those less fortunate than myself.

        “I’m just willing to give up some of my freedom to ensure…” Why do you need to give up your freedom? There are ways to help people without allowing the government to take your freedom.

        We are getting pretty far off the topic of birth control, religious freedom, and private companies. However, I do enjoy our discussions. I am FAR from an expert on government, Constitution, liberty, Catholicism, birth control, etc., but I have spent a great deal of time learning. My views were once very similar to yours. It took a lot of researching, studying, and careful consideration of all points on all sides to come to my conclusions (and they are not set in stone. I always seek the truth and never stop trying to learn). My point is that, I do not argue with you simply from an emotional or ignorant position, and my hope is that you are as determined to learn and understand as I am and perhaps our little back and forth will prompt you to further investigate these issues. :)

        April 16th, 2013 11:49 pm Reply
  • Angela

    Also, I just have to point something else out here:

    1. The first amendment does not guarantee anyone ABSOLUTE free speech or freedom of religion. You can’t yell FIRE! in a movie theater. You can’t harass your neighbor with threats. You are free to be whatever religion you want, but you can’t insist that others follow that religion.

    2. Like the gun control argument we’re having these days, the second amendment does not guarantee you ABSOLUTE freedom to carry weapons. You can’t carry a bazooka into a library.

    3. None of these ‘restrictions’ on our constitutional rights are meant to be onerous. Someone might WANT to carry around a bazooka, but he’ll have to make do with something smaller. It won’t destroy his quality of life, or even reduce it by much at all. We might WANT to deny others the choice of contraception in their health plan, but we make do with simply refraining from taking birth control ourselves. We make decisions that feel right to us, but we also support (i.e. pay for) the rights of others to make their own decisions. In other words, we support our fellow citizens in pursuing their freedom. Sometimes we have to use our dollars to let others make decisions we feel are bad decisions. Nonetheless, this is America, so we think freedom of choice is the ultimate right.

    Everyone is FREE, to a high degree – but not completely. That’s how our laws work, and that’s how they ensure that everyone is as free AS POSSIBLE – but we can never be completely free or society would fall apart.

    April 16th, 2013 1:20 pm Reply
    • Lisa G

      I don’t know how else to explain the difference between government and taxation and private enterprise. You either understand it or you don’t.

      1) He is not insisting anyone follow his religion. He is fighting that the government mandated that he has to pay for something out of his pocket that he disagrees with. If you came to me asking for me to pay for your abortion, I wouldn’t do it. If you asked me to pay for your birth control out of my salary, I wouldn’t do it either. His company. His choice.

      3) “Sometimes we have to use our dollars to let others make decisions we feel are bad decisions.”

      No we don’t!!! This is America for pete’s sake!!! Where do you draw the line? You mentioned that you are not for abortion (I think?!). What if Kathleen Sebelius and the government as a collective whole decided that abortions are covered by health coverage. Now, if you are a small business (or big!) owner, would you want to pay out of your capitol each month for abortions? Wouldn’t that ride your conscience a bit? We are not talking about taxes here. We are talking about the money that comes into a business as capitol. The business then decides where that money goes. The business even shops around for different health care packages that meet the needs of their employees! He is opposed to birth control for a multitude of reasons and should not be forced by law to cover it.

      Lastly, birth control is not anywhere near the same as drugs or health coverage for rheumatoid arthrits. Nor diabetes. Nor cancer. Opposition to birth control (for philosophical and religious reasons) existed thousands of years before the US government, or Kathleen Sebelius, ever existed.

      April 16th, 2013 1:47 pm Reply
  • MC88

    Are you seriously blaming the manufacturers of soy milk for the actions of some very dense parents who ignored medical advice? Maybe if the soy milk had a label on it that said “Great Substitute for Baby Formula!” I would understand, but… seriously? Why not call for labeling of all liquid groceries as “Not Formula,” so that some naive parent doesn’t decide to feed their baby orange juice or coffee creamer instead of formula? At least be mildly logical, this is just an unfounded diatribe because you happen to disagree with the company’s religion.

    April 15th, 2013 11:35 pm Reply
  • Amelia B.

    The beauty of America is that if you want your business to distribute free condoms to high school kids, you can. Or if you want your business to support abstinence education, you can.

    The problem with the HHS mandate is that it’s choosing sides on a legitimately debated topic. If Eden Foods wants to use their company to support or oppose contraception, that’s their business, and customers can support or boycott as they will. Letting the government (via the HHS mandate) bully one side into submission simply isn’t the freedom Americans cherish.

    April 15th, 2013 10:38 pm Reply
  • LJ

    It is tragic that children have been hospitalized and starved to death by being fed soy milk instead of infant formula. Eden Foods should include a warning label on their product- but I think it’s going a bit far to blame the deaths of those children on the company. It is a parent’s responsibility to research the foods they give their child, especially in infancy when a single food is depended upon to provide a full range of nutrition. Just as I would never feed a child rice milk and expect that to be fully nutritious, I would never assume soy milk to be a replacement for breastmilk or infant formula. This is a tragedy, but it’s ridiculous to blame Eden Foods.

    April 15th, 2013 10:33 pm Reply
  • Steve

    Looks like libtards maybe starting to gang up here.

    Catholic here… so if you do not like my religious beliefs… if you believe you can attack my faith and religion… if you want to use BS logic to force your intolerance… I have two words for you and I won’t use them here in the interest of having my comment posted. Those with no respect for Christianity and those who live it seriously… you are moral ethical cowards who would not have the guts to say these types of things to a Muslim’s dog. Real Catholics will stay faithful to their religion in any circumstance… the public school bullies posting their tripe is about as intimidating as a goldfish attack… So if a Muslim employer wants to maintain religion and not be forced to by his employees birth control… what say you then… tough guys?

    April 15th, 2013 1:44 pm Reply
    • Meghan

      Amen! Love it!

      April 15th, 2013 5:37 pm Reply
    • Trudy

      “as intimidating as a goldfish attack”. Too funny!!!

      April 15th, 2013 7:03 pm Reply
    • Angela

      Well, if a Muslim employer wants to deny his employees birth control, too bad. He has to abide by the law just like everyone else. We all pay for things we don’t want to pay for – every second of every day. Some people don’t want to pay Medicare or Social Security tax because they think it’s “every man for himself.” But we all pay for it.

      April 16th, 2013 12:44 pm Reply
      • Lisa G

        Again – you are comparing taxes and government to a private business. We do pay taxes and vote for the representatives who spend our tax money. Eden foods is not the government. Private industry practices are very different!!

        April 16th, 2013 1:30 pm Reply
        • Meg

          But even those in private industry are sometimes subjected by law to pay for things or provide things to their employees (e.g. minimum wage) that they are personally fundamentally opposed to. I’m not opposed to minimum wage at all, just pointing out the exceptions to the idea that the captains of industry ONLY pay for what they want to.

          April 16th, 2013 4:52 pm Reply
          • Lisa G

            Being personally or fundamentally opposed to something is not the same as being morally opposed to. Catholics oppose birth control based upon natural moral law. You cannot oppose minimum wage, et. al. based on natural moral law. That comparison doesn’t line up.

            April 16th, 2013 4:54 pm
          • Meg

            Being personally opposed to something can be the same as being morally opposed to it, as different individuals and groups have different moral codes. You may (I don’t know) feel that your moral code is the ONLY and correct one, and others will disagree. Natural law is supposed to be universal, but it is not.

            April 16th, 2013 5:48 pm
  • RosalindaL

    Thank you for the heads up, I will be buying as much EDEN as I can possibly muster! Eden is America. We have the right to our opinions and faiths by LAW! and the intolerance of those who call themselves tolerant on the left is unlawful and unethical.


    April 15th, 2013 1:35 pm Reply
  • cindy

    Kaayla has done some nice research throughout the years and continues to keep tabs on the food industry. She was very strong in her opinions about Eden Foods and could have gained more respect by taking a different approach. Contacting Eden and informing them of conflicts of interest could have been a better approach. The topic of birth control and safety has been around from the inception of BC use. There is good science behind its dangers as well and good science behind the dangers of soy. Let’s not bite the hand that feeds us. A little dialogue is in order.

    April 15th, 2013 12:48 pm Reply
  • Tina

    I really appreciate the way you leave comments open and don’t edit discussions. It really does conveys respect.

    April 15th, 2013 9:00 am Reply
  • Lucy

    Let me get this straight… all of you that are anti-abortion, you don’t use birth control at all? What about condoms?

    April 14th, 2013 7:40 pm Reply
    • Trudy

      I am Catholic. No birth control pills, no condoms, just Natural Family Planning.

      If you don’t know anything about Natural Family Planning, it is basically getting to know your body signs well enough to know when you are ovulating and can get pregnant. From there, you take advantage of that time frame by either having sex if you want to get pregnant, abstaining if you don’t want to get pregnant, or doing whichever you’re in the mood for if you’re indifferent.

      April 15th, 2013 12:06 pm Reply
    • Lisa G.

      I also use only Natural Family Planning (which I studied for a couple months). No contraception of any kind here. Just abstinence if my husband and I do not want to conceive. It is a month by month decision.

      The decision not to use contraceptives is not based on anti-abortion philosophy though. It is based on natural moral law and the intended purpose for human sexuality. The Catholic church is very wise on this. And the proof is in the pudding. There is a less than 2% divorce rate among Catholics who practice Natural Family Planning. And this is not because the wife is so strapped down she can’t afford to leave her husband. It is because we are genuinely happy! And the majority of us hold higher degrees and lots of us work outside of the home.

      April 15th, 2013 12:19 pm Reply
      • Meg

        Wow, that is quite a general and most likely undocumented statement.

        Don’t you think that abstinence is a form of abortion? You are denying that egg the chance to be fertilized, lol.

        April 15th, 2013 1:08 pm Reply
        • RosalindaL

          Meg, that comment is so ignorant of science and lacking of common sense. You might want to research biology before you mock the beliefs of others, it will help your credibility in the future.

          April 15th, 2013 1:37 pm Reply
          • Meg

            I have a degree which requires substantial amount of knowledge of physiology and anatomy of the human body, thanks. I think everyone here probably has a good grasp of human physiology otherwise they wouldn’t be here.

            I’m just taking it to a ridiculous degree to point out that if people are going to say that to intentionally suppress ovulation is a form of abortion, why not take it a step further to say that allowing a potentially viable egg to pass through unfertilized is also a mortal sin because you didn’t give that egg every chance to be fertilized because you practiced abstinence? It never ends…

            April 15th, 2013 2:11 pm
          • Lisa G

            Meg – I see where you are going. But we don’t actually consider the intentional suppression of ovulation a form of abortion. It is form of contraception (which we believe is morally wrong). It’s hard to explain without an exceptional amount of discussion, research and banter. So we can agree to disagree. But it has been fun going back and forth for me anyway :)

            April 15th, 2013 2:17 pm
          • Meg

            And sorry but abstinence IS birth control, since it is defined as using a device or method as a way of preventing conception. Just because the church told you that abstinence isn’t birth control, doesn’t make it so.

            April 15th, 2013 2:19 pm
          • Lisa G

            Abstinence is deciding NOT TO ACT. Abstinence respects the sexual act and everything that it entails (the awesome power of creating life) and one chooses to abstain from the act out of respect. Abstinence is simply refraining to have sex. People do it all of the time. I am doing it right now.

            Contraception is to ACT AGAINST. Contraception is to enter into the sexual act and TO RENDER THE ACT STERILE. No respect for the integrity of the act.

            Also – the Church did not tell me anything. The Church guided me to research on my own and come to my own conclusions. That is the beauty of freedom. I feel very free to make this choice. No church, man, or other entity forced me into this. I reasoned my way in using logic and natural moral law.

            Wouldn’t you think most of us would rather use birth control since it is so convenient? It is – convenient, but not good for me. But I choose not to. I am convicted. I could go all day with the back and forth. If you present more info, I’ll come back with my own opinion. And you have yours. Again, it goes back to freedom of choice. I choose not to use birth control. I would never force you to do the same. But I sure as hell don’t want to pay for it!

            April 15th, 2013 2:37 pm
          • Lisa G

            My comment disappeared because it had the word sex in it and got moderated out. Let’s see if they allow it…

            April 15th, 2013 2:48 pm
          • Lisa G

            Okay I’ll try it one more time but can’t remember everything I wrote. But let’s call sex “doing the robot” this go round.

            Abstinence is deciding NOT TO ACT. Abstinence respects the act of doing the robot and everything that it entails (the awesome power of creating life) and one chooses to abstain from the act out of respect. Abstinence is simply refraining from doing the robot. People do it all of the time. I am doing it right now.

            Contraception is to ACT AGAINST. Contraception is doing the robot but rendering the act sterile. No respect for the integrity of the act.

            And no man, church, or other entity told me to avoid birth control. The church guided me to come to the educated conclusion that I don’t want to use birth control using natural moral law, research and wisdom.

            Don’t you think that we would rather just use birth control for its convenience? It would be so much easier. But I’m not doing it for the convenience. I’m doing it because I am convicted. After reaching this conclusion of my own volition, just like other parts of my life where I have chosen the healthier option, I choose not using birth control. That is the beauty of freedom – I chose this. I would never force you to choose this. You can choose to do whatever you please. But don’t force me to pay for it.

            April 15th, 2013 3:25 pm
          • Lisa G

            I tried twice and they won’t allow my comment Meg.

            April 15th, 2013 3:36 pm
          • Ryabinka


            No one says that intentional suppression of ovulation is the same thing as abortion, although it is wrong for a different reason.

            Yes, NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality, and no, the Church does not condone it unconditionally. Rather, it permits couples to use it when there is a serious reason to avoid a pregnancy for a time being or, in some cases, foreseeable future.

            The Church does not object to contraception because it is abortion. Only the pill has that effect, but the Church objects to all forms of artificial contraception. It does so, because contraception interferes with the self-sacrificial nature of marriage:

            “Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . ” CCC 2370

            NFP does not cause abortions, nor does it interfere (when used with proper discernment) with the order of marriage.

            April 15th, 2013 4:05 pm
          • Meg

            Lisa G, if the comments are moderated they usually just take longer to show up but do eventually.

            We don’t have the same belief system so it’s a good thing that we are all allowed to express them freely :) Bible quotes and opinions of the church (because they are simply that – opinions) don’t sway my opinion, but thank you for educating me on what they consider abortion vs birth control. As described by Trudy and Lisa G above, abstinence is used in order to prevent conception, and is by definition, birth control.

            April 15th, 2013 4:32 pm
          • Meg

            Lisa, I understand what you are saying re: not to act vs act against. In this case, absitinence is being used in order to contracept/prevent conception. It is being used specifically towards the use of preventing contraception. The GENERAL definition of abstain is not to act, but in this case those who practice abstinence are abstaining IN ORDER to contracept. Just sayin…. IMO, abstain/contracept away, I support everyone’s right to choose, just don’t like the preaching (not necessarily you) and hairsplitting of terminology in order to prove that you are technically following the rules.

            April 15th, 2013 5:04 pm
          • Lisa G

            Meg – It is possible to use natural family planning with a contraceptive mindset. But it is impossible to contracept using NFP because the act could always lead to life (we could miscalculate the dates, double ovulate, etc.). The act is never contraceptive but it is possible that some people could abuse it. Most who practice it don’t. Because once you use it with a contraceptive mindset, you are probably going to start using some form of contraceptive anyway.

            Thanks for the lively debate :)

            April 15th, 2013 5:09 pm
          • Megan

            Interesting perspective. I have been fairly close to a fair number of Catholic families, all of them who consider themselves observant to the faith, who use birth control – the chemical kind, not the NFP kind. Interesting to hear from the minority who actually follow it.

            April 15th, 2013 5:27 pm
          • Lisa G

            Megan – The church is working really hard to bring the information to the Catholic faithful. There was a period of time in the church where this wasn’t taught nearly as well as it should have been. And most Catholics just don’t know about it. The church is working on that now though and good things are happening to give everyone the tools they need to learn more about it!

            April 15th, 2013 5:33 pm
          • Trudy

            Lisa G. and Ryabinka,

            I just want to say that I am 100% in agreement with what you said. I would also like to mention that I wasn’t born Catholic, I used to take the pill, I used to not be against abortions, and I even used to think that “free healthcare” was a great idea. Research in pursuit of truth is what led me to the Church, to my limited government beliefs, to Austrian economics, to traditional diets, to respect of life and nature, and to all of my beliefs and convictions. I would also like to add that the more I’ve read and learned, the more I believe that the Church and what it teaches is truth and the laws of nature aren’t something to be abused.

            April 15th, 2013 5:36 pm
          • Ryabinka


            I realize that we have different belief systems :) No kidding! But since you made some ignorant comments about the teachings of the church, I thought that you would at least like to know what those teachings are.

            But just because I quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you dismissed my comment as irrelevant and completely ignored the argument I was making. Just to clarify, the church does not object to artificial birth control because of its name, but because of its effects (including its effects on marriage). NFP does not have those effects, and therefore, is permitted by the church to be exercised with due discernment. There is no contradiction here.

            April 15th, 2013 6:22 pm
          • Megan

            I wasn’t commenting on the teachings of the church at all. Lisa said that the divorce rate is less than 2% among Catholics who practice NFP, suggesting that the divorce rate is as a result of that practice. I would simply challenge that statement as it seemed she was suggesting the divorce rate was low as a result of NFP. But if you all feel that it is a significant factor in the reduction of the divorce rate then I’m glad that you feel it’s working for you. I still say that I define natural family planning is a form of contraception though 😉 Having read and considered all of your arguments. I do know what it is because I studied and monitored fertility signs and symptoms quite carefully and diligently in order to conceive in my early 40s.

            April 15th, 2013 7:11 pm
          • Ryabinka

            ” Interesting to hear from the minority who actually follow it.”

            Just because a majority does something doesn’t make it right :)

            April 15th, 2013 8:10 pm
          • Ryabinka


            This is a quote from your post:

            “I’m just taking it to a ridiculous degree to point out that if people are going to say that to intentionally suppress ovulation is a form of abortion, why not take it a step further to say that allowing a potentially viable egg to pass through unfertilized is also a mortal sin because you didn’t give that egg every chance to be fertilized because you practiced abstinence? It never ends…”

            It says nothing about divorce. It does accuse Catholics of inconsistency though. If you did read my comments, you would realize that I did admit that NFP can be practiced with a contraceptive mentality. So you can say that you believe that NFP is contraception a hundred more times if you want. The point though that the Church does not object to contraception just because it prevents conception. The church has objection to all forms of artificial contraception because (1) it interferes with the self-giving nature of the pro-creative act and (2) hormonal birth control can cause abortions by preventing the implantation of an already fertilized egg. NFP does neither (1) nor (2) and therefore is permitted by the Church even though it prevents conception. At the same time the Church does call us to use our pro-creative gifts generously. There is no inconsistency here.

            If everything is just an opinion, then why are you here arguing your point? Why does it matter if one person prefers apples and another oranges?

            April 15th, 2013 8:26 pm
          • Lisa G

            Megan – About the alarmingly low divorce rate among NFP couples, here is a source I can cite: http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/193/36/

            Keep in mind that not many grants are given to study NFP couples, so you aren’t going to find a ton about it. But this is a good starting point.

            April 15th, 2013 9:56 pm
          • Lisa G

            “I still say that I define natural family planning is a form of contraception though Having read and considered all of your arguments.”

            Megan – I just have to bring up one analogy to try to explain why we do not define NFP as contraception.

            Person A and B each want to lose weight. Person A chops off their leg. Person B eats more whoole foods, less junk and starts working out.

            Both achieved weight loss. Can we say both of them are on a diet?

            April 16th, 2013 8:27 am
          • Lisa G

            Megan – here is an easier way to understand why NFP is never contraception.

            NFP cannot be called contraceptive because we cannot compare two things simply by the end result. Otherwise an abortion and a miscarriage are the same thing because the end result is the same. You have to look at the ACT to obtain the end. Contraception acts directly against the sexual act to render the act infertile. With NFP, the sexual act is respected and not acted against because the couple does not have sex. Using contraception to render sex infertile and not having sex at all are not the same thing.

            April 16th, 2013 8:48 am
          • Meg


            Thanks for the clarification. It does seem a bit as though you and Lisa G see things slightly differently re: NFP but that’s ok too.

            Re: opinions, I’m arguing because I enjoy a healthy debate, and this is my first time talking to someone about this topic 😉

            April 16th, 2013 10:57 am
          • Lisa G

            “It does seem a bit as though you and Lisa G see things slightly differently re: NFP but that’s ok too.”

            Meg – I just read through Ryabinka’s comments and I agree with them 100%!! Now I’m really curious which things you think we see differently!!

