?

Log in

No account? Create an account
on brand identity - The year was 2081 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
matt

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

on brand identity [Jan. 25th, 2007|07:05 pm]
matt
One of the difficult things about relocating to the west coast is losing all your brands: No more Carolina rice- have to buy Mahatma. No more Hellmann's- have to buy Best Foods. It's a bit of a shock, all in all. I think losing "your" brands is just a way to put into tangible words the otherwise hard-to-voice sense of loss of your roots, not because things are necessarily "different", but because you wind up feeling a little different.

On the whole, I've happily switched to Challenge butter- the taste is pretty good- but apparently I totally missed out on this (NSFW) aspect of Land-O-Lakes, even though I've used it all my life, more or less.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: mactavish
2007-01-26 05:07 am (UTC)
I've always loved the Best Foods/ Hellman's thing. The first time I ever visited the east coast, I went looking for mayonnaise so I could look for "Known as Best Foods west of the Rockies" on the label.

Clover and California Gold butters are both made from milk from the smaller dairies on the hillsides of Sonoma, Marin, and El Dorado counties. I try to use those when I can. The cows aren't standing in their own poo.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hbergeronx
2007-01-26 06:53 pm (UTC)
Clover has one "good" thing going for it, in my opinion: it doesn't use rZnBST. Having become intimately acquainted with the manufacturer, whose testing facilities I was stationed at for much of the fall of 2005, is enough to give me the willies.

That said, in principle I am not opposed to genetic engineering and as a sort of firm "having to take a philosophical stand on things" and trying to separate the sort of ad-hominem type "i don't like how so-and-so makes this" to general "things made by such and such a process or protocol are OK", and in part because I feel that my stand on the consumption of genetically engineered products is in the minority, it's important to some extent that I eat by my own words.

Therefore, it comes down to things like price, taste, shelf life, and nutritional content. Non-engineered products have lower yields than engineered ones (there's no incentive to use engineering, which adds to cost, if it doesnt increase yield in a greater-than-compensatory way to profit, barring government interference), therefore a given pound of butter is less cruel (uses fewer animals) than organic provided the engineering does not inflict incremental cruelty (which in the case of butter is not what I have observed, directly or through evidence, and by no means am I the average 'blind' customer). The taste and nutritional content is mostly indistinguishable (Challenge European-style butter has more milkfat so it tastes creamier) and the price is comparable (organic tends to be slightly more pricey, though on occasion this is not the case and that tilts the argument again).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)