I tried it but they roast their bean and that gets rid on the good stuff in them. taste good but still missing that health side

Reply

Not sure what you've reported is completely accurate. There are 2 different companies. Newman's Own is the company that Paul Newman began with a friend and the one that has donated over $200 MILLION to charities.

The second company, Newman's Own Organics is owned by his daughter and, I believe she is the primary beneficiary of it -- as well she is entitled to be not making millions with a career in film as her father does. Part of the proceeds of Newman's Own Organics may, in fact, go to charities as well.

My point is that these things are distinct companies with different business plans and palates though they are related by the relationship between father and daughter.

Meanwhile, cheers to Paul for his generosity and culinary & business savvy! My kids' school was one of the minor beneficiaries for years and may still be. Meanwhile, what he's done for seriously ill children for more than a decade is truly remarkable and will be as much a testament to him as his filmography.

Reply

Rainey, if you have reported correctly, then I have a concern about the Newman offspring's use of the name "Newman's Own," in whole or in part. Much has been made of Newman's Own practice of philanthropy, and it must be argued that many people buy these products based on that principle. Allowing anyone, even a daughter, to use that appellation without continuing that principle smells of bait and switch (pun intended). I am unfamiliar with who operates what part of which company and who contributes how much to charity, so I withhold judgment here.

However, I now rarely use any Newman products. Some of Newman's Own original products were excellent. Recently, I have found most to be lacking both in flavor and in avoidance of unnecessary fillers and unpleasant ingredients such high fructose corn syrup. There are many products with better flavors and shorter ingredient lists.

Reply

I recall recently buying a 'Newmans Own' sparkling juice drink that had a big happy label on the front that read "No High Fructose Corn Syrup". It was very tasty, however, later I looked at the back of the bottle and HFCS was the #2 ingredient. E-mails to their customer service went unanswered. I thought that this was amazingly shady for such a large company, and have since, not been able to bring myself to purchase anything made by them. Does anyone know about the laws for that kind of 'false advertising'?

Reply

I'm sorry I don't know how to get specific reliable info but I do remember reading the story years ago that his daughter wanted him to go in an organic direction shortly after the company got underway. I think it said (we're relying on a very old and creaky memory here) that he was reluctant to change something that was giving evidence of taking off. So she made a completely organic Thanksgiving meal for the family to make her case. At that point, he gave her a blessing to start her own operation under the umbrella of his, now, successful food operation.

As I understand it, those items have the addition of the word "Organic" in the company name and the photo of father and daughter rather than the illustration of Paul on the label. And the income from that division is her primary source of income. ...everybody's got to make a living.

Wish I knew how to research financial information to ensure accuracy. But this is what I've read.

Reply

I do not begrudge Ms. Newman an income. I would however, take umbrage at her deceitfully capitalizing on her father's reputation as a philanthropist. Her website does not indicate that she is continuing her father's good deeds, but does repeat several times, that "Paul Newman has given over $200 million to thousands of charities worldwide since 1982." If in fact her company does not match his giving, she is being flat out deceitful.

Reply

I found this kind of buried in the general FAQ on the N.O.O. site:

Where can I send my Grant information?
Newman's Own Organics does not make charitable donations. All grants have been made by Paul Newman personally to fund non-profit organizations with a 501c(3) designation from the IRS. If you would like to inquire about a grant you may write to: Office of Paul Newman Dept. ORG Colonial Green 246 Post Road East Westport, Connecticut 06880

And this on the Newman's Own (original company) site:

Paul Newman and the Newman’s Own Foundation donate all profits and royalties after taxes for educational and charitable purposes. Paul Newman and the Newman’s Own Foundation have given over $200 million to thousands of charities worldwide since l982. The Newman's Own Foundation makes grants to charities within the United States and abroad.

She does reference her father's giving on the Organic's site, but it also states that the Organic's products are a division of the parent company. It's muddy at best and deceitful at worst - people counting on the integrity of the company(s) would be better served by them being as transparent as possible about where consumer dollars really end up. Giving the impression they've been pulling the wool over people's eyes is a sure way to lose the good faith that's been built around the brand in a hurry.

Reply

Whoa! I thought it was worth sharing the fact that there's an arm's length distance and that people could expect different products made to a different palate, but "deceitful" is a hard word that makes me sorry I brought it up. The woman has a right to earn a living!

My point was only that people should buy what they enjoy and know that when they buy Newman's Own they're helping contribute in an important way to very productive charities and a movement toward responsible corporate culture and when they buy Newman's Own Organic it's the quality of the product that counts.

Enron this is NOT. And I guess that's as much as I have to say about this topic. Sorry if bringing it up was a negative.

Reply

Whoa! I thought it was worth sharing the fact that there's an arm's length distance and that people could expect different products made to a different palate, but "deceitful" is a hard word that makes me sorry I brought it up. The woman has a right to earn a living!

My point was only that people should buy what they enjoy and know that when they buy Newman's Own they're helping contribute in an important way to very productive charities and a movement toward responsible corporate culture and when they buy Newman's Own Organic it's the quality of the product that counts.

Enron this is NOT. And I guess that's as much as I have to say about this topic. Sorry if bringing it up was a regrettable idea.

Reply

It was not regrettable, Rainey. It was enlightening, and I thank you. As I agreed, she does have a right to make living, but she is, in fact, doing so deceitfully. She chose to name her company in such a fashion that it would be confused with her father's, which is known no less for its philanthropy than its products. She repeatedly refers to that philanthropy on her own website. Yet never attempts to make clear that her business model is entirely different. As an out and out capitalist, I begrudge no one the monies they make honestly. Many may buy Newman's Own Organic products for their palatability and to satisfy their own social purpose. But I find her marketing to be deliberately deceitful. And that is the most unpalatable thing of all.

Reply

I'm not implying in any way that it's not acceptable for her to earn her income from these products, only that it seems purposely unclear that her profits are NOT forwarded to charities. Consumers have a right to use their spending power, such as it is these days, to support companies whose belief structure aligns with theirs, and even to use that spending as a form of donation (I'm not talking tax-write-off stuff). If her company is strictly for-profit, then the consumer should know that so that they may make purchasing decisions with all of the pertinent info. I doubt that anyone is unclear about the fact that Newman's brand-loyalty exists thanks in large part to his giving policies.

Again, I'm not trying to vilify the woman or her company, just saying that it's kind of dishonest to name-drop her father's donations in relation to her own company if that company does not do the same.

Reply