            (And I love a good healthy debate as well!!)

            April 16th, 2013 11:02 am
  • Ryabinka

    Dear Guest from Germany,
    Yes, in America we still take religion seriously, because we still believe in individual rights and religious freedom and refuse to surrender them to the government as the “more enlightened” Europeans have done. (Just for the record, I am American by naturalization not birth and have spent more than half of my life in Russia.) Since you accuse us of lacking common sense, I’d like to point out some of its lack in your own comment:
    “And you can not really deny that calling contraception something unnatural is right wing or to use a more polite word here, conservative.”
    Do you seriously believe that contraception is something natural? Is being a conservative considered a crime in the enlightened Europe? Or does that label make a person holding conservative views irrelevant?
    “It´s really hard for me to understand why everything that has to do with contraception (and hence with anything sexual and abortion) is such a big deal for you Americans”
    Because these matters have to do with human life. Do Europeans find this question so uninteresting or have they already resolved all human problems and there is not further need for questioning?
    “Killing real people is something completely different than an abortion. An abortion in the first few weeks or in the first three months is just killing developing cells. Even a worm or an insect has more of a full life than these cells.”
    What kind of science have you been learning? Have you ever seen a baby in the first three months of pregnancy?! Please google some images of fetal development. I had early ultrasounds with two of my children — one at 8 weeks and one at 6. What we saw on the screen definitely did not look or act like a worm or an insect. What we saw was a tiny baby doing somersaults and waving its arms.
    “I give you an example: Most pregnancies are aborted naturally before a woman even knows she was pregnant. So God must be the strongest proponent of abortion.”
    All humans eventually die. Would that justify murder?

    April 14th, 2013 5:44 pm Reply
    • Trudy

      Well said.

      April 15th, 2013 12:00 pm Reply
  • Kathy

    There is moral absolute. There is good and evil; and abortion is the killing of a human being in the earliest stages of life. What do you think the abortionist is killing a squash??? No he is killing a tiny human. “A person is a person no matter how small.” If we were to follow Guest from Germany’s line of reasoning, it’s called Moral Relativism, anything can be justified as “O.K.”

    April 14th, 2013 11:10 am Reply
  • Guest

    I sometimes read this blog because I´m interested in the traditional food movement. I am not American, I´m from Germany and I have to admit I don´t know whether to be shocked or amused. This is my first comment on this page btw. I couldn´t hold back when I read all the comments about how terrible contraceptive pills and abortion are.
    Are you Americans really so blinded by your religious beliefs that you are unable to get the simple message of an article? Religion seems to be the most important thing above everything else for you, right? Holy S***, what about using your common sense and forget about all that Bible stuff for a moment please. For me as a European this is simply ridiculous and absolutely unintelligible.
    All Kaayla T. Daniel wanted to say is that it is hypocrisy to claim contraception involves immoral and unnatural practices when the company sells highly unnatural (because highly processed) foods that contain the same thing as pills, estrogens, which are linked to fertility problems at the same time. The latter is a scientific fact, that nobody can deny and companies are pretty much aware of the research on soy.
    And you can not really deny that calling contraception something unnatural is right wing or to use a more polite word here, conservative. And who is very conservative with that topic? The Churches and so is of course the Catholic church.
    Of course you can debate that lawsuit and the pros and cons of birth control pills (health point/ I absolutely agree that no one should be forced to take the pill) but this is a completely different thing. The article simply wanted to show the hypocrisy of a company´s policy. Nobody wants to force anybody to do anything, nobody wants to attack religious beliefs and nobody wants to attack your freedom of choice etc.
    Please calm down. It´s really hard for me to understand why everthing that has to do with contraception (and hence with anything sexual and abortion) is such a big deal for you Americans and that you feel offended immediately.
    As proponents of traditional and natural foods you became aware of the fact that there are toxic things in grains and other seeds that have to be eliminated before eating, that your body requires certain nutrients and so forth, and so forth. This has to do with evolution and that nature works in certain ways and it´s not the friedly garden Eden. God did not put the phytic acid into a grain, that was evolution. 😉 You accept this since it is proven by modern science (or WAP´s work).
    But when it comes to birth control/contraception you stick to, sorry for that word, not meant as an attack, absurd and false beliefs that your religion tells you.
    I give you an example: Most pregnancies are aborted naturally before a woman even knows she was pregnant. So God must be the strongest proponent of abortion. 😉
    Birth control pills prevent the body from getting pregnant they don´t cause an abortion. Not even the morning after pill causes abortion. It simply prevents the fertilized egg from finding a place in the uterus.
    I hope you understand what I wanted to say.
    You can debate an article, discuss it´s quality, like and dislike it, but don´t feel offended so quickly and don´t blame this article for something it didn´t intend just because it´s a controversial topic for your beliefs.

    April 14th, 2013 7:52 am Reply
    • Kathy

      I guess that’s how Hitler started eh??? What’s the big deal if I kill a few million people? Abortion is wrong. It is murder. It is the taking of innocent human life.

      April 14th, 2013 9:51 am Reply
      • Guest

        Why is it always Hitler? Because I said I am from Germany? Hopefully not. This is lame and pathetic, honestly.
        You think abortion is wrong, that´s OK, you can have your opinion on that, but please stay to scientific facts and don´t compare it with things you can not compare it with.
        Killing real people is something completely different than an abortion. An abortion in the first few weeks or in the first three months is just killing developing cells. Even a worm or an insect has more of a full life than these cells.
        I know that you can have an abortion beyond three months in America and this, truly, is something worth debating and controversial.
        But I let you have your opinion on that so don´t be so intolerant. How abortion is seen is everybody´s own decision.
        Of course every woman should take care of herself that she will never get into such a situation (by using birth control) but it must be her own decision. Such a situation is bad enough you won´t do any good if you call people murderer.
        What about a rape? What about a handicap? Or a pregnancy that threatens a woman´s life?
        Isn´t it worse to force a woman to have a child she doesn´t want and perhaps even condemn a child to lead a miserable life? With this you may have saved a few cells from harm, but what about the real living people with feelings, needs etc.? That´s what I call hypocrisy, too.
        There is no good and bad, no black and white. It´s everybody´s own decision.

        April 14th, 2013 10:37 am Reply
        • Marissa

          So when does life start, if not a conception? I am curious. The 3rd trimester? After being born? when? And if you should have a right to choose, it is YOUR body, then
          gender genocide is fine too? I wanted a boy, but it’s a girl, so let’s move on from this mistake. It’s not a tragedy because “it” isn’t a human yet right? It comes down less to “religion” and more about the life of EVERY American born and unborn. Life is precious and should be treated as such, even if it’s inconvenient. And one last question, what if your wrong? If I am wrong, life still wins, if your wrong, innocent die.

          April 14th, 2013 11:00 am Reply
        • Lisa G

          What is the exact date that the developing cells become a human life? Because women have abortions at all times in their first trimester? What day and time is that the developing cells are human?

          April 14th, 2013 11:16 am Reply
          • Kathy

            From the very moment you had sex. Unless of course you had sex with a nonhuman.

            April 14th, 2013 10:51 pm
        • EMILY

          Actually, Doe V Bolton made it legal to have an abortion up to 40 weeks. Certain states have laws that have restricted it to 22 weeks or so. However, we have an awful thing called Partial Birth Abortion that, well, you can look that up, but it’s inducing labor on a 25+ (hello, babies are born and survive at that point in NICU!) week pregnant woman, deliver the baby feet first with forceps, and without having the head born (that would be infanticide then) either use sharp instuments to sever the spinal cord or actually insert a knife in the base of the skull, suction out the brain so the head collapses and the rest of the body is “delivered” (ironic wording, huh?)

          April 24th, 2013 1:15 am Reply
        • Emily

          At 20 days a still-developing heart starts pumping blood through the fetuses system. At 40 days brain waves can be detected. And science is constantly revealing more and more about the human person in the womb. At 8 weeks, fingerprints are forming and cartilege is turning to bone. Baby can hear. At 12 weeks all the organs and systems for a baby to feel pain are there. Babies can experience the pain of an abortion. Google “The Silent Scream” An abortionist filmed an abortion (through ultrasound) and the results stunned him so much (ie the fetus trying to get away from the saline solution needle and writhing in pain and the salt solution slowly burned and killed him) he gave up his practice and now is fully pro-life. He wasn’t even aware of basic fetal development. I did a quick google search on 8 week old fetuses. Amazing! Here’s one link (I made it from a government page and not a Pro Life page for ya. 😉 ) http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/develop/week8.shtm

          April 24th, 2013 1:30 am Reply
    • Mary Beth

      Excellent points, Guest from Germany – sorry about the abuse that will probably follow, These are always difficult conversations here, and people get carried away. You have to have thick skin to participate.

      April 14th, 2013 10:46 am Reply
    • Trudy

      “It simply prevents the fertilized egg from finding a place in the uterus.” Yeah, that would be an abortion. The FERTILIZED egg is aborted. Aside from that, the issue here is that selling a product that people can choose to buy or not buy, no matter how unhealthy it may or may not be, is in no way logically comparable to being forced to buy something that you believe wholeheartedly to be evil, especially when this belief is SUPPOSED to be protected by your first amendment.

      There are many, many things in the world that can be debated as to how bad they truly are: abortion, euthanasia, genetically modified crops, antibiotics, etc. People have many different views. I live in an area where many people have no problem shooting a dog or throwing kittens in a bag and into the river to drown. These people just don’t hold the same value of life and nature as I do. I can’t change their mind and am somewhat resigned to the idea of even trying anymore. But if I were ever forced to aid them, even in the slightest way, you’d better believe I’d fight it with everything I could. Furthermore, what Michael Potter believes is protected under the first amendment. His religion teaches, and he believes, that contraception is evil. Maybe this is the part you’re not understanding because you are from Germany, but our country is supposed to be a place where people practice their religion with no violations against it from our government.

      The fact that his religion does NOT teach that eating soy is a grave sin, yet DOES teach that taking birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy, or helping others to, IS a grave sin, makes trying to compare the two to prove corporate hypocrisy absolutely ridiculous!

      April 14th, 2013 1:55 pm Reply
    • Meg

      Thank you Guest, and sorry for the most ignorant comments about Hitler. As a non-American I can never understand why they can never achieve the separation of government and religion. Nor why so many are so adamantly against universal healthcare. Although healthcare is sometimes an oxymoron for managing our every day health, you wouldn’t turn it down if you were rushed to the hospital after having had a near fatal car accident or emergency appendectomy. A healthier society where everyone has access to necessary/emergency healthcare and doesn’t leave the hospital with a bill that will force them into poverty is better for everyone, and people don’t need to resort to desparate measures. That healthcare would also include employer funded healthcare insurance for things such as chiropractic care, homeothapy, etc. The corporations can afford it….. I’m aware this opinion will be unpopular.

      April 15th, 2013 1:04 pm Reply
      • Emily

        Because the country was FOUNDED on religious freedom. People left England because they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs. Why is it so hard to understand that is the very reason America was established?

        Also, what most people don’t realize, is that the separation of church and state does NOT mean that people shouldn’t or can’t use their religious beliefs to guide their civil life; it was instituted to PROTECT the person’s right to do so! It was protecting the person’s right to vote, to think, to act in accord with their faith. If you read the actual wording, it is all about what the government CAN”T do. The only place “separation of church and state” was written during the time was in a private letter of Thomas Jefferson to a preacher. You won’t find that in the constitution.

        April 24th, 2013 1:47 pm Reply
  • Helen T

    What kind of birth control then isn’t considered a religious abomination?

    April 14th, 2013 5:17 am Reply
  • Debbie Edwards via Facebook

    try researching the HEALTH IMPACTS OF THE PILL on women children and fetuses since it’s inception and compare it to the impacts since the inception of soy….. You are showing your ignorance about the full reasons “the church” fights the use of that nasty little pill

    April 13th, 2013 10:43 pm Reply
  • Angela

    I’m with Becca. If your employer provides birth control, you are free to choose not to use it. Your religious freedom is not being infringed upon if your company offers birth control to its employees. Sure, you may have to pay for something you do not support, but we all pay for things we don’t support ever day. I strongly disagreed with the war in Iraq, but my tax dollars went to pay for the war. I think the school lunches in public schools are terribly unhealthy, but my tax dollars pay for those lunches.

    If an employer does NOT provide the contraceptives required in the Affordable Care Act, it’s religious discrimination against the employee. Businesses other than churches cannot require their employees to hold the same religious views as the company owners, and they can’t discriminate against employees with different religious beliefs. Eden Foods cannot require that all its employees be Christian (and anti-birth control), and they cannot discriminate against them for not being Christian.

    April 13th, 2013 10:38 pm Reply
    • Trudy

      You don’t agree with the war in Iraq? Or unhealthy school lunches? Great! Then stand up for yourself and your beliefs!

      The point of the lawsuit is that the Affordable Care Act violates his first amendment right. The lawsuit doesn’t say that it wants all of his employees to not use birth control, just that he shouldn’t have to pay for it for them when that act would be a blatant violation of his conscience and religious beliefs.

      “Eden Foods cannot require that all its employees be Christian (and anti-birth control), and they cannot discriminate against them for not being Christian.” Why not? It’s his company. Can he not hire who he wants? That is not the issue here, but why can’t he? You can discriminate against who you let in your house or who you hire to babysit your kids or many, many other things. It is your right (whether acknowledged by the government or not) to make decisions about yourself, your family, your property, and your possessions. In fact, you can discriminate against what companies you want to work for, why can’t a company owner discriminate against who he has working for him?

      April 13th, 2013 11:44 pm Reply
      • Roxanne Rieske

        Gosh, I don’t know, cause it’s AGAINST THE LAW? It’s against the law to discriminate in employment based on religion, race, sex, ethnicity, and disability. Not only is it against the law, it’s also morally and ethically wrong…and our Constitution supports that.

        April 15th, 2013 2:56 pm Reply
        • Trudy

          Our Constitution does not say it’s against the law for private employers to discriminate. That is the Civil Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, etc.

          Do you never question laws? Just because something is a law doesn’t mean that it should be? People discriminate all the time. I didn’t want to hire Aaron the pool boy to clean my pool because he had a knife wound from a gang fight and a Church of Satan tattoo. I was definitely discriminating him. Even discriminating based on *gasp* his religion. Guess it’s a prison cell for me. (Technically it wouldn’t be. I believe you have to have 25 or more employees to qualify) I doubt you would think so, though. However, if Big Business Pool Cleaning didn’t hire Aaron because of his gang wound and Church of Satan tattoo, Aaron would have them in court. What’s the difference?

          You don’t think people should be able to willingly enter or not enter into a private contract? You don’t think that a person should be able to decide who they hire in THEIR OWN BUSINESS?

          Take Aaron again, what if he decided he didn’t want to clean my pool because I had crucifixes in my house, should the government get involved? My pool is really dirty and he won’t work for me because he’s discriminating against my religion. I’d better call my lawyer!

          Buying raw milk is “AGAINST THE LAW” where I live. Should I not be allowed to decide for myself what goes into my body? Why does the government need to invade our privacy whether it be what we drink or who we employ?

          I’m not suggesting that people SHOULD be discriminated against. I’m suggesting that it’s not the government’s business who you want to have working for you if your company is privately owned. I’m also suggesting that people should get over this sense of entitlement that so many seem to have and stop depending on the government to take care of them, whether it’s their job, their food, their home, whatever. Nothing is free and my “rights” don’t supersede the rights of anyone else.

          April 15th, 2013 6:52 pm Reply
      • Angela

        Uh, I am standing up for my beliefs, right now! I think paying tax dollars to the Iraq war violates MY first amendment rights. I think “thou shalt not kill,” so it’s against my religious beliefs to pay for wars that kill people. I’m anti-abortion, too, but even so I think people should make their own decisions. Even if I disagree, it’s their decision.

        April 16th, 2013 12:32 pm Reply
        • Lisa G

          Angela – He isn’t making a decision for other people!!! He is simply deciding not to put his own personal money to pay for their birth control. He isn’t limiting how they spend their salaries. They are free to do what that want.

          And you are comparing a government to a private company. If you are against the war, VOTE!! Vote out the representatives or you are free to move to a state/country that agrees with your ideals. By the same token, the CEO of Eden is bringing his fight to the government who mandated it. I applaud his get up and go. His employees are free to either quit, sue him, or stay on and pay for birth control out of their pocket.

          Also – if he is morally convicted, his only other option is to cancel health care coverage. He is taking care of his employees by making sure that he can still keep their healthcare coverage despite this issue.

          April 16th, 2013 1:27 pm Reply
        • trudy


          If you believe that your first amendment rights are being violated, then do what he did and file a lawsuit. Also, do what Lisa G. suggests and support candidates who share your views. If someone really believes it, then I hope they will have the conviction and courage to stand up for their beliefs (like Michael Potter is doing) and not drown in apathy.

          April 16th, 2013 7:57 pm Reply
          • Meg

            Yeah, clog up the courts with more lawsuits so that people with real problems can just wait! There’s a solution….

            April 17th, 2013 6:49 pm
          • Lisa G

            So we can only go to court if our “real problem” falls in line with your beliefs or standards and not ours Meg? That’s discriminatory and intolerant.

            April 17th, 2013 8:01 pm
    • Marissa


      I think your missing the point. In the old days it was referred to as “freedom”. If I own a private business and I don’t want to offer insurance AT ALL I should be able to. If I want to offer insurance that only covers teeth and eyes, I should have the freedom to do so.
      If I want to offer health insurance that excludes birth control, I should be able to. My insurance doesn’t cover infertility treatments, am I being “discriminated” against?
      What’s going to happen is employers aren’t going to offer insurance period anymore because everything now a days is a “right”. You do not have a “right” to birth control, Christian or not.

      April 13th, 2013 11:53 pm Reply
      • Trudy


        I tried to make a similar point, but apparently it got rejected by the moderator. Boooo, moderator.

        April 14th, 2013 12:22 am Reply
      • Angela

        I guess it depends on your perspective – I think healthcare IS a right (like public education is a right for all children in our country), and it’s up to all of us to share the burden for paying for it. I think employers SHOULD be required to offer affordable health insurance to their employees. Living a happy life is not feasible unless you have the security of knowing that you can get health care if you need it. I know. I can’t afford health insurance, and because of a pre-existing condition (rheumatoid arthritis) I cannot get insurance anywhere. I can’t afford the “high-risk” pool insurance. It’s awful, and I’m only 29.

        April 16th, 2013 12:38 pm Reply
        • Meg

          I agree, and living in a country with universal health care while my siblings live in one without, I have seen the positive and negative benefits of both systems. The 3 of us have very opposing political views and yet the one thing that we all agree on is that ALL citizens of a developed country should have a BASIC, tax-payer paid standard of care for ALL citizens. Not just the very poor, or those who can afford good insurance, or those who ‘qualify’ because they are in good health already.

          April 16th, 2013 5:01 pm Reply
          • trudy


            I do not want the government to take care of me. The more that they do, the more control the will try to exert over me and my health choices all in the name of keeping healthcare costs down. Examples being: requiring vaccinations to prevent future illness, prohibiting the consumption of saturated fats because the government says it’s linked to heart disease, being required to take antibiotics at the first sign of an infection in order to prevent a possible future hospital stay. More extreme examples of how it might evolve in the future being: regulated number of children allowed, forced abortions when required prenatal genetic screening reveals a possible condition, forced euthanasia to terminally ill people. The lists can go on and on.

            Don’t fall for the illusion that government run healthcare provides some sort of security. When we look to the government to take care of us, we are relinquishing our right and responsibility to take care of ourselves. One of my favorite quotes is by Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I’ll take my chances against illness if my alternative is to submit to the government caring for me.

            April 16th, 2013 6:41 pm
          • Megan


            I’m not theorizing the reality of living with government provided healthcare, I live it, and sorry but yes, it does provide security for those who need it the most, and for that I will happily pay. It’s far from perfect but for the population AS A WHOLE, I believe that it increases our quality of life. It seems as though I have more vax freedom here than many places in the US, no prohibition on what I put in my mouth, no requirement to take antibiotics, etc and there is no move in that direction. I have as much freedom in that regard as you do and probably more. The freedom that I do give up is how much tax I have to pay to fund that system. I still firmly believe that when all citizens have access to basic healthcare it improves the quality of living for everyone in that society.

            April 17th, 2013 12:55 pm
          • Lisa G

            ” It seems as though I have more vax freedom here than many places in the US, no prohibition on what I put in my mouth, no requirement to take antibiotics, etc and there is no move in that direction.”

            Megan – What if they did move in that direction? We thought they wouldn’t mandate that we go against our moral conscience and pay out of pocket for others to take birth control. But they did. What if they started to force you to vaccinate your children no matter what? Would you then be outraged? Because that’s what happened to our small group of people who believe paying for other people to take something as evil as birth control goes against our freedom. (And we do call it evil. Otherwise we wouldn’t even be bothered with this fight!)

            April 17th, 2013 12:59 pm
          • Megan

            Our constitution provides that consent must be given voluntarily for treatment, so mandatory vaccination is not up for discussion anytime soon.

            We both live in countries where those who govern are elected officials, so until such time as we become a dictatorship or the popular opinion suddenly moves in favor of being force-medicated, it seems unlikely. And if I do end up living in a country where the majority is in favor of regulating the number of children that I may have etc., then maybe it’s time for me to find a new home….

            The problem is, as you have stated, is that you only have a ‘small group of people’ that find birth control evil. Unless you can find a way to make that opinion more popular, it’s unlikely that these new laws governing the coverage of birth control will sway in your favor, and in my opinion, nor should they, as it’s not what the majority wants (well, the majority on this comment board maybe!)

            April 17th, 2013 6:38 pm
          • Meg

            Trudy, the government doesn’t take care of me, I do. I pay taxes and receive healthcare, probably very similar to what you do, the difference is that my healthcare is provided by the gov’t and yours probably isn’t. Maybe yours is fancier, but at least the mandate of my hospital isn’t profit.

            April 17th, 2013 6:52 pm
          • Meg

            Trudy, what I meant to say is that you pay premiums, not taxes.

            April 17th, 2013 6:53 pm
          • Ryabinka

            “Unless you can find a way to make that opinion more popular, it’s unlikely that these new laws governing the coverage of birth control will sway in your favor, and in my opinion, nor should they, as it’s not what the majority wants (well, the majority on this comment board maybe!)”

            Well, according to you we already have a dictatorship – tyranny of the majority! I don’t know about Canada, but in the United States minorities still have rights. By your logic the Civil War was a big waste of time since the majority of the Southerners wanted to preserve slavery.

            And please don’t be so sure that once you realize that you have dictatorship, you just “find another home.” Lots of Russians wanted to escape the Soviet Union, as I am sure do a lot of North Koreans right now. And by the way, I am not just theorizing either – I grew up next to a GULAG.

            April 17th, 2013 7:47 pm
          • Ryabinka

            “It seems as though I have more vax freedom here than many places in the US, no prohibition on what I put in my mouth, no requirement to take antibiotics, etc and there is no move in that direction. I have as much freedom in that regard as you do and probably more. The freedom that I do give up is how much tax I have to pay to fund that system.”

            Meg, you are lucky to have such a benevolent government, but your argument is weak. You see, OUR government is ALREADY forcing us to violate our consciences. So why should be confident that even worse things will not come?

            April 18th, 2013 12:36 pm
          • Trudy

            “Our constitution provides that consent must be given voluntarily for treatment, so mandatory vaccination is not up for discussion anytime soon.’ Well, our constitution provides that the government not be able to force us to violate our religious beliefs, yet, that seems to be happening.

            “… it’s unlikely that these new laws governing the coverage of birth control will sway in your favor, and in my opinion, nor should they, as it’s not what the majority wants…” The fact that you are talking about what the majority wants is completely irrelevant to the Constitutionality of it. America is NOT a democracy. I’m sure you’ve heard otherwise, but if you don’t believe me then look it up. We are a Constitutional Republic. We are set up to where, first and foremost, the Federal government is supposed to be bound by the Constitution. There are 18 specific powers granted to the Federal government by the U.S. Constitution. Every other power is granted to the States. The states (not the majority of Americans) have the right to vote and amend the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, if the Federal government creates a law that is unconstitutional, the States have a right to nullify it.
            You’re whole “what the majority wants” legally holds no weight in America.

            April 18th, 2013 4:14 pm
          • Trudy


            Hi, just wanted to give some info about the Civil War. The Civil War was not about slavery. Lincoln made that very clear repeatedly during the first year and half of the war. What the war was about was the federal government overstepping their boundaries and trying to take away states rights. This caused many Southern states to want to secede and many Northern States to want them to as well. In fact, when it came to slavery, the federal government did much more harm than good. A slave could leave a state where slavery was legal and enter a state where it was illegal and the state where it was illegal would declare him free. The federal government got involved and made it to where the anti-slavery state had to return the slave to the pro-slavery state.

            William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent abolitionist in America, even passed a resolution through the American Anti-Slavery Society insisting that it was the duty of every anti-slavery person to work to dissolve the Union, that way if the North were a separate country then they would be under no federal obligation to return slaves to Southern states that still had legal slave laws.

            Like I said, Lincoln did not pursue war against the seceded states in order to abolish slavery. I can dig up some quotes if I need to. He did it in order to preserve the Union and consolidate federal power. Slavery was quickly dying out on it’s own. Many prominent Southerners (including those who fought against Northern aggression) were against slavery, and the North and South separation would have only helped to undermine slavery in the South. Slavery would have soon ended on it’s own, without a bloody conflict, just like it had throughout the world.

            The states had every right to leave the Union. The entered it voluntarily and many state Constitutions specifically stated their freedom to leave the Union.

            In short, the Civil War (which wasn’t a civil war at all. The South was not fighting for control, only the right to secede) was about the federal government overstepping their bounds and trying to take control of the States (As they did. Read about Southern Reconstruction, completely unconstitutional.) As the war progressed, anti-slavery became even more popular so it was a fitting theme for Lincoln to adopt, but he was certainly not at all against it at the start of the war.

            The Civil War is a very complicated subject, but I did my best to condense it. If you would like there are good books by good historians on the subject I could recommend. Thomas E. Woods is an historian that quickly comes to mind.

            April 18th, 2013 5:04 pm
          • Trudy


            “It seems as though I have more vax freedom here than many places in the US, no prohibition on what I put in my mouth, no requirement to take antibiotics, etc and there is no move in that direction. I have as much freedom in that regard as you do and probably more.”

            So what you’re saying is that OUR government is already giving us less freedom about our health than your government, and yet you think we should allow them to have even more control over it?? That doesn’t make much sense.

            Also, “no prohibition on what I put in my mouth”. I think I remember reading that you are in Canada. Is that correct? If so, it’s my understanding that raw milk is illegal for direct to consumer sale in the entire country and completely illegal in some provinces. Is that the “no prohibition on what I put in my mouth” you’re referring to?

            April 18th, 2013 8:08 pm
          • Meg


            I don’t know if your government gives you less freedom than ours, overall. I can’t comment, I can only comment on very specific examples.

            Re: raw milk. You can purchase a herdshare and receive the raw milk in that way, across the country. It’s not illegal. I had a share from a farm that was 400 miles from my city, they had a regular weekly delivery schedule to a location convenient to my home.

            April 19th, 2013 2:27 pm
        • trudy

          You are going beyond the argument of birth control and into healthcare in general. I will try to address your perspective. You think healthcare is a right. More specifically you think idea of Western healthcare and someone, other than yourself, shouldering the financial burden of it is a right. I, however, think what we call healthcare in America is an oxymoron. In my opinion, putting disruptive chemicals into your body is about the furthest thing from caring for health. I do not see M.D.s and probably never will again. However, I like the idea of homeopathy and Chinese medicine. Is it my right to have these covered under a healthcare plan? What about saunas, yoga classes, lymphatic massages? All of these things care for my health. If you can have someone else pay for your unhealthy drugs in the name of “healthcare”, why can’t I have someone pay for my healthy alternatives? How could companies even stay in business if they get forced into having such hefty expenses. If a company can afford it, then they will likely have it on their own in order to attract the best employee pool possible.

          If you think that getting prescription drugs for free in order to “live a happy life” is a right, then does anything that prevents you from “living a happy life” also become a right? My neighbor does not have central air conditioning. It gets VERY hot in Louisiana in the summer time. Does she have the right to get A/C? Sure. Does she have the right to the government providing it for her? Does she have the right for someone else to be forced to pay for it for her? I think that it may be even more necessary to her “happy life” than prescriptions, certainly birth control. She won’t die from ovulating, but she can easily die from getting too hot.

          People don’t have a RIGHT to life’s comforts provided to them at the expense of others. I don’t have the right to take away from you to give to me. If you want to give to me out of generosity, then I will be grateful, but I am certainly not entitled.

          We are entitled to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Keep in mind that nothing is free; everything comes at the expense of someone. And I honestly believe that a lot more good could be done and people would be much more generous with their money to the less fortunate if they weren’t having it constantly taken away and given to the poorly managed, inefficient government who is accountable to no one. More companies could afford to offer better benefits if they weren’t forced to throw so much of their money into the black hole of government.

          April 16th, 2013 5:13 pm Reply
          • Lisa G

            YES! My health and also my happiness are directly affected when I am not able to workout. Therefore the government should mandate that gym access be covered by healthcare too.

            April 16th, 2013 5:21 pm
          • Meg

            You’re absolutely right, I have gone well beyond the discussion of birth control!

            Just to clarify, as an educated employed professional who pays lots and lots of taxes, I pay MORE than my share of the national healthcare burden, yet I still believe that those less fortunate (and unfortunately those lazier) than me, should have adequate healthcare. So it’s not something that I believe just because it suits my personal situation.

            And just because I do believe in birth control and being funded for it by a healthcare plan, does NOT mean that I take the drugs myself! In fact, when I am on birth control, and I’m not right now because I’m pregnant, I use non-drug methods myself. I don’t want that crap in me but I think that if others do then they should go that route. And YES, I do think that if we are stuck with shouldering the burden of paying for prescription drugs that are making people sicker instead of well, then yes, absolutely things like homeopathy and Chinese medicine should be covered there as well.

            I couldn’t agree more, nothing is free, everything comes at an expense. So in general (very generally), a healthy society is a better society and I do believe that traditional healthcare for ALL can be, and is sometimes necessary to be, used along with more alternative (for lack of a better word) types of care to create a healthier population.

            Don’t make so many assumptions 😉

            April 16th, 2013 6:37 pm
          • Ryabinka

            “And just because I do believe in birth control and being funded for it by a healthcare plan”

            And why should this belief be forced on others?

            April 16th, 2013 6:43 pm
          • trudy


            I’m sorry. The comment you are referring to about going beyond the argument of birth control was meant to be addressed to Angela. I know these things get out of order sometimes, especially when going through a lengthy time of moderation, and I should have properly addressed it to her. If you read her comment and then mine, you can see the logical flow of my comment (hopefully). Sorry for the confusion.

            April 16th, 2013 6:59 pm
          • Meghan


            I would add to your comment about the majority that, truth be told, the majority in the US is pro-life and against Obamacare! And only 4% want more gun control. Yet we still find ourselves in this predicament. Just goes to show how little Washington, including President Obama, listen to or care about what the people want. It’s about what he wants!

            April 18th, 2013 4:27 pm
          • Ryabinka

            Hi Trudy,

            I also wanted to tell you that I have enjoyed reading your comments here.

            As for the Civil War, I am not really prepared to debate this issue right now. May be another time :) But I did not say what I said in complete ignorance. My husband is a professor of Political Theory and has studied the issue in some depth, and based on his first-hand knowledge of primary sources, his perspective is quite different.

            But regardless, this does not affect my point. Which was just because the majority of Southerners (or people of other parts of the world, for that matter) condoned slavery at some point in time, does not make slavery right.

            April 19th, 2013 8:13 pm
          • Trudy


            I just found your reply to my Civil War comment. There are a lot of comments on here, and they’re becoming a little difficult to keep track of. :)

            “As for the Civil War, I am not really prepared to debate this issue right now. May be another time.” Agree! I do not particularly want to debate the Civil War, especially not when there are much more important issues to be debating (not with each other). Maybe when we save our country and attain peace throughout the world, we can get around to debating history. 😀

            ” I did not say what I said in complete ignorance”. Then, I respect your opinion, or rather your interpretation of the facts. I’m not saying that I don’t disagree with your conclusions, just that if your view comes from an actual effort to understand the issue, then I completely respect it by extension of respecting you.

            “…this does not affect my point. Which was just because the majority of Southerners (or people of other parts of the world, for that matter) condoned slavery at some point in time, does not make slavery right.” I see the point you are making, and I agree, something can be popular and still be very wrong.


            ” I did not say what I said in complete ignorance”. Then, I respect your opinion, or rather your interpretation of the facts. I’m not saying that I don’t disagree with your conclusions, just that if your view comes from an actual effort to understand the issue, then I completely respect it by extension of respecting you.

            “…this does not affect my point. Which was just because the majority of Southerners (or people of other parts of the world, for that matter) condoned slavery at some point in time, does not make slavery right.” I see the point you are making, and I agree, something can be popular and still be very wrong.

            April 21st, 2013 3:41 pm
        • trudy


          I would like to point out a contradiction in your comment. You say in regards to healthcare that “it’s up to all of us to share the burden for paying for it”. Then you go on to say that “employers SHOULD be required to offer affordable health insurance to their employees”. Lastly you say that you “can’t afford health insurance… because of a pre-existing condition… can’t afford the “high-risk” pool insurance”.

          Here’s my confusion: if you feel that we should all shoulder the burden of healthcare, then why do you expect an employer to be able to afford and pay for your high-risk insurance instead of you?

          The reason pre-existing conditions cause insurance to be higher is because it’s costing the insurance company much more money to cover you. Insurance companies have one of the lowest profit margins, typically between 1 and 3 percent! Because it costs them more, they charge more, whether they’re charging you or a business owner.

          Who should shoulder the financial burden of your condition, you, your employer, or an insurance company? Somebody has to. I don’t see why you think it should be an employer, or anyone other than yourself, for that matter.

          April 16th, 2013 7:16 pm Reply
        • trudy


          One more thing. I want to mention that I am not against people receiving help, quite the opposite. I don’t as much as I can afford to charities and help people around me as best I can, whether it be buying medications or pay bills or even sometimes just giving a little money for them to enjoy. What I am against is the government involvement in “taking care of us”. Not only are they a poorly run, inefficient system, but they aren’t held accountable and allowed to operate beyond their means, but they also constantly seek more power by taking away more rights. Think about a charity or a business, they have to run as efficiently as possible and satisfy their customers (or those donating), and effectively compete with other companies or charities or they will go out of business. A government, however, can run inefficiently and rack up plenty of debt or just raise taxes, they can lie and hide their agenda and what is actually going on because they are not held accountable to anyone. They can create laws that conflict with our best interest, yet can we boycott these laws like we can boycott a company? I would much rather give my money to a private company or a charity to help take care of the less fortunate. They have to stay competitive, efficient, and please me or my money will go somewhere that is. Imagine if more of our money were freed up from the wasteful and power-hungry government. Think of all of the things we could do to create a better society. Not to mention, the positive economic impact it would have.

          April 16th, 2013 7:45 pm Reply
          • trudy

            ” I *donate* as much as I can afford to charities…:

            April 16th, 2013 9:14 pm
  • Debbie Edwards via Facebook

    try researching the health impacts of the pill since it’s inception and comparing them to each other

    April 13th, 2013 10:35 pm Reply
  • Debbie Edwards via Facebook

    I am going nowhere …. I know we disagree on spirituality but I’m ok with doing my homework and making my own decision …. I WILL be sharing my opinion and explaining them too because how else do we learn from each other …. God bless you Sara …

    April 13th, 2013 10:31 pm Reply
  • Debbie Edwards via Facebook

    right on the mark Melissa

    April 13th, 2013 10:17 pm Reply
  • Debbie Edwards via Facebook

    I know you are so busy Sara and when I look at the main information in the shorter article I saw on another link, the title of the article comes off as deceptive … I didn’t know the connection between soy and the pill impacting birth, until I read comments from your readers after I read the article BUT I sure got the point of this being support for the Liberal’s opinions (although no polls cited that it’s actually their opinion about this CEO’s choice) and a desire for banning of Eden foods products because the CEO doesn’t support a birth control agenda. Your colleague ….a nutritionist ….is the hypocrite if she doesn’t support the demotion of that pill considering the decades of harmful health impacts to woman and children and fetus’. History is full of stories about it.

    April 13th, 2013 10:09 pm Reply
  • Kathy

    I do get it Sarah. The hypocrisy of Eden Foods. They are against artificial contraception, as am I. But, what thy sell also dramatically decreases a women’s fertility. If life were totally fair….which it isn’t they could sell their product, people would actually inform themselves what they are putting into their bodies, and Obama would go back to playing golf and leave us all the heck alone.

    April 13th, 2013 9:57 pm Reply
  • Debbie Edwards via Facebook

    not to mention the health impacts of the synthetic drug which isn’t any better than a GMO on your body chemistry in my opinion …woman die and encounter long term physical health effects from that bloody birth control pill

    April 13th, 2013 9:40 pm Reply
  • Debbie Edwards via Facebook

    body chemistry is so impacted by that nasty little pill … not to mention what happens to kids conceived while mom is on that thing ….. and what of the long term effects on a woman’s body …..? the pill IS synthetic and that’s as bad as GMO

    April 13th, 2013 9:28 pm Reply
  • Leilani Luna via Facebook

    That’s what I was wondering, too…how does artificial birth control fit in to a traditional diet/way of life?

    April 13th, 2013 9:23 pm Reply
  • Debbie Edwards via Facebook

    Me too <3

    April 13th, 2013 9:21 pm Reply
  • Debbie Edwards via Facebook

    don’t judge gurl …. You are where you are because of where ya been …..It’s no different for anyone else so share gently without expectation of outcome as ALL things are in our Lord’s hands ….Acceptance not approval is required in effective loving communication … intention over emotion <3

    April 13th, 2013 9:21 pm Reply
  • Angela

    It’s religious discrimination of a company like Eden Foods refuses, for religious reasons, to provide contraception to their employees. If people with differing religious views from Eden have to choose to work elsewhere, that’s religious discrimination. More 2 cents from a person with a Master’s degree in religion. ACLU says: http://www.aclu.org/using-religion-discriminate

    April 13th, 2013 9:19 pm Reply
  • Debbie Edwards via Facebook

    EXACTLY …..

    April 13th, 2013 9:13 pm Reply
  • Debbie Edwards via Facebook

    If Eden foods are concerned with supporting nutrient absorption and health instead of big business , why wouldn’t they want to protest it. Maybe those Liberals need to look at the impact of the pill on a woman’s body ….Life expectancy and long term impact to women and fetus/child ….

    Also, I’d like to know who these liberals are that are SO upset ..I don’t see a citation to support this nutritionist statement…..loaded comments indicating a group without a reference to support it make me question the source and the statement.

    April 13th, 2013 8:58 pm Reply
    • AmandaonMaui

      Share some information on what the pill does to the body. Cite sources please.

      April 13th, 2013 9:27 pm Reply
      • Trudy

        You can start by reading the insert in a birth control pack.

        April 13th, 2013 11:34 pm Reply
  • Debbie

    If Eden foods are concerned with supporting nutrient absorption and health instead of big business , why wouldn’t they want to protest it. Maybe those Liberals need to look at the impact of the pill on a woman’s body ….Life expectancy and long term impact to women and fetus/child ….

    Also, I’d like to know who these liberals are that are SO upset ..I don’t see a citation to support this nutritionist statement…..loaded comments indicating a group without a reference to support it make me question the source and the statement.

    April 13th, 2013 8:49 pm Reply
  • Kara

    I have to agree with most of the other comments here. The article doesn’t relate at all to the helpful, well-researched & well-presented information I usually find here that has helped my family & me so much on our journey to become healthier. What it has done is lead me to question relying on your site for trustworthy information in the future. Even if the point is supposed to be the hypocrisy of the CEO’s stance, the way in which the information is presented & the sources cited have done nothing but confuse the issue…to say the least.

    April 13th, 2013 8:43 pm Reply
  • Ginna Germain Basile via Facebook

    I still love your page, lot’s of awesome information here!! the information is put out there and chances are it won’t please everyone, so no need to act like a bunch of juveniles by threatening to unlike the page because you didn’t like one article. If you don’t agree with the article, that’s fine…everyone’s entitled to their beliefs….now let’s move on!!

    April 13th, 2013 7:59 pm Reply
  • Michele Fairman via Facebook

    I would say that this and the schoolchild-breastfeeding-while-standing-on-his-milking-stool has certainly got people’s minds off the vegan-breastfeeding-brewhaha

    April 13th, 2013 7:28 pm Reply
  • Nadia Schwartz

    Consider this: In the United States, if a nurse who works with infants refuses even one of the vaccinations mandated for healthcare workers, his/her job would quickly be on the line.

    In other countries, however, the right of healthcare workers to reject vaccination is still respected even in the midst of a localized outbreak of whooping cough where the nurses’ job is to inject newborns with the pertussis vaccine day in and day out.
    Taken from your blog.

    How come in this blog the employer does not have any rights? Where did they go? I think they must have rights in Israel.

    There are lots of rights for vaccination but there are no rights to say no to contraception of my employees.

    Are you being consistent here?

    You being raised Catholic does not give you any authority to bash Catholics. I was not raised Catholic, I am a proud convert and would love for you to apologize to your Catholic sisters and the Church.
    This should be about food as opposed to bashing Catholics.
    Where is the unsubscribe button here?

    April 13th, 2013 7:16 pm Reply
  • Leah

    Wow. This whole post is fairly ridiculous. I hope in the future you’ll keep your political commentary to yourself.

    I don’t think these people are trying to kill anyone with their products. Unhealthy as it may be, soy really has nothing to do with birth control.

    Birth control is often abortive, which kills a life. Soy, at the very most, will disrupt the hormones of a woman or cause health problems in a child, possibly causing infertility.

    I still fail to see any correlation between the two at all. If your blog on health is going to turn political, you will lose many followers, including me.

    April 13th, 2013 7:08 pm Reply
    • AmandaonMaui

      Birth control is not abortive. You need to learn how it works before making a statement such as that. Birth control pills prevent ovulation. Nothing is destroyed. Each egg you have in your ovaries is not destined to become a living being. Birth control pills decreases the release of a certain hormone in the body. This keeps an egg from being released by your ovaries. If there is no egg released, then there is nothing to become fertilized, and therefore the contraceptive is not an abortifacient.


      April 13th, 2013 9:24 pm Reply
      • Trudy


        I think you need to learn a little more about birth control. Your link was skimp. Yes, birth control pills ARE abortifacients. The birth control pill works in three ways.

        1. suppress ovulation
        2. thicken cervical mucus.
        3. alters the endometrium.

        Women do still ovulate sometimes. When they do, the first fail-safe is that the cervical mucus has been thickened, thereby making it harder for sperm to travel. But, a woman man still ovulate and sperm may still navigate the cervical mucus and may fertilize the egg. It’s this third part, the second fail-safe, that makes the birth control pill an abortifacient: the uterine wall is altered to be inhospitable to a fertilized egg, therefore, the zygote cannot implant itself and will be aborted.

        If you believe that life begins at conception, then you should have a big problem with birth control pills.

        April 14th, 2013 1:02 pm Reply
      • EMILY

        Amanda, even the insert on most birth control packets will describe the three ways the birth control works. (I should say “the pill).

        April 24th, 2013 1:01 am Reply
  • jean

    I agree with those standing by Eden. This determination that employers should be forced to supply their employees with “birth control” is outrageous. These rulings destroy the freedom of an employer by being forced to pay for something that is destroys a life and is dangerous for the life of the mother as well. I applaud Eden for standing up to the bullying tactics of our leaders and hopefully this will be reversed. It is encouraging hearing from so many who value life and freeedom of religion, thanks for speaking up.

    April 13th, 2013 6:40 pm Reply
  • Sara DiNicola

    Fermented Soy is Only Soy Food Fit for Human Consumption, according to Natural News, so why the uproar?….Unfermented soy is bad for everyone, especially babies….also I’m for birth control, but not by DRUGS, so I’m against forced birth control by that dangerous form, and I’m not religious in the least. …..I’m surprised all these supposed “health” proponents would be glad to put fake hormones into their systems.

    April 13th, 2013 6:31 pm Reply
  • Becca

    The company can sell whatever they like but the company’s employees should be given the same FREEDOM to decide for themselves if they want to buy contraceptives or not.

    April 13th, 2013 6:17 pm Reply
    • Becca

      ie no-one is forcing anyone to use contraception. But your religion is interfering with my freedom to choose contraception if I am your employee and you refuse to allow it. I’m sick to death of people sqawking about how their religion is being interfered with. Its absurd. Do as you choose. Contraception is not illegal in this country.

      April 13th, 2013 6:20 pm Reply
      • AmandaonMaui

        Great response. It should be available, but the employees don’t have to use it or buy it.

        April 13th, 2013 9:17 pm Reply
      • Jen

        I totally agree!

        April 13th, 2013 9:26 pm Reply
      • Trudy

        “Do as you chose”. Unless what I choose doesn’t pay for your birth control pills, right? Buy them yourself and we won’t be squawking about our religion being interfered with.

        April 13th, 2013 11:30 pm Reply
  • AmandaonMaui

    While I am not opposed to this article for religious reasons, I am opposed to this article based on the number of logical fallacies used to make the argument.

    Seriously, this is quite the stretch from talking about birth control and the estrogen in soy milk. It would have been better just to voice an opinion stating that you didn’t like that the company is anti-contraception, and that you won’t be buying their products anymore. The company sells soy milk, and yes they are surely aware of the estrogen issue, but that doesn’t go against their belief that contraceptions are wrong. The linking of issues in this article is just odd.

    April 13th, 2013 5:53 pm Reply
  • Erica

    From the article: “The myth that soy is a health food and Eden’s irresponsibility led to these tragic deaths.”

    Uh … I’m thinking it was the parent’s irresponsibility, not Eden’s. “The myth that soy is a healthfood …” – well then you’re just talking about whether the product should be for sale or not altogether!

    Birth control – personal responsibility. Feeding your baby – personal responsibility. Whether you think soy is a healthfood and want to drink it or not – personal responsibility.

    Everything in this issue boils down to one thing – PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

    April 13th, 2013 4:51 pm Reply
    • Sara DiNicola

      Erica, I like how you worded your comment about “personal responsibility.” I agree with that too, and wish I wouldn’t have said that I don’t like certain things “forced” when I meant I don’t believe in ANYTHING being forced; it should be left to “personal responsibility.” -Sara DiNicola-

      April 13th, 2013 6:39 pm Reply
  • Juliana Sutton via Facebook

    Sarah, if your beliefs are so “immaterial” to this post, then why would one of your subscribers (unsubscribed as of this post) post this comment on a repost of this article?? “I’ve followed Sarah for years and had to unsubscribe after this one. I should have left her when she gave directions on natural abortifacients. So disappointed.”

    April 13th, 2013 4:36 pm Reply
  • Brandy Mills via Facebook

    Sarah, I am finding it hard to be on your side lately. I think you have gone a little liberal on us. It seems like you are very intolerant of anyone who does not share your beliefs. Sometimes its better to leave some issues alone rather than have people dismiss everything you say based on your own hypocrisy. Think about it…

    April 13th, 2013 4:28 pm Reply
    • Jen

      Conservatives don’t have a monopoly on real food. There are many liberal real foodies who read here. We don’t whine, and call out Sarah for being conservative when she posts things that we don’t agree with. We keep reading because we believe in real food and the information she provides on that subject. We skip the political issues we don’t agree with and keep our comments to ourselves. It seems many of her conservative readers haven’t learned to do the same. A little liberalism is a good thing to see here!

      April 13th, 2013 9:14 pm Reply
      • Helen T

        Ditto, Jen. I suppose there are numbers of people that do not agree with certain blogposts, but they’re not writing to unsubscribe. It’s logical that readers of any blog will take issue with it from time to time.

        April 14th, 2013 12:17 pm Reply
  • Juliana Sutton via Facebook

    “My beliefs are immaterial to this post.” – What? Obviously not, or you wouldn’t have posted the article. So we should boycott them because…why?? The don’t want to provide a pill that causes early term abortions? Or because they carry soy milk? If they only did one of those things, then should we still purchase products from them? Either way, your statement was a contradiction, and your reasoning for posting this is SO WEAK. The contents of this article wasn’t about health, it was about a political stance. If you can’t see how the language was offensive, and how the point of the article bent and absurd then maybe you should be taking higher amounts of fermented cod liver oil to grease the gears.

    April 13th, 2013 4:13 pm Reply
  • Sarah Beth

    Sorry my mistake – the big milk industry is petitioning the government to allow artificially sweetened milk to be sold without a label. The fact that the FDA would even consider something so disgusting is a big red flag that they need to back off and get out of our way.

    April 13th, 2013 3:53 pm Reply
  • Steve

    nice hit piece using libtard logic… hey if my employees’ weekend clown suits should become worn out does that mean I should have to buy them new ones? would I then have to worry about other clowns boycotting me?

    April 13th, 2013 3:53 pm Reply
  • Christal

    I find it more than a little ridiculous that EdenSoy is being blamed for the deaths of the infants who were fed soy milk instead of human milk or formula.

    April 13th, 2013 3:49 pm Reply
  • rachel

    So because they produce soy milk, the owners of Eden Foods have lost their ability to raise a religious/moral or even scientific objection to paying for their employees’ hormonal contraception? This is why we have the first amendment, to protect those who don’t hold majority or even popular religious/moral (or nutritional) beliefs.

    If you’re so opposed to the estrogenic isoflavones in soy, you should also oppose the HHS contraception mandate, which benefits pharmaceutical companies who produce artificial hormones, which will become even more widely used when they are provided “at no cost,” to the detriment of American women’s health.

    April 13th, 2013 3:44 pm Reply
  • Sarah Beth

    Please do NOT say things like “right wing ideological agenda” on this site. The owner of Eden foods is attempting to stop the government from forcing him to do what is against his conscience. We should rally behind him. After all, aren’t we all tired of the government being in bed with the agri-chemical business, controlling everything from GM seeds to GM foods; restricting or forbidding the sale of raw milk or putting fake sweeteners in milk; or confiscating kombucha or nutritious lunches from children; and on and on and on….

    I am a Catholic and wish society would be more respectful of the Church’s position on contraceptive use. There is a certain logic to that teaching which is lost on its detractors. I am not asking that society agree with the Catholic Church but to simply show some respect.

    Also, the irony of the posting is not lost on us. The fellow is selling something which is similar to another something he opposes. Yes, we get it the point.

    April 13th, 2013 3:42 pm Reply
  • Molly Wimmer via Facebook

    Dee, the Church does leave vaccines upto our conscience- we are not “required” to vaccinate, or unvaccinate. There is no official teaching with regards to vaccines. Some leaders of the Church have spoken out against those which have been developed from aborted babies. There are, however, official laws in our Church against birth control, sterilization, and abortifacients. These are considered grave offenses, and therefore violate a Catholic’s conscience to contribute towards their uses. They shouldn’t be required by the almighty government to provide these services. A Jehovas Witness as well should not be required to provide goods that violate their conscience. The reason for seperation of Church and State really is to protect the freedom of Religion. When we have a government infringing on religious rights, the problem isn’t the companies- it’s the government overstepping their boundaries.

    April 13th, 2013 3:39 pm Reply
    • Roxanne Rieske

      Since when is the Catholic Church against sterilization, when from 1930-the mid 1970s it was common practice of Catholic orders to perform forced sterilizations (and even abortions!) on Native American women?

      April 15th, 2013 2:31 pm Reply
      • EC

        It’s easy to say make up anything you want but harder to cite . . .

        April 15th, 2013 2:57 pm Reply
        • Roxanne Rieske

          From Amnesty International:

          “A 2001 report by the Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada documents the responsibility of the Roman Catholic Church, the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the federal government in the deaths of more than 50,000 Native children in the Canadian residential school system.
          The report says church officials killed children by beating, poisoning, electric shock, starvation, prolonged exposure to sub-zero cold while naked, and medical experimentation, including the removal of organs and radiation exposure. In 1928 Alberta passed legislation allowing school officials to forcibly sterilize Native girls; British Columbia followed suit in 1933. There is no accurate toll of forced sterilizations because hospital staff destroyed records in 1995 after police launched an investigation. But according to the testimony of a nurse in Alberta, doctors sterilized entire groups of Native children when they reached puberty. The report also says that Canadian clergy, police, and business and government officials “rented out” children from residential schools to pedophile rings.”

          So much for Christian value of The Sanctity of Life. You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t hold the Christian Church, especially the Catholic Church, in high esteem.

          April 15th, 2013 4:01 pm Reply
          • EC

            The allegations are terrible and should definately be documented and investigated as the report recommends.

            However, the report also concludes:

            “Members of the Boarding School Healing Project say that current levels of violence and dysfunction in Native communities result from human rights abuses perpetrated by state policy.”

            These were government funded schools with some priests as employees, so extend your lack of esteem to public schools if you wish to be consistent.

            April 15th, 2013 5:39 pm
          • Meg

            Thank you Roxanne, I’m with you 100%.

            April 15th, 2013 7:48 pm
        • Roxanne Rieske

          Well, I tried to copy and paste a direct reference, but the moderator booted it. So here is the link instead, from Amnesty International…third section down, from a 2001 Canadian Report.

          April 15th, 2013 4:34 pm Reply
      • Trudy

        Even if there are Catholic officials who are at fault for this, it in no way means that the Catholic Church supported it. It just means that these people were actin against the teachings of the Church. The Catholic Church is against direct sterilization. It is considered as an offense against the dignity of marriage. CCC #2399

        April 15th, 2013 9:56 pm Reply
  • Kimberly Garnett via Facebook

    I may not agree with catholic policies regarding women’s health but, what happened to the right of people towards religious freedom? Eden Soy has a right to their own consciousness and I feel that others need to respect their constitutional rights. In a world of cultural diversity, we are not going to always agree on issues! Let’s show a little acceptance where we would also hope to have for our beliefs!

    April 13th, 2013 3:33 pm Reply
  • Juliana Sutton via Facebook


    April 13th, 2013 3:32 pm Reply
  • Angela

    A really, really high percentage of Americans, men and women, use contraception on a regular basis. Most Catholics use birth control, otherwise there would be a lot more large families in this country. If employers don’t offer contraception in their health plans, then there will be a lot more abortions. If life begins at conception, and birth control makes sure that conception never happens, then birth control is not “killing” anyone. Just my 2 cents.

    April 13th, 2013 3:14 pm Reply
    • Trudy

      I used to not know this, but the birth control pill is also an abortifacient. I’m sure a lot of Catholics do use birth control, but that doesn’t make it right and it is still against Catholic teaching. Natural Family Planning is a perfect way to avoid pregnancies that not only supported by the Catholic church but is completely natural so their is no harm done to our bodies or our environment.

      April 13th, 2013 6:13 pm Reply
    • EC

      A really, really high percentage of Americans also eat a SAD diet.
      Should we all just go along and follow the majority?

      April 13th, 2013 7:03 pm Reply
  • SteveandPaula Runyan via Facebook

    Equating selling soy milk with the right to not have to violate ones moral beliefs is ridiculous. We will support Eden. Thank you for the heads up.

    April 13th, 2013 3:10 pm Reply
  • Heather Wargo via Facebook

    “Sadly, babies continue to be hospitalized and die because of EdenSoy and other brands of soy milk.”
    Er, no. They continue to be hospitalized and die because of the incredible ignorance of their parents. How could anyone possibly blame Eden Foods for that?

    In addition, just because “you didn’t write the article” doesn’t mean that you are exempt from the responsibility of spreading such an incoherent, illogical hypothesis.

    Didn’t you just a few articles ago tout Eden Foods as a good company to buy from because they support GMO labeling (a MUCH more telling action of their concern for health than the soy milk production)???

    Furthermore, as a devout Catholic (who doesn’t “get offended all the time”- just when confronted with insufferably arrogant fallen away Catholics who try to speak for all Catholics), I ask that you please refrain from claiming Catholic cred when posting offensive anti-Catholic rhetoric. Being “raised Catholic” doesn’t mean squat if you are not a practicing Catholic in Communion with Rome. Ask Nancy Pelosi and Andrew Cuomo.

    April 13th, 2013 2:27 pm Reply
  • katrina

    I think you are missing the point of why Eden foods is wanting to opt out of the health care. Birth control operates on several levels to prevent pregnancy. Not only does it prevent the ovulation but it also prevents implantation of an already fertilized egg. This is called abortion and is murder.

    The thing which I find so offensive is that the birth control producers are allowed to minimize how their product actually works. Therefore, millions of babies are murdered every year in the name of inconvenience.

    I don’t doubt that Eden foods could probably have better labeling practices but they are not doing anything illegal or immoral. There is a huge difference in not labeling that their product is not to be used instead of infant formula and being against being forced to support a product that directly murders babies.

    After reading this, I will actually take the opposite stance and support Eden foods in whatever way I can. Obama care is evil and should be stopped if possible!

    April 13th, 2013 2:14 pm Reply
    • katrina

      By the way, I am not a Catholic. This is just what science says… birth control is abortive in the way it works.

      I am very encouraged by the other posts!
      Sarah, I have loved everything I have seen on your site prior to this. This is very offensive, illogical and just plain irritating. Totally makes me want to stop referring people to your site.

      April 13th, 2013 2:19 pm Reply
  • Meghan

    This is typical of society today. Everything is someone else’s responsibilty. It’s Eden’s fault that those babies died because THEIR PARENTS gave them soy milk as formula. And it’s the employers responsibility to buy the birth control. What?!

    I’m really disappointed. In the past, I have loved and learned a lot from The Healthy Home economist, but this article has turned me off. I agree that soy is bad. I also think McDonald’s is bad. And drinking soda. The list is endless, but to see the tiresome subject of Women’s Reproductive Rights being pushed on us, even here, is disturbing. Are you planning on posting something in defense of all the lives that are ended by these so called rights? That’s okay, there are plenty of other traditional food blogs out there. I am pretty sure that all my Catholic friends will be equally as disgusted.

    April 13th, 2013 2:10 pm Reply
  • TE

    Wow. Very disappointing that you opened your blog to this type of nonsensical ranting. I used to refer many people to your blog. I won’t from now on – as it seems, due to the many “guests” you have promoted lately , it really isn’t yours anymore.

    Also you cannot keep saying you were “raised Catholic” so this speech shouldn’t offend Catholics. I am a PRACTICING Catholic and I am offended.

    This rant simply falls into the category of hypocrisy on its own. We want the freedom to buy and consume whatever we want as long as it falls into OUR ideology as opposed to someone else’s. Either we are FREE or we are not, and this article promotes tyranny.

    April 13th, 2013 2:02 pm Reply
  • Marsha

    So what if Eden is suing Sebelius, why should the government force people and businesses to pay for another person’s things? No one is denying anyone anything or preventing access to anything. Women wanting to use contraceptives are not being prevented from doing so. Your article eludes to the fact that Eden does not want women getting any contraceptives period! This is not the case! Ever since the pill and other contraceptives appeared on the market, women and teen girls have always had access. Clinics get tax money allotted and in turn provide these and other abortifacients. Leave them alone! They should have the right to decline. The pills and other paraphernalia will be there it isn’t going anywhere. No government or entity should make such imposing demands and regulations upon people who for whatever reasons object. If the insurance is there all women can get their monthly BC drugs and devices though their insurance. Or for those not employed there are local county and state clinics. Nothing is ever, ever free! Somebody somewhere is paying for it. Americans who have their reasons to objecting to this forced government mandates imposing this or that law and or regulation, have a right to do so too. What is wrong is being forced. Get a job and buy your required healthcare plan then go get all the contraceptives you want. But of course with millions loosing their jobs and companies having to close, good luck with that. This whole idea of socialism is proving to be devisive and destructive. The current administration is sending the U.S. into a massive and out of control downward spiral which we may never recover from. When a company selling soy based products comes under fire, you know enough is enough.

    April 13th, 2013 1:55 pm Reply
    • CMMOM

      Great points!

      April 14th, 2013 9:29 am Reply
  • Heather

    “Sadly, babies continue to be hospitalized and die because of EdenSoy and other brands of soy milk.”
    Er, no. They continue to be hospitalized and die because of the incredible ignorance of their parents. How could anyone possibly blame Eden Foods for that?

    In addition, just because “you didn’t write the article” doesn’t mean that you are exempt from the responsibility of spreading such an incoherent, illogical hypothesis.

    Furthermore, as a devout Catholic (who doesn’t “get offended all the time- just when confronted with insufferably arrogant fallen away Catholics who try to speak for all Catholics), I ask that you please refrain from claiming Catholic cred when posting offensive anti-Catholic rhetoric. Being “raised Catholic” doesn’t mean squat if you are not a practicing Catholic in Communion with Rome. Ask Nancy Pelosi and Andrew Cuomo.

    April 13th, 2013 1:40 pm Reply
  • Amy

    Very pleased to see the majority of comments here demonstrate that most readers can clearly see that this article makes no sense. I have generally had a lot of respect for the author, Dr. Kaayla Daniels, because she has much wisdom to share regarding real food and nutrition. But this article will cause me to read her information much more carefully in the future, with much more discernment. And I will be sure to buy more Eden products in the future, because I want to be sure they will be able to continue to finance their legal battle. Eden Foods supported our right to label GMO ingredients in our food, whereas companies such as Muir Glen did not – that is a much bigger issue for me than the fact that they sell soy products.

    April 13th, 2013 1:38 pm Reply
    • Trudy

      Yeah, good point. The fact that they supported the GM labeling is a good reason to support and not boycott. They sell soy. So what? It’s labeled, right? They’re not trying to hide anything.

      April 13th, 2013 1:48 pm Reply
  • Sara

    I read this post hoping to find some good information on the effects of soy on fertility that I could share with a family member who is experiencing infertility. Instead I found a bigoted attack on my religion and a completely illogical argument based on ignorance. Needless to say, I am very disappointed. Please stick to the issues as they relate to food and health, and keep your uneducated opinions about other people’s religious convictions to yourself. Thanks.

    April 13th, 2013 1:31 pm Reply
  • Brian Byrne

    Your readers may be interested in these associated articles from the Weston A. Price Foundation “Rethinking Reproductive Health” Written by Katie Singer, Friday, 11 November 2005 02:21:


    “Wise Choices, Healthy Bodies: Diet for the Prevention of Women’s Diseases” Written by Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD , Sunday, 31 December 2000 02:35:


    Fertility Awareness, Food, and Night-Lighting, Written by Katie Singer, Tuesday, 29 June 2004 02:27:


    Pax et bonum

    April 13th, 2013 12:55 pm Reply
  • Lisa Hansel via Facebook

    A bit much.

    April 13th, 2013 12:54 pm Reply
  • Dee Ellen via Facebook

    I see your points, and if this is the case, then he will win his lawsuit correct? And I would think he would also then be against vaccinations, considering some of these are said to be made with aborted fetuses. It’s a slippery slope though. What can a Jehovah Witness CEO refuse to cover? I suppose as long as these companies are notifying their potential employees before they hire them, then those potential employees can choose to work elsewhere, knowing that the religious beliefs of their employer would affect their coverage, even though it is not a religious institution. However, what the article points out is the fact that this is a company selling soy products, which are said to affect fertility. P.S. I am not a fan of birth control for the same reasons I am not a fan of soy, because of the hormone disruption and potential links to cancer, which I think is part of the irony being pointed out in the article. I also know people are often against birth control because of their religious beliefs, and I totally understand this as well.

    April 13th, 2013 12:47 pm Reply
    • CMMOM

      I don’t see the slippery slope. Birth control is what the name implies, control of birth, not a product that in some way supports health.

      April 14th, 2013 9:24 am Reply
  • Melissa Stenger Ebbole via Facebook

    How can your beliefs be immaterial to this post?? It is your blog, in which you FILL with your judgement of others choices, I happen to “like” it because it WAS providing interesting readings. Now I think something is up. Not wanting to supply the means for an action that fundamentally goes against your beliefs is so very different than providing a voluntary product for consumers to make their own judgement on with free will. Eden foods is providing the safest form of soy for its consumers, who want soy, outside of fermented. People subscribe to different schools of thought on soy. He is trying to provide what he subscribes to as a healthy alternative while being forced to pay for someone else’s subscription to the notion that birth control is a healthy alternative to unwanted pregnancies. Everyone has their right to deem their opinion of safe and healthy. What continues to boggle my mind is that you and the guest blog chose to go after Eden for standing against something that I would hope you would be against. What about our run off water from these pharmaceutical pills?? At the VERY least?!?!

    April 13th, 2013 12:40 pm Reply
  • Joanna

    Sarah, given that you’ve spoken strongly against hormonal birth control in the past I’m suprised that you would allow your blog to be used as a platform for boycotting a company that doesn’t want to provide this drug to its employees… http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/how-the-pill-can-harm-your-future-childs-health/

    April 13th, 2013 12:33 pm Reply
  • jmr

    I’ve never thought of freedom of speech or freedom of religion as a “right-wing ideological agenda,” but perhaps we’ve moved so far from freedom that they are now considered so. I am not Catholic, but I do believe Catholics should be able to practice their religion freely in this country. I don’t eat soy (when I can avoid it), but I do believe others should be able to consume it if they want. I don’t, however, think we should blame a corporation for parents’ stupidity when it leads to the death of their child…I believe the parents are responsible. I don’t believe the government should be able to legislate every little thing. And the last time I checked, most birth control was really, really inexpensive…why is it so hard for people to afford it if the government doesn’t force health insurers to provide it? They can afford to go to the movies, a fast food restaurant, to buy soap, etc. Birth control doesn’t cost any more than that.

    I want to buy Eden Food products just to support the owner’s right to practice his religion freely. To me, my inalienable Constitutional rights trump my dislike of soy.

    April 13th, 2013 12:18 pm Reply
  • Faith Kalmoe via Facebook

    The backlash to this post is not due to a perceived attack on personal beliefs. It is due to the belief that your guest blogger is comparing apples to oranges and grasping at straws to find corporate hypocrisy here. Despite enjoying your blogger posts and tutorials, your continued defense of this post in the face of the responses makes me question your judgment. It seems as if you would consider any company that opposes the HHS mandate, or takes any moral stand on an issue, while also selling junk food (as you define it, of course), a hypocrite. This guest post is ridiculous, your readers appear to agree wholeheartedly, and I’m considering revoking my Facebook “like”.

    April 13th, 2013 12:05 pm Reply
  • Andrea

    Life begins at conception. God decided that. I didn’t. Grateful that Eden foods is standing by that. I didn’t know about this case. I’ll be supporting this company even if I don’t consume soy.

    April 13th, 2013 11:47 am Reply
    • Jennifer J

      Can you point me to the source for that statement? I’ve read my bible front to back many times, and I’ve never seen that statement.

      April 13th, 2013 3:52 pm Reply
      • Mary Beth

        Biblical references usually say something about life beginning with breath, and the punishment for causing a miscarriage in a woman are much different than that for killing a man – more of a property violation, which kind of makes sense, since both women and children were pretty much viewed as property..

        April 13th, 2013 4:28 pm Reply
  • Ave Maria via Facebook

    EXACTLY! Also, while I am 100% in agreement that soy is terrible for you and a big source of infertility, people who drink soy milk still do get pregnant and raise children (I know many who do). Drinking a carton of soy milk is not the exact same as taking the pill. This discrepancy is due to poor education rather than any hypocritical standards like the author is claiming. I must say – I am getting more and more tired of these poorly written guest articles on the HHE blog.

    April 13th, 2013 11:40 am Reply
  • Dylan N Laina Standard via Facebook

    You make a judgement about hypocrisy, then claim no one should make a judgement about someone’s beliefs…..ummmm….?

    April 13th, 2013 11:36 am Reply
  • Dylan N Laina Standard via Facebook

    I think there’s a log in your eye.

    April 13th, 2013 11:27 am Reply
  • Pd

    Whereas I may not agree with his values, I respect his decision based simply upon freedom of choice. If women shall have freedom of choice of birth control, then business owners should also have freedom of choice of living their value system. If you don’t like it, then don’t buy Eden products and find a different company to work for (if you work for Eden)…even better yet, start your own business and be your own boss.

    Personally, though, I believe women’s freedom of choice of what they do with their bodies trumps someone’s religious beliefs. I won’t be buying any more Eden products.

    April 13th, 2013 11:17 am Reply
    • Amy

      Pd, As soon as a women has conceived it is no longer just her body. If this issue was just about an individuals right to do what they want with their own body, no one would be arguing this. Abortion and all abortificients kill another human being. I believe in the dignity of every person, born and unborn. We should never have the”right” to kill another person because they are not convenient to us.

      April 13th, 2013 11:36 am Reply
    • Trudy

      A woman’s “freedom of choice” is not the issue to Eden Organics. The issue is THEIR freedom. They’re not suing to make birth control illegal. They’re suing to not violate their conscience by going against their beliefs and being forced to provide birth control to women. A woman can make the argument that it’s her right to take birth control, but where is it also her right to have someone who is morally opposed to birth control (or anyone for that matter) pay for it for her?

      April 13th, 2013 2:02 pm Reply
  • Amy

    I’m also a practicing Roman Catholic who believes life begins at conception. I totally want nothing to do with an insurance company that pays for the Morning after pill, IUD’s, or any kind of chemical “birth control”. “Birth Control” has 3 ways it works. It has high levels of steroids that are supposed to stop ovulation. The really high level steroids were originally found to be dangerous to women and were pulled from the market after women were killed and debilitated. The second way it works is buy thinning the lining of the uterus and not allowing the newly formed child “fetus” from implanting. The third way it works is by thickening the cervical mucus preventing the sperm from reaching the egg. So, “birth control” also can be classified as an abortificiant like the other types I’ve mentioned. I support Eden Soy’s decision even though I don’t eat Soy. I really thought the Catholic bashing was inappropriate. I might boycott The Healthy Home Economists though and let all of my Catholic friends know how you feel about us.

    April 13th, 2013 11:12 am Reply
    • Roxanne Rieske

      Well, I hope you don’t live in one of the 26 states that ALREADY require by state law prescription drug coverage (w/ a co-pay) for birth control. No insurance for you! I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: If you don’t believe in the use of birth control, then don’t buy it and don’t use it! But you don’t have the right, religious or otherwise, to make that decision for someone else. And, no, individual companies cannot opt out of providing prescription coverage (w/ their insurance company) for birth control in these states. Their only option is not to provide health insurance at all. I’m not Catholic, but I attended a Catholic university, and even they had to adhere to state law, and they didn’t make a big, gigantic fuss about it because they realize that since nearly 80% of their staff were decidedly not Catholic, the resulting uproar would be too destabilizing to the university. It’s a Jesuit university, and they also decided that not providing health insurance at all is not a Jesuit ideal. In a country like the USA, with so much religious freedom, and so many different belief systems, and so many more pressing issues to be concerned with, fighting over birth control is kinda lame.

      April 15th, 2013 2:01 pm Reply
      • CMMOM

        What is lame is equating birth control with health care. I agree that there are many pressing issues in our country, this being one of them, as it is an attack on the freedoms of private business owners who should be able to offer -or not- benefits (look up the word) to encourage employees to work for said owner. If the potential employee doesn’t like the offer they are free to refuse.

        “But you don’t have the right, religious or otherwise, to make that decision for someone else.” Faulty logic, no one is making a decision that you can not have your birth control, only that they do not want to pay for it. I would suggest that no one should have the right to tell you that you should have to pay for something that goes against what you believe to be right.

        April 15th, 2013 4:50 pm Reply
      • etr

        Just because they say they are Catholic and say they are Jesuit doesn’t mean they know or live the Faith. Most ‘Catholic’ and ‘Jesuit’ universities aren’t really either. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. What you said proves they aren’t living the faith–the fact that they would put the destabilizing effect on the university above living their faith illustrates this point.
        I think Kayla’s mentioning the Catholic faith at all was totally inappropriate and unprofessional.

        April 22nd, 2013 12:35 pm Reply
  • Nina

    “Eden’s pursuit of a right-wing ideological agenda and its espousal of Catholic church teachings on the evils of contraception.”

    Yikes! Is this really necessary? As an Orthodox Christian, this article came across as being disrespectful & hurtful. I understand the point they were making about soy, but the author went about it in the wrong way. Is this website about food, healthy living, nutrition & science or is it about bashing peoples religious beliefs?

    April 13th, 2013 11:10 am Reply
    • Paula

      Agreed! You said exactly what I planned too! We tend to buy very little processed foods, but we will in the future, purchase from Eden when we do need something.

      April 13th, 2013 3:04 pm Reply
  • Juliana Sutton via Facebook

    He may be completely unaware of the fact that soy can cause fertility issues (allegedly). At the same time, he is obviously aware that birth control can cause early term abortions. Therefore, he is taking a moral stance regarding the information he is privy to. Kudos to him.

    April 13th, 2013 10:52 am Reply
  • Katrina

    Sarah, I absolutely love your blog, but this post is aberrant in that your style is usually tactful and logical.
    You believe in the right of people to choose the food they wish to consume, particularly as it concerns nutrient dense food straight from the farm. People can choose to drink soy milk, just like we choose raw grassfed cows’ milk. Companies who do not see the problem with soy can choose sell it, consumers can choose to buy it. If the consumers are absolutely ignorant, and feed a baby plain soy milk instead of a form of formula, that is the consumers choice, their mistake, and they are liable. Not the company. EdenOrganics has not marketed their product as formula, so they have no liability in the matter.
    And the difference between soy milk causing disruption in hormones and thereby fertility is a very different matter from intentionally causing a conceived child to be aborted due to the lack of uterine lining to sustain the life. This is a form of abortion. It is not a form of infertility. Two very different issues here.
    The owner should not be forced to purchase a product for his employees that violates his religious beliefs in the sanctity of life. I find it abhorrant that you are supporting a boycott on a fellow American citizen operating in a free marketplace in a “free” country, where he should have the right to choose what he purchases, and to live and work within the framework of his religious and moral convictions. I don’t think you or Ms Daniels would enjoy being forced to purchase soy milk.
    Kudos to the owner for standing up for his beliefs, and his rights in the free marketplace of ideas.

    April 13th, 2013 10:49 am Reply
  • Stephanie

    This article seems a little biased at least. In regards to the court cases where the PARENTS were found guilty, not the company, unless the company was specifically claiming this could be used in place of infant formula then it’s the mother and father’s responsibility to know what they’re feeding their children and the nutritional value of these items. Blaming big corporations for personal negligence is just part of the problem. On a Vegan note, and I have no ill feelings against them or anyone else’s personal decision on what they put in their bodies, this kind of diet has shown time and time again to have very serious adverse effects in growing children, including female reproductive organs. I still can’t figure out why instead of teaching women to have integrity and respect for their bodies we’re helping them degrade and defile them. Since when is it society’s responsibility to keep women’s legs closed? That’s my rant. :)

    April 13th, 2013 10:44 am Reply
  • Molly Wimmer via Facebook

    You did post a few days ago of 22 NON GMO companies we should support. Eden is listed on there.

    April 13th, 2013 10:44 am Reply
  • Juliana Sutton via Facebook

    Seriously? That’s the best response you have to all of your subscribers? Your reasoning for this article is bunk. The “hypocrisy” of the situation is minor, if at all. That being said, there are far bigger fish to fry.

    April 13th, 2013 10:43 am Reply
  • Patricia

    The birth control message is certainly bizarre. Very shoot-self-in-foot. However, American use of soy products might be the culprit, not soy. I think combinations of foods and other influences are at work here, such as erroneously thinking soy milk is human milk or formula? Or other elements of the American diet in combination with soy. Or, the cooking or non-cooking processes used for soy. Otherwise, we would be talking about the historical birth rate emergencies in Japan and China, two countries that have eaten soy products for eons.

    April 13th, 2013 10:40 am Reply
  • Juliana Sutton via Facebook

    Yes, you get to choose. Some of us human beings STILL BELIEVE IN PROTECTING LIFE. Food company or church, life is not a choice. Birth control pills do cause early term abortions. There are plenty of companies that do provide this type of “healthcare” coverage, if you don’t like the policies were you work, then get a new job.

    April 13th, 2013 10:35 am Reply
  • Molly Wimmer via Facebook

    I always laugh at the “natural” soy products when I’m at the grocery store, because I see the irony in that alone. I just really don’t like the agenda of the author with regards to the lawsuit, that’s what I’m responding to. Especially the quote from the commentator (who is probably on birth control and obviously drinks soy…). Anyways, I like your posts and enjoy reading them.

    April 13th, 2013 10:33 am Reply
  • Lucy

    Thank you, Christine!
    Drop the politics, Kayla! It just doesn’t suit here.

    April 13th, 2013 10:31 am Reply
  • kathy

    I am with all who are supporting the Eden Company. There are some great comments on here so as much as I wanted to comment as soon as I read this I will just throw my support for all of you who are not happy about reading this kind of stuff on here. I get enough of this stuff on other venues, sure don’t want to see it here. Disappointed. :(

    April 13th, 2013 10:13 am Reply
  • thehealthyhomeeconomist via Facebook

    My beliefs are immaterial to this post. It is about the corporate hypocrisy of Eden Foods. Whatever one chooses to believe on this issue is personal and should be free from the judgment of others.

    April 13th, 2013 10:09 am Reply
    • jenny

      The personal views of the CEO of Eden Company should be free from judgement also. I have absolutely loved your blog up until now. This was one of the most illogical, incoherent articles I have ever read in my life. I am sorry you posted it, as I will never visit your blog again.
      Maybe you should be more concerned about the Obama administration forcing companies to provide contraceptives that unnaturally disrupt hormones, destroy women’s health, and not only prevent conception, but sometimes kill babies by impeding implantation.

      How can women be so concerned about getting hormone free meat and dairy products, and then pop hormone pills everyday. I will take my sex all-natural, and organic, the way nature intended.

      I am so surprised by your inability to see this author’s seething bias. She must have struck a personal chord with you. Maybe you are trying to justify your own use of birth control.

      April 13th, 2013 6:14 pm Reply
    • Jason

      Sarah, since when are our beliefs immaterial to our posts? our actions? and our very selves? I still don’t know what “hypocrisy” you see here. Does soy milk definitively end the life of a human being? and are people forced to pay for soy milk for others? Eden foods provides soy milk which some, (including myself) believe is unhealthy, so I don’t buy it. Artifical contraception, (sometimes) provides the end of a human life, which I KNOW is unhealthy. So not only do I not buy it, I TOTALLY object that anyone would be FORCED to buy it.
      I know a lot of people who say they were “raised Roman Catholic”, but if you aren’t offended that someone is being forced to pay for what amounts to the death of a human being , then I’d say you were probably never REALLY raised Catholic.
      Do you really think everyone here is “overreacting”? The tone of this article is that Eden foods should be boycotted because they oppose the “birth control” mandate. “Whatever one chooses to believe on this issue is personal and should be free from the judgment of others.”? What about Michael Potter’s right to follow HIS beliefs?
      BTW, I’m not offended by this article, (or your defense of it) I’m saddened. I will definately continue to follow and read your posts because I respect your knowledge on nutrition. But on this issue, you’re dead wrong. No pun intended.

      April 13th, 2013 7:05 pm Reply
      • Trudy


        I think that was very well put.

        April 13th, 2013 11:22 pm Reply
    • Beth

      HHE, what proof do you or Dr Kayla have Eden Foods is knowingly selling soymilk in order to intentionally ruin others’ health and is purposely selling their soymilk because they want to make women infertile?

      And what proof do you have that soymilk is an actual contraceptive?

      April 14th, 2013 1:07 am Reply
  • Dee Ellen via Facebook

    Well, hopefully his employees aren’t loading up on his product (IMO); otherwise he’ll be paying for lots of expensive health issues!

    April 13th, 2013 10:08 am Reply
    • Jennifer J


      April 13th, 2013 3:47 pm Reply
  • Cathy Cox via Facebook

    Not even close to the same thing….nice try.

    April 13th, 2013 10:00 am Reply
  • Melissa Stenger Ebbole via Facebook

    The obvious issue is still not being addressed, why is this writer going to bat for birth control and why are you supporting her stance? It is the antithesis of natural!

    April 13th, 2013 9:59 am Reply
  • Molly Wimmer via Facebook

    So, the writer is the VP of WAPF and she quotes a commentator from the EDENSOY in the article:, as the voice of reason: “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.” Then she uses the FDA investigating EDENSOY (for stupid parents who substitute soy for breastmilk or formula…) as some sort of shining example of how EDENSOY has somehow failed to provide consumers with a healthy product. Is this the same FDA that uses scare tactics for their case against raw milk on their website? Based on sound scientifical evidence? Why on earth would anyone who promotes consuming raw milk Trust the FDA anyways? That’s pretty ironic. She uses imflammatory phrases like “right-wing idealogues” to make it seem like their shoving their Catholic beliefs down people’s throats. Well, they aren’t shoving soy milk down people’s throats. I definently don’t drink soy and avoid soy products, but it’s annoying that the author has an obvious problem with their lawsuit. Anyone who promotes natural health should be campaigning against monsanto-government run healthcare system, that seems a much more dangerous threat than drinking soy…

    April 13th, 2013 9:53 am Reply
  • thehealthyhomeeconomist via Facebook

    I would also add that corporate hypocrisy is a common theme on my blog … this one happens to be intertwined with Obamacare and birth control … both touchy subject no doubt! Whatever you believe on these fronts is totally your personal conviction of course. This article is in no way trying to make a statement in that regard.

    April 13th, 2013 9:50 am Reply
    • watchmom3

      Well, I have to say that whether anyone agrees or not, it is still your blog. Any subject is fair game, because you are the CEO and get to decide. Popular or not.

      April 13th, 2013 5:23 pm Reply
  • Kelly Kindig via Facebook

    Nick Krancher that is probably the BEST argument I have ever heard!

    April 13th, 2013 9:32 am Reply
    • Maureen

      OMGoodness Kelly, I was thinking the same thing…Excellent response Nick!

      April 13th, 2013 11:46 pm Reply
  • April Alcon Kujawa via Facebook

    This is one of the most ignorant arguments I’ve ever heard. You have got to be kidding me! I never really post on pages, but this was too crazy not to comment!

    April 13th, 2013 9:04 am Reply
  • Pingback: Eden Foods: Opposed to Birth Control But Sells Soy Milk? « Set You Free News

  • Cindy Noone-White via Facebook

    Liquid birth control in a carton????? This kind of nonsense hurts the real food movement. How can we be taken seriously and fight Monsanto when this kind of junk out there. I believe there is a political, rather than health, agenda behind this post.

    April 13th, 2013 8:57 am Reply
  • Melissa Stenger Ebbole via Facebook

    Your accused hypocrisy, or that of you guest blogger, is a far reach that takes some wild agenda driven imagination! The addition of this guest post makes me question your agenda!

    April 13th, 2013 8:15 am Reply
  • Lizzie

    You blame the soy milk company because parents are too ignorant or stupid to understand the difference between soy milk and baby formula? Really?? Should I blame the computer company who mamufactured your keyboard for the stupid stuff you write?

    April 13th, 2013 8:15 am Reply
  • Karen I

    Wow! I am really amazed at the comments here. It is clear that most commenting have never read the copious research available on the dangers of soy. It is also clear that those here cannot separate their personal religious beliefs from public policy. I for one seldom bought Eden products, since I am not vegan. I did, however, buy umeboshi paste. I will discontinue that practice. Of course, in line with everyone else here I will make sure that I convinc as many people as possible to boycott Eden products. I am truly astounded at the ignorant reactionary comments.

    April 13th, 2013 8:02 am Reply
    • Kindly disagree

      Well, I respectfully disagree with Karen. Lots of comments have information the article didn’t mention & I’m glad they did (like the danger of these drugs and hormones)! They aren’t ignorant at all. They are well informed, “reacting” to a protest being used to promote “change” in the wrong direction- via federal tyranny. I do get the point of the article: The owner ironically opposes something that destroys life while creating something that most of us only recently realized COULD be destructive of life- or at least making it potentially more unhealthy… very ironic and NOT GOOD!! But this is separate from the mandate and MUST be clarified. That’s why this article has generated the comments. Its clever but twisted. Declaring “everyone needs to separate personal religious beliefs from public policy” is ignorance indeed. Everything we do stems from a fundamental “religions belief.” Humanism for example (formerly called “religious humanism”) is one…. Why not just own it!? The author is a example of how one can have a “hard time” separating their religious “belief” from public policy as the mandate lawsuit is about destroying the first amendment: religious freedom. Clearly Eden’s soy should be dealt with. I agree. But lets do it the American way why don’t we? Like, for example, a petition. Letters to the CEO and all the marketers and production specialists and workers. Why not communicate the message to supermarkets? I think these sorts of reactions would be the right thing to do. We all boycott soy anyway. But lets promote KINDNESS not communism.

      April 13th, 2013 10:47 am Reply
      • Maureen

        Nice comeback Kindly Disagree! I’m reading a lot of well thought-out responses on this thread, hardly “ignorant reactionary comments”. Why is it the moment you disagree with certain viewpoints you are immediately vilified ?

        April 13th, 2013 11:42 pm Reply
    • Bmom

      Finally a voice of reason.

      April 14th, 2013 5:52 pm Reply
  • Molly Wimmer via Facebook

    Shouldn’t all the left-wing idealogues be pleased that they’re providing them with a cheaper birth control product, then?

    April 13th, 2013 7:58 am Reply
  • Nick Krancher via Facebook

    Jenna, until the president’s recent “evolution,” the Obama administration held the same position on gay marriage and contraception as Eden Soy. Is it now necessary to demonstrate that one is in full ideological compliance with party orthodoxy? If you’re a feminist or a gay or any of the other house pets in the Democrat menagerie, you might want to look at Obama’s pirouette, and his coziness with Islamic homophobia. These guys are about power, and right now your cause happens to coincide with their political advantage. But political winds shift. Already in Europe, in previously gay-friendly cities like Amsterdam, demographically surging Muslim populations have muted leftie politicians’ commitment to gay rights, feminism, and much else. It’s easy to cheer on the thugs when they’re thuggish in your name. What happens when Obama’s political needs change? Americans talk more about liberty than citizens of other Western nations, but, underneath the rhetorical swagger, liberty bleeds. It’s not about marriage, it’s not about gays, it’s not about contaception, it’s about a basic understanding that a free society requires a decent respect for a wide range of opinion. Which apparently you don’t have.

    April 13th, 2013 7:54 am Reply
  • Sara Elizabeth via Facebook

    Again……I used to.drink soy….many many did thinking it was healthy. This man doesn’t see it as unhealthy.

    April 13th, 2013 7:47 am Reply
  • Rachel Dede Bernhard via Facebook

    birthcontrol is so cheap — it is not what is upping the cost of insurance.

    April 13th, 2013 7:33 am Reply
  • thehealthyhomeeconomist via Facebook

    I’ve got no problem with the CEO’s personal beliefs. That’s his business and if he wants to sue over his right to enforce it as his company, that is also his belief and is fine. Pointing out the hypocrisy of the corporate stance versus what the company sells is fair game I think.

    April 13th, 2013 7:25 am Reply
    • Brian Byrne

      Perhaps the reason you’re getting so many negative responses to this article is a.) it reflects a clear hostility toward the CEO’s personal beliefs, referencing a “right-wing ideological agenda and… espousal of Catholic church teachings on the evils of contraception” b.) it advocates a boycott against said CEO after agreeing with the following statement, “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,” which is also hostile to the CEO’s personal beliefs, and c.) while it may be ironic that a who opposes being forced by the federal government to pay for birth control coverage for his employees, while selling one food product among many that has been shown to adversely impact fertility, it in no way, by definition, hypocritical.

      I think perhaps you would have written a better article on the subject yourself, in your own words, seeing as how you respect the personal beliefs of the CEO.

      Pax et bonum

      April 13th, 2013 4:47 pm Reply
    • Trudy

      I agree with what many are saying about the tone of the article giving the impression that the writer does have a hostility toward his personal beliefs. That aside, what I don’t understand is why the writer wants to boycott Eden. If, as you say, the article isn’t about his personal beliefs, then why would we want to boycott his company?? Because some idiots gave soy milk to their babies? That’s not a persuasive argument for boycotting either. The article did much more than point out the hypocrisy (let’s assume that he even is aware and believes that soy can cause infertility), but it called for a boycott. On what grounds? If it called for us to not drink soy milk, I can get behind that. If it called for us to write Eden and tell them about the link between soy and infertility, I can get behind that.

      The fact the article asks for a boycott leads readers to assume that the writer agrees with the protesters who are also boycotting because they “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”.

      As another person commented, Eden was one of the companies who endorsed the GM labeling. It wasn’t very long ago when we were all trying to support those companies. Now we should boycott Eden because, why exactly?

      April 13th, 2013 5:52 pm Reply
  • Sarah @Fit Family Together

    So glad to see the clarity in the comments- no business owner should have to provide birth control against their religious beliefs. And with regards to the labeling question, it seems some ill-informed parents went the wrong route. If Eden was advertising their soymilk as baby formula, that would be wrong. But they aren’t. I advocate an approach of buyer beware – do your research, be informed, then make your own decision and live with the consequences. It’s not McDonald’s job to warn you their food is unhealthy nor is it the governments. While I don’t like eating too much soy due to lots of research which has raised big questions, I love some of their other products and will eagerly buy them.

    April 13th, 2013 7:09 am Reply
  • Lauren

    Thanks to the author for bringing this to my attention. Off to send a letter of support to Eden Foods.

    April 13th, 2013 7:03 am Reply
  • Mary DeLong via Facebook

    shame on them

    April 13th, 2013 4:44 am Reply
  • Carol

    Wow! Grasping at straws. “Sadly, babies continue to be hospitalized and die because of EdenSoy and other brands of soy milk.”
    It’s not their fault some parents are idiots or prentend to be so to kill their babies.
    There is no warning label on cows milk and neither is it a substitute for formula.
    No, the real irony is phony people who drink soy and other “natural” foods but think it’s fine to put non-therapeutic drugs in their body to change a perfectly healthy process so they can be more thoughtless and careless about sex.

    April 13th, 2013 4:09 am Reply
    • Jennifer J

      I started taking BC pills 15 years ago. Two years after I had my tubes tied after having six children. Without the pill, I cry all the time. I also lose some of my language abilities – can’t find the proper word for something, 10 to 15 times a day. I also have been celebate most of that time. So I am using these hormones for a therapeutic use. Should one man’s point of view be allowed to withhold this drug from me or someone like me? What if he decides that all mental illness is just a fake? Should he be allowed to not cover medications for that? Or he decides that breathing exercises can control high blood pressure, and refuses to pay for BP medicine?
      People have all kinds of ideas, many of which are unsupported by facts. Why should people who are educated about these things be held hostage by people who aren’t? People have many diffferent religious beliefs, many of which other people would think are just weird. Why should other people have to be held hostage by one man’s religious beliefs?

      April 13th, 2013 3:43 pm Reply
      • Trudy

        Jennifer J,

        You want to take birth control pills? Then buy them yourself! He’s not trying to prevent you from taking them. How does one go from “I am entitled to medications” to “I am entitled to someone else’s money to buy my medications”?

        As far as your “facts” about medications, every one you named has plenty of evidence to support that they do more harm than good (if any good). So, there are those who are “educated about these things” yet somehow reached a different educated conclusion than you, and we could argue all day long about it. That is completely irrelevant to the fact that A) he shouldn’t be forced to pay for your stuff, especially when B) it is in direct conflict with his moral and religious beliefs which are C) protected by the Constitution.

        April 13th, 2013 11:18 pm Reply
      • kwalt

        You have six children – you are going to cry a lot! Its the nature of birthing a large family; it doesn’t mean you need birth control pills. There are other things you can do nutritionally to help with those kind of mood swings; one of the first would be getting your gut in better shape with the GAPS diet, a common topic on this blog. If you are losing language abilities, there may be other things going on inside your body that need attention. Attempting to cover up symptoms with drugs is dangerous.

        I still should not have to pay for your birth control just because you are using it for therapeutic mood control and not careless sex. I am not holding you hostage at all. If you want to take birth control pills for mood control, go ahead. Pay for it yourself.

        April 14th, 2013 12:55 am Reply
  • Holly Schultheis via Facebook

    Are you serious?! This comparison is so over the top and ridiculous… Unlike.

    April 13th, 2013 3:35 am Reply
  • Helen T

    The United States of Corporations. You really think we have any separation left? The Secretary of Agriculture is Tom Vilsack (ex-Monsanto exec) and the head of the FDA is Michael R. Taylor (ex-Monsanto exec). ‘Nuff said.

    April 13th, 2013 2:11 am Reply
  • EC

    If the FDA says it’s okay
    Run away
    If Obamacare says make him pay
    Say no way . . .

    April 13th, 2013 1:48 am Reply
  • Jennifer Bondelid via Facebook

    I think they must be operating on the ‘what you don’t know can’t hurt you’ theory.

    April 13th, 2013 1:18 am Reply
  • Pingback: Eden Foods: Opposed to Birth Control But Sells Soy Milk? | CookingPlanet

  • Tasha L.

    So happy with the comments here! I’m going to send a letter of support to Eden Foods. The Obama adminstration’s idea of health reform is going to ruin the health care in our country if we don’t stand against it. We need to demand that the federal government stay out of health care.

    April 13th, 2013 1:07 am Reply
  • EC

    Um, so what? I don’t want the government mandating I eat certain foods just as I don’t want the government mandating that I must go against my religious beliefs as a business owner.

    And Salon is a credible enough source of news to be cited – ha ha ha ha! I read your book and I think I remember more substantial citations there. Please, no more politics.

    Can we have Mr. Monastyrsky back please?!

    April 13th, 2013 12:59 am Reply
  • Kelly Kindig via Facebook

    Nick Krancher I think that’s his plan!

    April 13th, 2013 12:25 am Reply
  • Brittany Graham Howell via Facebook

    Thanks for the info! I am now way happier with Eden Foods. I don’t personally drink soy milk but I am happy that their owner is not afraid to stand up for life!!!

    April 13th, 2013 12:14 am Reply
  • Mary Elizabeth Anderson via Facebook

    I’m sorry to hear that your page opposes rights of conscience. I won’t be liking or sharing any more of your material.

    April 13th, 2013 12:14 am Reply
  • Kelly Kindig via Facebook

    While I agree soy is bad not everyone believes that.

    April 13th, 2013 12:14 am Reply
  • Ca

    Soooo….this article makes absolutely no sense to me. Lets see if I’m getting this straight. We should boycott Eden foods because:

    1. The owner is a right-winger (gasp)
    2. Soy milk is actually birth control
    3. Some completely uninformed people (trying to be nice here) fed there babies soy milk instead of formula.

    Am I missing something here? Sarah,I usually respect your posts, even when I disagree with them, but this one just came across like a ridiculous and illogical rant.

    By the way, I won’t touch soy milk with a ten foot pole, but I still see absolutely no reason to boycott all Eden products.

    April 12th, 2013 11:58 pm Reply
  • Sharon Bohuslav via Facebook

    Some people say that soy is good for those in menopause.

    April 12th, 2013 11:48 pm Reply
  • Heidi Hebron Marshall via Facebook

    God created soy, but He also created a lot of things we shouldn’t eat. We have to use our discretion.

    April 12th, 2013 11:45 pm Reply
  • Sara Elizabeth via Facebook

    I am unliking this page. These posts have become bogus. GOD still created soy. I don’t consume it but it is not.the sake thing as hormonal chemical birth control. Sarah I hope u go back to normal health posting.

    April 12th, 2013 11:06 pm Reply
  • Michele Fairman via Facebook

    its called Constitutional Rights, No one should be forced to provide for elective procedures or prescriptions that violate their religious beliefs.

    April 12th, 2013 11:05 pm Reply
    • Meg

      Is it ok to violate his employees’ health by not providing health insurance to support his own individual moral beliefs? He’s not the one being affected by using/not using birth control, after all.

      April 15th, 2013 12:15 pm Reply
      • Lisa G.

        The employees HAVE health care coverage!! That isn’t an issue here! He is not removing health care coverage from the table at all. And if he did, the employees would quit and find a job somewhere else. So I assure you he is not doing that! They just have to pay for birth control out of their own salary. Why is this so hard for people to understand? It isn’t millions of dollars per month. They can afford a couple dollars to cover their own birth control!

        April 15th, 2013 12:30 pm Reply
        • Meg

          I’m not aware of any healthcare insurance plan where you can specifically exclude certain drugs from the plan. You can generally either include them, or cover them wholly or partially, but not pick and choose which ones are in line with your (not your employees), moral beliefs.

          April 15th, 2013 1:21 pm Reply
          • Lisa G

            The problem is that every other pharmaceutical drug isn’t morally offensive. While some may disagree with their use (like lots of whole foodies are opposed to statin), it isn’t a fundamental moral issue. For example, if I were a small business owner, I would try to educate my staff so they didn’t require statins. I wouldn’t care if they were covered by health insurance but I would try to discourage their use if at all possible. Statins are not morally reprehensible. But what if they were? Shouldn’t I be able to remove that from coverage for my employees of my small business?? The employees are free to leave but I would hope they respect my decision. It’s my company.

            But birth control – It wasn’t a mandatory health care option (for completely free coverage) until the HHS mandate came into effect recently, so there wasn’t ever an issue. Now it is an issue. The opposition to birth control is not new; it has been the case since the inception of the Catholic church over 2000 ago. What is new is that the HHS mandate is forcing business owners to pay for it.

            The employees are still welcome to buy birth control. But the government has no right to force employers to pay for it. The freedom to choose is being taken away from the employer.

            April 15th, 2013 2:07 pm
          • Trudy

            The plans are out there. I’ve heard of them. I also know doctors (even OB/GYN) who won’t write prescriptions for birth control because they are morally opposed to it.

            April 15th, 2013 9:39 pm
  • Nancy Crowell via Facebook

    I don’t agree with him not not wanting to provide birth control and agree that soy products screw with hormones in large amts but I think you’re stretching it a bit to say soy milk=birth control.

    April 12th, 2013 11:04 pm Reply
  • Jenna Putnam via Facebook

    he thinks birth control is evil? what a moron. he needs to get his head out of the dark ages

    April 12th, 2013 10:57 pm Reply
    • Jennifer J


      April 13th, 2013 3:30 pm Reply
    • Trudy

      Yes, we’re so enlightened now. See how much better our bodies, our planet, our society is! I can’t imagine having to endure living in sync with nature and not having the luxury of being able to chemically or structurally alter things to my own liking. Raw milk kills, GMs will feed the world, pesticides keep food on the table, antibiotics keep people and cows healthy, wild game is unsafe, and pumping a woman’s body full of synthetic hormones is good for her, her future offspring, and our water supply! Ahhh…enlightenment.

      April 13th, 2013 5:24 pm Reply
      • AmandaonMaui

        I don’t think that’s what the above commenter was implying at all.

        April 13th, 2013 9:29 pm Reply
        • Trudy

          Unless the above commenter was implying something other than what was written, I think my reply was spot on. What do you think she was implying?

          April 13th, 2013 10:59 pm Reply
          • CMMOM

            Read between the lines AmandaonMaui and recognize the hypocrisy! People no longer think through what they are espousing. Trudy’s assessment is accurate.

            April 14th, 2013 8:53 am
  • Dee Ellen via Facebook

    Anyone who follows here should be aware of concerns raised about soy. I avoid it because of the thyroid issues and concerns about breast cancer risks. Is he going to cover people’s thyroid meds?

    April 12th, 2013 10:52 pm Reply
    • erin

      I also have thyroid disease and avoid soy for that (and other reasons). But yes, the healthcare that he provides to his employees does cover thyroid meds.

      April 14th, 2013 2:07 pm Reply
  • Cyndi Lyn Brauner Waldmann via Facebook

    Wow: that is so wrong. Hopefully people open their eye’s & know the truth: B4 they buy.

    April 12th, 2013 10:49 pm Reply
  • MelissaM

    I am a Catholic who uses no birth control and most of my friends have large families. All of these families consume industrialized foods which are filled with soy. No practicing Catholic I know uses contraception and funny none of them run to the grocery store to purposely buy soy products to prevent any future offspring. While I agree that soy is terrible this article has missed the point. Contraception has one purpose, to prevent conception, which Eden Organics shouldn’t be forced to subsidize. Soy products are agreed awful, but their primary purpose is not the same as contraception. I will in the future (I don’t often buy processed foods, even organic) go out of my way to support Eden Organics. No one should be forced against their consciences. For those who want birth control they can pay for it. From what I understand pharmaceuticals necessary for diabetes are not mandatory under Obamacare, but $15/month birth control pills are??

    As a separate issue I hope Eden Organics will do much research on soy and cease it’s soy product line.

    April 12th, 2013 10:47 pm Reply
    • Lisa G

      Agreed!!! This article makes me want to go send a letter of support to Eden. I know more practicing Catholics who eat soy laden processed foods and have ZERO problems with infertility, than I know infertile couples. This article is both ridiculous and and senseless. I’m really disappointed as this used to be my favorite blog…

      April 12th, 2013 11:18 pm Reply
  • Holly Sprague Blevins via Facebook

    Since when is ABORTION considered birth control????!??!!!! Oh, since brainless zombies told us it was ok to murder the children growing inside our wombs. Abortion is ANTI everything we as natural mamas stand for !! There is nothing ” natural” about women killing their offspring!

    April 12th, 2013 10:39 pm Reply
    • Jen

      I didn’t read one thing about abortion in this post. Reading comprehension is a good thing.

      April 13th, 2013 8:08 pm Reply
  • Amber Beckham Stults via Facebook

    Yes. I agree with Angela. I’m done . Unlike!

    April 12th, 2013 10:37 pm Reply
  • Ann Dickinson Degenhard via Facebook

    Oh, who cares what anyone’s personal convictions are–the irony is lost on you all. It’s not about personal conviction, it’s about the soya!

    April 12th, 2013 10:27 pm Reply
  • Deborah Chisholm via Facebook

    I have read so many stupid and ignorant anti-liberal comments from readers on this blog in the past, and suddenly they are all offended by the “political” comments in this article because the comments doesn’t jive with their own political leanings?!? GIVE ME A BREAK. You all dish it, but you can’t take it when the shoe is on the other foot, regardless of the article. Talk about a hypocritically thin skin! I don’t disagree with the comments already posted here, but please don’t pretend to detest political tones and references when you all make them, yourselves, on a regular basis for other posts. It’s so juvenile to be offended by the same behavior you exhibit, yourself, simply because it has a different slant than what you agree with.

    April 12th, 2013 10:27 pm Reply
    • Jen

      Thank you Deborah for stating the OBVIOUS. I’ve been thinking the exact same thing reading through these comments. I’ve read plenty of conservative you know what here many times, and keep my mouth shut because this isn’t a political website. I am not surprised in the least to see them all whining now.

      April 13th, 2013 8:07 pm Reply
  • Mary Langbeen via Facebook

    I am a natural family planning teacher. While soy affects fertility, to call a phytoestrogen a liquid birth control, wow! That is an amazing stretch if I’ve ever heard one.

    April 12th, 2013 10:25 pm Reply
  • Darika

    Sarah, I love most of your articles, but can’t support your argument here. Parents are (or should be) responsible for what their babies consume. Why does a company producing soy milk have any obligation to put a warning about babies on their cartons. Soy milk is not a baby food. They are not advertising it as a baby food or as a baby formula.

    As for soy being bad for us…you are right. But the discovery that it is unhealthy is relatively new to society in general. A few years ago it was still being touted as a healthy food, an answer to dairy intolerance, and many other wonderful attributes. And, ignorant people are still buying it!

    Sales keep this stuff on the shelves. When sales are down, maybe Eden Foods will move into a more profitable product line. I do not believe they are TRYing to harm consumers.

    I will certainly NOT boycott Eden Foods for the moral conviction of the CEO. I am somewhat sorry to see you suggesting this course of action to penalize a company for their ethical stance. Someone on FB said: “(Leilani) ….no one is being forced to buy EdenSoy’s products…” and yet Eden Foods is being forced to provide a benefit they feel to be immoral. I hope you re-consider the promotion of a boycott.

    On the other hand, I might applaud you for boycotting them because they continue to produce a line of unhealthy soy products. That would be a much better reason, in my opinion.

    Thanks for all you do to keep us informed.

    April 12th, 2013 10:21 pm Reply
    • watchmom3

      That is a very logical comment. I agree.

      April 13th, 2013 5:19 pm Reply
  • John Shafer via Facebook

    I am concern about the health affects of Soy milk. I think it is being sold as something great when it might have bad health effects. While I support some parts of the affordable health care act, I am concern with the mandated contraceptive because their is a clause that allows a religious test which could be a slippery slope here and I felt that some things needed to be cleaned up or clarified so people would know what was real and what was fake. I don’t find it unreasonable to ask to clarify a law to make sure people know what is in the law. If their is a religious test or any illegal test like literacy tests or a poll tax I find them to be a red flag and I do believe we all have to do our part to not impose any tests that is illegal by the rule of law and the constitution. Those tests and taxes are illegal because it opens the door to abuse. I do love “The Healthy Home Economist” I always look forward to reading articles that you have. :) As a parent of two children, I want them to be healthy. Thank You.

    April 12th, 2013 10:19 pm Reply
  • Melissa Stegall via Facebook

    I don’t understand the fierce opposition to soymilk. I’ve been drinking it for years….have 3 healthy robust children and I’m cancer free!

    April 12th, 2013 10:17 pm Reply
  • Heather Davis via Facebook

    Ditto EVERYONE’S comments. No company should ever be forced to go against their moral convictions, as I won’t be forced to go against mine (vaccines).

    April 12th, 2013 10:15 pm Reply
  • Alexandra Zika via Facebook

    I don’t think this post was as “political” as it was being made out to be. I think her point was that if this guy cares so much about fertility why is he in the business of selling a product that (allegedly?) contributes to infertility.

    April 12th, 2013 10:15 pm Reply
    • Jennifer J

      I agree!

      April 13th, 2013 3:26 pm Reply
  • Faith Kalmoe via Facebook

    Religious conscience objections about birth control are not to the chemical construction of the drugs, but to the intended usage. This comparison is invalid. This is not ironic. It is faulty reasoning. If people were intentionally consuming soy to create a problem with fertility, you -might- have a point. But it would still be stretch. Please reconsider this posting.

    April 12th, 2013 10:15 pm Reply
    • Trudy


      April 15th, 2013 9:31 pm Reply
  • Anna Albert

    A company cannot be blamed for babies dying because their parents chose to give them soy milk. I feel horrible for anyone losing a baby for any reason and can’t imagine losing my son, but I thought everyone knew that you don’t give a baby and type milk (regular, organic, almond, soy, etc.) until they are at least one year old. When you have a baby you are told the importance of breastmilk and/or formula by doctors, nurses, books, etc.

    April 12th, 2013 10:12 pm Reply
  • Angela Aldridge via Facebook

    Well, I was enjoying your site until lately – what’s up with the political statements?

    April 12th, 2013 10:04 pm Reply
  • Camie Davis via Facebook

    CEO is a capitalist. Barry is a communist. Ummm. Now what was your point about evil?

    April 12th, 2013 9:59 pm Reply
  • JAmie SUe GArrard via Facebook

    This is true but no matter no company should have to provide that stuff to their employees!

    April 12th, 2013 9:54 pm Reply
  • Laurie Guthrie via Facebook

    Sounds like more people need to research soy.

    April 12th, 2013 9:54 pm Reply
  • Catherine Monet Granum via Facebook

    everything is connected darling!

    April 12th, 2013 9:53 pm Reply
  • Nick Krancher via Facebook

    The healthcare law is NOT universal healthcare. Many big businesses are already exempt from it. The law does not require an employer to provide insurance for any employee (though starting in 2014, large companies will pay a penalty if a full-time worker gets a public subsidy to buy insurance individually). Nor must an employer who does offer coverage contribute anything toward the premiums. But to take advantage of the small-business tax credits, a business must shoulder at least half of the employees’ premium cost. It does, however require you and me to purchase health insurance, which sucks because I live paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford my rent and now they are hitting me with another expense. Yeah, Obama is so caring and compassionate. His care an compassion are going to drive me into poverty.

    April 12th, 2013 9:53 pm Reply
    • watchmom3

      Well said Nick.

      April 13th, 2013 5:17 pm Reply
  • LIsa G.

    You are comparing oranges to apples. Soy milk is not the same as contraceptives. Soy milk has never been used by any woman as a contraceptive. Can soy milk render you infertile? Without a doubt.

    The soy milk that Eden sells is foul and dangerous for the health of all. As is birth control.

    I applaud Michael Potter for standing up to this ridiculous infringement on our religious freedom in the United States. And I hope that he realizes the product he provides Americans with is dangerous and toxic. Perhaps this a good opportunity to bring it to their attention. Clearly they are concerned with the health of Americans and are very poorly misguided on what food are healthy and what foods are toxic.

    April 12th, 2013 9:52 pm Reply
    • Marissa

      I couldn’t agree more. I think the author of this article has some bias shinning through. Birth control pills are synthetic hormones, clearly not good for anyone.
      I don’t know the facts of this particular case however if it’s like the Hobby Lobby case, they want to deny covering the morning after pill. It is considered birth control under Obamacare. They feel
      it is not and arguably so. If I am business owner it should be MY choice who I cover, what I cover, and if you don’t like it or agree, find a job somewhere else.
      I DO know Salon Magazine isn’t exactly an unbiased news source either.
      I do agree though if you don’t like where they stand, don’t buy it. The company obviously feels passionate enough to label their product with it. I applaud their conviction.

      April 12th, 2013 10:09 pm Reply
  • Yvette Mitjans via Facebook

    Right on, Melissa!

    April 12th, 2013 9:51 pm Reply
  • Dee Ellen via Facebook

    I hope a company CEO stands up against covering vaccinations.

    April 12th, 2013 9:50 pm Reply
    • Jen

      Now that would be awesome!

      April 13th, 2013 7:41 pm Reply
    • Meg

      I am anti-vax, but I would hope that companies would provide comprehensive health care coverage for all employees which are not based on their own personal beliefs so that people with different points of view can be covered for what they feel their needs are, not what their CEO has dictated is acceptable to believe.

      April 15th, 2013 7:30 pm Reply
  • Angela Tebbe via Facebook

    Christine and Leilani pretty much summed up everything I have to say. I’m disappointed in your lack of perspective with this post. Selling food one believes to be healthy (even if it’s not) is just SO not the same thing as being forced to violate one’s moral beliefs.

    April 12th, 2013 9:49 pm Reply
  • Dee Ellen via Facebook

    Well, Nick, isn’t that what Universal healthcare is all about? Not that I agree with all of the details.

    April 12th, 2013 9:48 pm Reply
  • Marcy W.

    What is interesting is that hormonal contraceptives are considered by the World Health Organization to be Class 1 Carcinogens like tobacco and asbestos. Women taking hormone replacement therapy who stopped got lower risks of breast cancer. So the hormones big-pharma pushes are not really good for you. Plus estrogens in hormonal contraceptives, like many other drugs, go into our water supply to affect our daughters and our sons and wildlife. Water treatment does not remove them. We want to get hormones out of milk etc. but women are pumping them into their bodies for years and years. Do you really think trying to fake your body for years to think that it is pregnant is good for it? Also, one of the ways hormonal contraceptives work is to stop implantation of an embryo should it be fertilized. Many people consider this an early termination of their child and it is not acceptable to them. The fact that the government is forcing people to go against their consciences and pay for this should be a wake up call to every citizen, even if you think contraceptives are OK.

    And I don’t understand why EdenSoy would be held liable because people were feeding their babies soy milk? If for some reason they could not breastfeed their pediatrician could recommend what they should give their baby, or they could easily look it up on the internet. I think most people who are vegans are smart enough to do that with something as important as their baby.

    April 12th, 2013 9:46 pm Reply
  • Nick Krancher via Facebook

    Umm… since when is a company required to provide healthcare coverage? Do you even know what you are talking about?

    April 12th, 2013 9:46 pm Reply
  • Erin Bender via Facebook

    This attempted comparison is absurd and shows a gross ignorance of the HHS mandate issue and principled objection to contraception. The fact that the author is a VP at WAPF is concerning.

    April 12th, 2013 9:46 pm Reply
  • Dee Ellen via Facebook

    That being said, I don’t know that Obama really has our best interests in mind lately, since he has chosen not to stand up against GMOs.

    April 12th, 2013 9:45 pm Reply
    • watchmom3

      If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…no, he doesn’t have our interests at heart…I have lived long enough to recognize a shell game when I see it.

      April 13th, 2013 5:16 pm Reply
  • Melissa Stenger Ebbole via Facebook

    Do you support artificial birth control??? How can you rationalize that with your health views? Take morals out of it…. What would Weston Price say about contraception? To me if you are eating raw dairy, whole foods diet and taking the pill you might as well dump some hydrogenated oil on your salad, top it with CAFO beef and sprinkle it with MSG!!!

    April 12th, 2013 9:45 pm Reply
    • jenny


      April 13th, 2013 5:54 pm Reply
  • Holly Harrison via Facebook

    That’s a bit extreme. What’s up with you lately?

    April 12th, 2013 9:44 pm Reply
  • Alisha Hauser via Facebook

    I used to drink soy milk all the time when it was the healthy thing to do. I was going to say more but Christine Ten Eyck Myers said it so well already.

    April 12th, 2013 9:43 pm Reply
  • Shelly ‘Nystrom’ Neuhaus via Facebook

    I agree with melissa…your views lately are going to make you loose lots of fans, including myself…

    April 12th, 2013 9:43 pm Reply
  • Tonya Scarborough via Facebook

    I admire the fact that he has principles, even though he doesn’t know it all. And none of us do. He stands up for his principles – good. You educate people about the evils of soy – good. Trying to shame people and make them look foolish instead of teaching with love is an evil in the world.

    April 12th, 2013 9:40 pm Reply
  • Dee Ellen via Facebook

    The point is, if you run a company that is required to provide healthcare coverage, do you get to pick and chose what you cover? Is iit a church or a food company?

    April 12th, 2013 9:40 pm Reply
    • Jennifer J

      Exactly, Dee Ellen!

      April 13th, 2013 3:21 pm Reply
    • Mary Beth

      I agree, there are all kinds of things that are covered by health care that I might find obnoxious or unnecessary, but those are discussions and decisions to be made between a patient and their doctor. Birth Control pills are used for other kinds of hormonal problems, and should be covered like any other medically sanctioned medication or procedure. If someone has a personal belief that taking birth control is wrong, they should not use birth control.

      April 13th, 2013 4:06 pm Reply
    • Trud

      “Do you get to pick and chose what you cover?” Yeah, you should, if one of those things forces you to ignore your conscience and violate your Constitutionally protected religious freedom. Should he be forced to pay for abortions if it goes against his conscience? How about euthanasia? Maybe he should pay for my boob job! Let’s not even get into the issue of why he should be required to provide ANY healthcare coverage. What gives the federal government the right to force somebody to buy anything? Not to mention the fact that, as I’m sure many readers of this blog are keenly aware, modern”healthcare” isn’t really doing much to care for our health: quite the opposite.

      What kind of messed up way of thinking must someone have to think that the perfectly healthy state of fertility needs to be chemically suppressed and that doing so is caring for their health? Oh yeah, and somebody else should have to pay for it for them.

      April 13th, 2013 5:02 pm Reply
      • Dawn

        Ok, none of my employees get chemo or radiation if they face cancer. I am philosophically opposed to chemotherapy and radiation and Big Pharma’s lies about them, so anyone who works for me and gets cancer will just have to go on a raw food diet or something, or they can quit and try to find work elsewhere.

        Abortion and euthanasia are not healthcare, except when a mother’s life is threatened by her fetus, for example in an ectopic pregnancy. That’s why they are not covered. Boob jobs, ditto. In contrast, birth control however has many medical uses besides actual birth control.

        Maybe I should ban my employees from buying condoms or alcohol with their salary? Since I get to tell people what they can do with the benefits they earned by working for me, why can’t I dictate how they can use the salary they earned by working for me too?

        April 14th, 2013 10:57 pm Reply
        • mysticrose

          >Maybe I should ban my employees from buying condoms or alcohol with their salary?

          He’s not “banning” his employees from buying anything, He’s just not willing to pay for their contraception. They are perfectly free to buy it themselves. Let’s not confuse the issue here; no one is banning anyone from buying anything.

          Also, some forms of “birth control” are actually abortifacient since they don’t prevent fertilization of the ovum but do prevent the zygote from attaching to the uterine wall, So people who oppose abortion would not want to pay for abortifacient drugs.

          April 24th, 2013 7:52 am Reply
    • Jason

      The problem is, contraception ISN’T “healthcare”. It is an elective choice made by someone who doesn’t want to have a baby. A baby isn’t a disease, and contraception certainly doesn’t “cure” anything. It is in fact, VERY unhealthy. Unless you consider carcinogens to be healthy. “The pill” has long been known to sometimes CAUSE the abortion of a human being by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg. To those who think that someone who opposes artificial contraception and abortion is “out of touch” or “old fashoined”, I’d point out that Science has confirmed that the moment of conception is when a completely new, unique, and UNREPEATABLE human being is formed when the DNA from the father and the DNA from the mother combines to form a new DNA. You, and I, and every person in this debate was “formed” at the moment of our conception. That’s when we became who we are. Everything about us is written in our DNA. I’d say THAT is the point. God bless you.

      April 13th, 2013 6:28 pm Reply
      • Trudy

        Hear, hear!

        April 13th, 2013 6:41 pm Reply
      • Jen

        Jason, for some medical conditions contraception IS healthcare. It is used in the treatment of some medical conditions, and not just to prevent pregnancy. This is a fact.

        April 13th, 2013 7:36 pm Reply
        • SKH

          True, and even Catholic companies will cover this if it is for a healthcare purpose… something that people are lying about everyday.

          April 19th, 2013 2:47 pm Reply
    • Jen


      April 13th, 2013 7:32 pm Reply
  • Melissa Stenger Ebbole via Facebook

    This is s stretch! I think you maybe losing your edge. You have great information and a great opportunity to reach a vast audience. I am not understanding your motivation here and it seems you are losing perspective lately.

    April 12th, 2013 9:40 pm Reply
  • Shelly ‘Nystrom’ Neuhaus via Facebook

    Yes, I think its great what he is doing. I dont think these 2 things you are comparing have any correlation and I am not interested in political crap, just give me info on health thanks! Keep your political views out of it, not everyone who follows your page believes the same as you on this.

    April 12th, 2013 9:39 pm Reply
    • Dawn

      This site has always posted political articles. At least once a week, in fact…

      April 14th, 2013 10:50 pm Reply
  • Shelly ‘Nystrom’ Neuhaus via Facebook

    Yes, I think its great what he is doing. I dont think these 2 things you are comparing have any correlation and I am not interested in political crap, just give me info on health thanks! Keep your political views out of it, not everyone who follows your page believes the same as you on this.

    April 12th, 2013 9:39 pm Reply
  • Dylan N Laina Standard via Facebook

    Probably a large group of your readers are not liberals. Kudos to Eden foods for your position on birth control. One of the main reasons I care about nutrition is because I value LIFE. I would argue that to support this administration and claim to value health would be more inconsistent than Eden foods.

    April 12th, 2013 9:38 pm Reply
    • rj


      April 13th, 2013 11:27 am Reply
    • Jen

      I think you would be surprised at how many liberals 100% support real food, raw milk and quality nutrition. And yes, that means we read this website.

      April 13th, 2013 7:30 pm Reply
  • Teresa Kilpatrick via Facebook


    April 12th, 2013 9:36 pm Reply
  • A Daily Dose of Grace via Facebook

    I’m going to intentionally purchase more Eden products. Thanks for the tip! 😉

    April 12th, 2013 9:36 pm Reply
  • Holly Delahaye via Facebook

    Seriously?! This is ridiculous. The company should have the liberty to sell what they want (no one forces people to buy soy) and also be able to act as their morals and beliefs dictate.

    April 12th, 2013 9:35 pm Reply
  • Rachel Guida via Facebook

    Wait Eden soy is a birth control? Hmm and I thaught natural family planning was working…. Hmmpfff. Never took a birth control pill and drinking soy had not effected my hormones according to blood tests but if Eden soy is helping me not get pregnant ( as ignorant as it may sound) then I’m all for it!

    April 12th, 2013 9:35 pm Reply
  • Kaylyn Lybeck via Facebook

    You can’t really compare the two….people are free to consume unhealthy food if they desire and people should also be free to act in accord with their conscience.

    April 12th, 2013 9:34 pm Reply
  • Jennifer McInnis via Facebook

    Couldn’t have said it better myself Christine. Thank you.

    April 12th, 2013 9:34 pm Reply
  • Nick Krancher via Facebook

    I recently liked this page because I thought it was about health, not a springboard for politics. Who cares if the guy believes contraception is evil, is he not allowed or do liberals only believe that people who agree with them are “good?” What happened to celebrate diversity?

    April 12th, 2013 9:31 pm Reply
    • jwh

      I am very disappointed that The Healthy Home Economist would even post this story.

      I joined WAPF a little over a year ago. During that time, I recall an article in their journal that nonchalantly tossed around the merits of birth control. This is puzzling. This is an organization that prides itself on health consciousness, but it will not address the fact that oral contraceptives are all class 1 carcinogens.

      It is little known that women died in the first trials of oral contraceptives. The fix was to lower the dosage.

      I agree, Nick. If this firm wants to take a stand, let them. This is hardly a Republican or right wing belief. Is there a moral equivalence between food choice and the owner’s belief that contraception is evil? Hardly.

      April 13th, 2013 3:44 pm Reply
  • Patricia Deckert via Facebook

    “…in brief, protesters are not pleased by Eden’s pursuit of a right-wing ideological agenda…” Can we stop with the “right-wing ideological agenda” phrase? ugh…

    April 12th, 2013 9:31 pm Reply
  • Katie Gray via Facebook

    Thank you Christine for stating that so eloquently.

    April 12th, 2013 9:30 pm Reply
  • Lori Jax via Facebook


    April 12th, 2013 9:28 pm Reply
  • Christine Ten Eyck Myers via Facebook

    What the linked article fails to recognize is that to people who believe life begins at conception, birth control pills are a direct attack on life, because all chemical birth control has a mode of action that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. So to him, providing coverage is participating in a couple’s direct decision to attack human life. While I believe soy is definitely bad and affects fertility, that’s not why people drink it. Further, a lot of people in the health food industry don’t agree soy is unhealthy. This guy is obviously one of them. The attempt to equate the two things is ridiculous.

    April 12th, 2013 9:25 pm Reply
    • Patricia

      Needing a ‘like’ button here! You nailed it, Christine. I wish I drank soy milk because I would buy some to support him. I don’t believe it is good for me, but he has the right to sell it just as much as McDonald’s has the right to sell icky burgers and traditional producers have the right to sell healthy food. We should also have the right to our religious freedom.

      April 12th, 2013 10:42 pm Reply
      • MelissaM


        April 12th, 2013 10:47 pm Reply
      • Kim

        So well put. I don’t eat or drink soy, but I’d buy Edensoy just to support their position. Wonder if the author had called for a boycott of these products before they decided to stand up for the freedom of religion and life.

        April 12th, 2013 11:15 pm Reply
        • June

          Agree as well. And where is the outrage for the doctor on trial for murdering living human beings by snipping the spinal cord from the head.

          April 13th, 2013 11:10 am Reply
          • Kendall

            AGREED!!! It’s so funny that people demand to have freedom, even religious freedom but insist that if what they believe is different from the next person then the next person should not be able to continue on with their religious beliefs. How are you allowing freedom if you only allow it within your specific context? I do not consume soy, but would buy this product just to support religious freedom!

            April 13th, 2013 3:45 pm
          • watchmom3

            I have to say that when I have read anything about that doctor and how he murdered those babies, I feel sick to my stomach. I can not imagine hearing the “dying cries” of these precious human beings… I almost can’t get my mind wrapped around what he did. It is like Nazi Germany. I am outraged…and also stunned almost beyond belief. Horrible.

            April 13th, 2013 5:12 pm
          • Mark

            June- While I agree your story about the doctor is horrendous, where was abortion mentioned in this article? The doctor you wrote about is not mentioned in this blog either. Why on earth would you expect the readers of the above blog to express outrage in this comments section over something that wasn’t even mentioned in this blog? Contraception does not equal abortion.
            I have been Roman Catholic all 49 years of my life. I attended Catholic school until my sophmore year in high school (yes I regret transferring to public school, but don’t tell my parents). I have prayed the rosary in front of abortion clinics. So yes, I’m pretty devout. I know the difference between contraception and abortion, and this story was not about abortion.
            I will be boycotting Eden foods! That is correct. I WILL BE boycotting Eden foods.

            April 16th, 2013 3:37 pm
          • trudy


            As a practicing Catholic, you should be well aware of the Church’s position on abortion AND contraception. You should also know that the birth control pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera, the morning after pill, and others are all abortifacients. This is not an opinion of the church; this is a scientific fact.

            April 17th, 2013 6:16 pm
    • Tasha L.

      Well said.

      April 13th, 2013 12:59 am Reply
    • Trudy

      I completely agree. I’m a devout Roman Catholic with Libertarian political views. Forcing a business owner to pay for birth control pills is wrong on so many levels. What a ridiculous comparison!

      April 13th, 2013 1:07 am Reply
      • Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist

        This is not about birth control or Obamacare. It is about corporate hypocrisy. What the Eden Foods CEO believes is fine of course and his right to sue the Obama Administration over a conflict with his views it totally appropriate. The point of this article is to point out the hypocrisy between what he is touting via the lawsuit and the health robbing, infertility promoting type of products his company sells.

        April 13th, 2013 9:02 am Reply
        • June

          Sarah, I don’t believe you expected other points-of-view to differ with you. Your argument is weak for why you wanted to point out this hypocrisy.

          April 13th, 2013 11:13 am Reply
          • Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist

            It’s not my argument. I didn’t write this post. And, as someone from the South who is fairly right wing and was raised a Roman Catholic, I was not at all offended by Kaayla’s language.

            April 13th, 2013 11:30 am
          • EC

            It is on your blog, not hers so you have given the post some measure of endorsement. (And you are, of course, free to do so.)

            Consider this – would you replace “Catholic” with “Orthodox Jewish” or “Muslim” without changing any of the descriptives?

            I am in one of the most so called liberal and unchurched areas in the nation. However, the Catholics who practice their faith here are by far the most truly liberal insofar as being tolerant and accepting of others – you can do this and not agree with someone.

            It’s not about where you are from, but about conditioning. It’s about the fact that Catholic bashing is still an accepted form of discrimination in the US.

            April 13th, 2013 1:06 pm
        • Jason

          Sarah, I refer many to your blog for the W.A.P.F. nutrition information, but this article is DEFINATELY about birth control.

          “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.”

          April 13th, 2013 11:18 am Reply
        • Brian Byrne

          You did make it about birth control & Obamacare (and Catholic teaching) as did Eden Foods:

          “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.”

          This site is enjoyed by this Catholic reader as one source to help keep my family healthy and informed about food and nutrition, consistent with Weston Price & Nourishing Traditions. Strange it would advocate for government imposed employer financing of any and all means of birth control, largely comprised of unnatural methods of chemical fertility regulation that can also act secondarily as an abortifacient, and are often accompanied by other serious health risks…

          It does seem rather inconsistent with a food philosophy that respects traditional, natural foods, prepared in traditional, natural ways, going the extra mile, spending more time preparing foods properly, locating healthy, often pricey, organic foods to avoid unnecessary chemicals, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, and genetically modified products, and then advocate, when it comes to birth control, for regularly ingesting chemicals and hormones, many of which are not recommended when breastfeeding, and have been linked to environmental concerns, identified in our water supply and freshwater fish species. In the US, hermaphrodite fish are not at all uncommon now.



          Pax et bonum

          April 13th, 2013 11:19 am Reply
          • mysticrose

            Thank you, Brian. Birth control pills are anything but natural and healthy. They generally contain synthetic estrogen and progesterone. They interfere with the natural female fertility cycle, short-circuiting the normal hormonal process in the body by the addition of unnecessary extra artificial hormones. The Pill can also alter the normal mineral balance in the human body.and deplete Vitamin B6 and folic acid. If anything, the owner of Eden Foods is doing his employees a favor by not paying for them to get this poison purveyed by Big Pharma.

            Oh, and he’s not pushing an “agenda,” he’s trying to live by what he believes. if he said he didn’t believe in birth control because it’s unnatural and we should only be putting natural things into our bodies, would you be as up-in-arms about that?

            April 13th, 2013 8:32 pm
          • Roxanne Rieske

            The thing is…it’s not his place to make decisions about birth control for his employees. I’m not Catholic, or Christian, and religious freedom includes the right not to live under the religious mandates that I don’t agree with. If you don’t agree w/ the use of birth control, then don’t use it, and guide your children in that direction if you so wish. Nobody else has the right to make that decision for me.

            Thankfully, I live in a state (Colorado) where birth control coverage is absolutely mandatory in prescription drug coverage. Nobody is giving it to me for free, but at least I only have to pay a $10 co-pay for it. Unfortunately, my insurance plan is a “Grandfathered plan,” so it doesn’t have to adhere to the Birth Control Mandate. I have this belief of not over populating the Earth w/ unwanted children, and I intend to exercise that right fully! Thank you very much.

            April 15th, 2013 12:31 pm
          • CMMOM

            Poor logic Roxanne. He is not stopping his employees from obtaining birth control; just refusing to pay for it. Two very different things.

            April 15th, 2013 4:10 pm
          • mysticrose

            >If you don’t agree w/ the use of birth control, then don’t use it

            I don’t use it. Never have; I use modern, natural methods of family planning which are highly effective and only have three kids. So even though I don’t buy into the overpopulation propaganda I’m still not “overpopulating the planet.”

            And Eden Foods is not making decisions about birth control for its employees. As CMMOM points out, they are just refusing to foot the bill for it, which is very different. If the employees want to give some of their hard-earned money to Big Pharma so they can poison their bodies with artificial hormones, they’re free to do that. I don’t recommend it but this is America. I’m sure they don’t want conservative Christians telling them what they can do in their bedrooms, but they are demanding that conservative Christians pay for the pills and devices they use in their bedrooms? That strikes me as inconsistent.

            April 23rd, 2013 9:44 am
        • Kelly the Kitchen Kop

          I agree on the hypocrisy, and it’s obvious that Michael Potter needs to be educated about the dangers of soy, but what I took offense to was the tone of the post in which his views are portrayed as part of a “right-wing ideological agenda and its espousal of Catholic church teachings on the evils of contraception.”

          If the real issue is that he needs to stop selling soy products, why include the slams against the beliefs of his, and my, faith?


          April 13th, 2013 11:26 am Reply
          • Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist

            Why do people get so offended all the time? I just don’t get it. Kaayla’s language didn’t offend me at all and I was raised Catholic and am a conservative as well.

            April 13th, 2013 11:32 am
          • EC

            Nearly all processed foods contains soy and I am sure EVERY company can be found to have some kind of hypocrisy. Yet the exercising of religious freedom is singled out here.

            ” . . . 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 . . . ” is a pretty offensive way of putting it.

            I really encourage you to ask your readers why they find it offensive so you can get to know a portion of your readers better. I find this article offensive yet I am not “offended all the time,” but rarely so. I don’t eat or drink soy but I support Eden all the way.

            April 13th, 2013 11:59 am
          • CMMOM

            Sarah, I have enjoyed your logical and to the point stance in the past and I would love to hear your thoughts after reading through all of the comments posted here. I think you are way off the mark on this one, and although you did not write the article you do support the illogical comparison of apples to oranges. I am going to use your article as a critical thinking exercise for my teenage daughter, who loves your blog by the way.

            April 14th, 2013 10:12 am
        • Andrew

          Actually, Sarah, Kaayla’s article _is_ clearly slanted–with an emphasis on the negative reaction to Potter’s suit — hence all the negative comments. We applaud his fight over this issue of liberty: to not be forced to provide a service you disagree with. We like many Eden products including organic popcorn, unsweetened coconut, etc. We’ll certainly keep supporting his company.

          April 13th, 2013 12:10 pm Reply
        • Trudy

          Hi, Sarah and Kaayla. I would like to make a point, that while I am not “offended” per se, I find that the article was more about birth control and less about corporate hypocrisy than perhaps was intended. The lawsuit is over religious freedom. The article even says, “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.’”

          If he were suing on the basis that contraception is unhealthy, then I can see where there would be some hypocrisy, and it would make much more sense to compare it with the fact that his soy milk products are unhealthy.

          Furthermore, the fact that he is taking a stand against the government makes me want to support him by buying his products, not boycotting them. Of course, I’m not going to be buying soy milk, but I can’t help but feel that the government is at least partially to blame for the fact that so many misinformed people do. I fight for my right to buy raw milk (which the government says I can’t), but I should also have the right to buy soy milk or even smoke marijuana. I also should have the right to live my daily life without being forced to commit a mortal sin. Michael Potter has that same rights and the fact that he is standing up for his rights makes me see him as an ally and not an enemy.

          Let’s hope that he becomes better informed on soy, and let’s hope that when that happens he has the moral conviction to adjust his marketing to be more in line with health instead of demand. Let’s NOT punish him for providing a product that many people want on the grounds that he should be responsible for how these people use the product or because he doesn’t view providing this product as the same as being forced to commit a sin.

          April 13th, 2013 1:42 pm Reply
          • Maureen

            Hear, hear Trudy….well said.

            April 13th, 2013 11:30 pm
        • Judy

          Sarah, I am sure if he actually KNEW the truth about soy, he might phase the product out, perhaps get fermented soy products going instead. The trouble is, people have been so brainwashed by the soy industry! I have lots of friends who suffered infertility, but when I point out about soy, they call me nuts.

          April 13th, 2013 2:45 pm Reply
        • Emily

          First: she made it about Obamacare with this quote:
          “…in brief, protesters are not pleased by Eden’s pursuit of a right-wing ideological agenda…

          And Sarah, I don’t think you’re really hearing your readers. Not only is the “I am not offended and I was raised Catholic” poorly reasoned, but it’s haughty by making your beliefs and feelings the common denominator (ie If I’m not offended, so therefor, why are you?). Furthermore, With all due respect, you described yourself as someone who “was raised Catholic.” Can you understand the difference of reading the article with a viewpoint of someone who has continued to learn and understand and practice their Faith? Who sees these truths as beautiful and from God and holds them in their heart?

          Also, I find it fascinating that the article written (and comments) are so anti-soy are so convinced in themselves. I am a natural foods/whole foods eater and was healed of nasty, severe eczema (after many, many other natural and convential methods failed) through taking Shaklee Vitamins and SHaklee Soy Protein! I researched the soy question myself as was not convinced by the WAPF “soy is unhealthy” position.
          I believe it was sensational and unreasonable to compare soy milk to a lab-produced class one carcinogen. Seriously. I’ll delve deeper- those soy isoflavones have been shown to actually prevent the seriously dangerous, ie cancer causing xeno-estrogens (hmm, actually, that is what a birth control pill is!) from settling in the cell receptor sites. Of course, it is important that soy is non gmo and is produced well (low heat, etc.) but I get frustrated when people blanket soy as bad.

          April 23rd, 2013 10:34 pm Reply
      • Dawn

        The owner is not paying for birth control pills. He is paying for health insurance for his employees, just like he pays their salaries. It is none of an employers business what an employee does with their salary and benefits.

        If I am philosophically opposed to chemotherapy (and I am), should I be able to deny my employees health insurance that covers chemo? Cause it’s the same thing as denying them birth control based on philosophical beliefs.

        It’s none of my business with what my employees do with the benefits they EARNED, no matter what my religion or philosophy. I do not have a right to force my beliefs down their throats.

        April 14th, 2013 10:48 pm Reply
        • Meg


          April 15th, 2013 11:53 am Reply
        • Meg

          EXACTLY! IMO, he is using his own personal beliefs to avoid having to provide health care insurance funding to employees.

          April 15th, 2013 11:54 am Reply
          • CMMOM

            Birth control is not health care! As an owner of HIS own company in a free country, he should be free to decide what benefits he offers and if a potential employee doesn’t like it they can go somewhere else. He is not stopping anyone from obtaining birth control, just refusing to pay for it.

            April 15th, 2013 4:14 pm
          • Megan

            Well who defines health care then? In my plan it can be anything from dental care to chiropractic care or massage therapy! Some people use ‘birth control pills’ for health reasons and not birth control. Is it health care then? Is it only health care if it treats an ailment? Just curious who gets to define that.

            My point is really that I believe he is just using this as a platform to put more $$ in his pocket and claiming that it is for a moral reason. Isn’t that what so many corporations do?

            April 15th, 2013 7:23 pm
          • Trudy


            Do you really think he is just trying to save himself money? Lawsuits are not cheap. You know what is? Birth control. Oh yeah, and if he does NOT provide this coverage, he will be penalized with very high fines. That’s certainly not cheap.

            April 15th, 2013 9:19 pm
          • Lisa G

            Megan – what about the tons of customers he lost by standing by his moral convictions. This was definitely not about the money!

            April 15th, 2013 9:40 pm
          • CMMOM

            The problem is that the government is redefining words all of the time. Our country is slipping into decline over semantics and people are going along with it! My common sense tells me that birth control is just what the label defines.

            April 17th, 2013 8:45 am
        • Trudy

          Well, our constitution doesn’t safeguard against government interference with philosophies. It does, however, do that with regards to religion. He’s not saying that he doesn’t want to pay that based on just a general dislike of birth control. He’s saying that FORCING him to pay for it (yes, paying for an insurance policy that covers birth control is paying for birth control) violates his Constitutionally protected rights.

          “It’s none of my business with what my employees do with the benefits they EARNED, no matter what my religion or philosophy.” It is none of your business what your employees do with their benefits earned, but it is your business what you pay them, and he doesn’t want to pay in birth control benefits.

          How do you not see that the government should in no way force someone to violate their religious beliefs? How do you not see that the government should in no way interfere with a business owner’s right to enter into a private contract? He should hire whomever he chooses and pay whatever he chooses if that person is willing to voluntarily enter into that contract. If they aren’t, then he can hire someone who is.

          April 15th, 2013 11:56 am Reply
        • Lisa G.

          Do you not understand fully how health coverage works? Michael Potter is paying out of his pocket, from the funds of the company HE OWNS, for health coverage as a benefit to his employees. It is called a benefit. He chose the health coverage company and the benefit package for his employees because he is fronting the money! Then the employee pays into that same package with their money. Two contributors.

          If he is opposed to birth control for religious reasons, it is within his constitutional right not have to pay for them. The employees can use lots of options to pay for them on their own! They can use the pre-tax medications fund most companies have or they can use their own salary – their hard earned money that can be used for whatever they please! But HIS money is his and he is within his rights to have a conviction and stand for it.

          By the same token, those upset by Eden’s political stance can use their hard-earned money to spend it elsewhere. No one is forcing them to buy Eden products or prohibiting them from buying products. Because the money is 100% theirs alone.

          The healthcare coverage comes from Potter. He is within his rights.

          April 15th, 2013 12:26 pm Reply
    • abigail

      I totally agree. This a bogus straw man’s argument. Let’s face it-the soy issue “It’s bad for you because It causes infertility” is not a science based and excepted concept recognized in Health and Medicine. I believe that we Have the Right to Religious Freedom and our Legislature doesn’t have the Right to take that away from us. There are already 234 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control) why increase that number? Lives should be saved not taken!!

      April 13th, 2013 10:58 am Reply
  • Leilani Luna via Facebook

    The difference is no one is being forced to buy EdenSoy’s products.

    April 12th, 2013 9:24 pm Reply
    • Bonnie

      Great point, Leilani!!

      April 13th, 2013 10:52 am Reply
      • AmandaonMaui

        No one is being forced to buy birth control either.

        April 13th, 2013 5:49 pm Reply
        • Trudy


          Huh?? Business owners are. MIchael Potter is.

          April 13th, 2013 10:45 pm Reply
          • Dawn

            Actually, it’s none of his business what his employees do with their salary and benefits. They earned them for their labor.

            April 14th, 2013 10:40 pm
          • etr

            business owners are being forced to buy coverage for something they don’t believe in. Potter is still providing insurance he just doesn’t want to provide it for something that goes against his beliefs.
            The following quotes are from an article by simcha-fisher.
            “Hormonal contraceptives contribute significantly to water pollution. Ethinyl estradiol, the active ingredient in most birth control pills, is very difficult to remove from wastewater, and so it infiltrates waterways, causing disastrous mutations in fish and other wildlife.
            Oral contracpetives are classified as one of only about 100 Class 1 carcinogens, substances known to cause cancer in humans. Some forms of contraceptive double the user’s risk for cancer.
            Michael Potter, the founder and CEO of the popular, 45-year-old organic foods company Eden Foods, does not want to be forced to pay for his employees’ water-polluting, cancer-causing contraceptives.”
            –I would say he is practicing what he believes. I think he may not know how detrimental soy it though. Instead of boycotting him because he sells soy, let him know how bad it is. He doesn’t only sell soy.

            April 22nd, 2013 11:00 am
    • Judy

      Exactly. There are plenty of companies who support birth control and abortion. The left calls Catholics such as myself “intolerant”. The author’s “tolerance” is amazing, isn’t it?

      April 13th, 2013 2:41 pm Reply
      • RosalindaL


        April 15th, 2013 1:31 pm Reply
    • Beth

      Wow! It really seems like Dr Kayla has some animosity towards Eden. The article is written in such a tone. I think calling the owner a hypocrite is bunk, and that the comparison Dr Kayla makes doesn’t even make sense.

      This article just convinced me to buy as much of Eden’s food products as much as I possibly can. I’ll even order it off of Amazon by the caseload and put as many of my dollars into Eden from now on. We don’t eat/drink much soy, but Eden has other products we can eat. I’m sooooo proud of the owner for the stand he’s taking.

      April 14th, 2013 12:49 am Reply
      • Lynn

        Beth – yes, I AGREE!!!! Whoever wrote this article does not seem like they care about their rights for freedom. I’m going to use as much Eden products as I can also, they’re a great company! =)

        So thanks to the author who posted this – I hadn’t heard about this yet, but I love supporting people like the man from Eden!

        April 14th, 2013 9:54 am Reply
    • Sean

      Nobody is forced to buy birth control. They are forced to buy insurance. I am forced to pay for MANY things I do not want. I do not want a road widened in my neighborhood, but I pay for it. I do not believe in the death penalty and yet I am forced to pay for it. The Muslim religion forbids debt, but they can not fire somebody who has a mortgage, or has debt or uses debt. The money is used to pay for insurance that is MANDATORY. WHat employees do with it, is up to them.

      April 16th, 2013 7:31 pm Reply
  • Stephanie Burke via Facebook


    April 12th, 2013 9:22 pm Reply

Leave a Comment