EasyBloom is a great tool for the gardener—especially one born with a black thumb. This little device tells you if your plants need water, diagnoses ailing plants, and makes plant recommendations (based on real conditions) as to which plants will thrive at a particular site.
To begin using EasyBloom, plug the device into one of your computer’s USB ports and choose which of the three functions you want to use: recommend mode, monitor mode, or water mode.
Recommend mode—provides plant recommendations for a particular site, indoors or outside.
Monitor mode—gives expert advice in caring for an existing plant.
Water mode—provides immediate feedback on whether a plant needs water.
Once the mode is set, unplug the device from your computer and connect it to the sensor base. I chose the recommend mode and stuck the EasyBloom into a shady site in my back yard. Twenty-four hours later I plugged the device into my computer to receive my recommendations.
EasyBloom analyzed the site, providing the relative humidity, average temperature, and sunlight, then recommended a list of plants that should thrive in that location. To my surprise, it also gave me the opportunity to add pictures, take notes, and store the information in an archive section called “my readings.”
I also tried EasyBloom in its water mode. In this mode the device beeps when your plants need water. Unfortunately, none of the pots were dry at the time. I have not yet tried the monitor mode, which is designed to aid in diagnosing the problems plaguing an ailing plant.
I loved the design of the battery casing. A band encircles the battery which allows for easy removal and a means to easily disengage the battery when the device is not in use.
The EasyBloom website is user friendly, offering videos to help you learn to use the device and contact information for customer service. It also contains a database of more than 5000 plants with planting and care instructions and a feature that allows you to choose and store a listing of your favorite plants.
EasyBloom is a great device. Even though it does not analyze soil (I do so wish it would at least give me the ph), it is an excellent gardening aid, especially for the novice gardener. Coupled with the online resources, it is well worth its $60.00 price tag.
LüSa’s products have become my “guilty pleasure.” Why? Because I am hoarding all the samples sent to OLM. I love these products. I refuse to share. Everything about them is appealing – from the packaging to the company’s philosophy and business practices.
LuSa states their intention is, “To make soap so good that you have a better day just for having washed with it. Then your better day inspires another’s better day and the whole world spirals into happiness.” I for one believe in the ripple effect. And these products do make me happy!
I love the packaging. I don’t like clutter on my bathroom countertops, but LuSa’s products remain stacked in plain sight though I have plenty of room in my drawers and cabinets. The cobalt blue glass jars with the grey, lavender, and green labels are very appealing.
LuSa’s products include soaps, essential oil blends, lip balms, body scrubs, bath salts, baby skin care products, and a few other products for mom and baby.
These handcrafted soap bars last two to three times longer than any natural soap I have ever tried, and the scents are heavenly. Just imagine eucalyptus and lavender, lemongrass and ginger, or spicy orange and cinnamon. LuSa’s website offers 21 varieties of handcrafted bar soaps including calendula baby soap, which is also a great facial soap for adults with hypersensitive skin. Soap bars are sold packaged or “naked” for a savings of 60 cents per bar.
Do you need to exfoliate? Or want to relax in a warm bath? LuSa’s organic sugar scrubs and bath salts come in four scents: citrus, lavender, mint, and patchouli. Refills are available at a reduced price.
Gift collections include two collections for baby and two for new moms as well as standard collections and a soap of the month club. Baby products include reusable baby wipes and liquid “Baby Juice” for cleaning baby’s bottom as well as “Booty Balm,” a remarkable salve for skin irritated by anything from diaper rashes to cuts and scrapes.
LuSa Organics is a small family operation committed to supporting local and regional economies. Their ingedients are naturally sourced, primarily organic, and consistently high quality. They scent their products with essential oils and create color with natural pigments, herbs, and clays. Ten percent of LuSa’s annual profits are donated to organizations creating positive global change.
Check out LuSa Organic’s website to discover all of their products for adults, children, and babies. www.lusaorganics.com
Monsanto Company Profile Part I of IV
If ever there was a company that stands for everything Organic Lifestyle Magazine stands against, it’s Monsanto. To us they are the villain, a company that embodies virtually everything we at OLM believe to be wrong with big business today. We would be hard pressed to find a company whose products have done more to harm our planet.
Many argue that Monsanto’s potential to devastate life as we know it is second only to producers of atomic bombs. Ironically, Monsanto was also heavily involved in the Manhattan Project and the creation of the world’s first nuclear bomb.
Monsanto started in 1901 as a chemical company. Their first product was saccharine, a coal tar product, which has had a controversial history. You may know it as Sweet‘N Low, the artificial sweetener sold in little pink packages.
Though saccharin was their first, Monsanto is also well known for many other chemical and chemically based products including Agent Orange, Bovine Growth Hormone, Polychlorinated biphenyl (commonly known as PCBs), Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT), and RoundUp.
Today, Monsanto is a leader in the bio-tech industry selling RoundUp ready GMO seeds. Its main crops are soy, cotton, sugar beets, and canola. Its controversial bovine growth hormone, rBST, was sold to the Eli Lilly Company earlier this year.
We asked Brad Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs for Monsanto if we were dealing with a new Monsanto since our take on Monsanto’s reputation is one of deception, corruption, bribery, and environmental degradation, a company that made significantly bad choices.
“I think more than anything, it’s a new age,” he said. “…I think you’re holding the Monsanto of the middle part of the 20th century against the standards of today. So, for instance, if you look at PCBs we all know today that what Monsanto did there was wrong. It shouldn’t have been done. Did we, Monsanto, or society as a whole know in the 60s or the 50s that that was wrong? I don’t think that we were as environmentally sophisticated as we are today.
“…I’m not saying that we’re not liable, that we shouldn’t have done it, and all that, but you know, when you make these kind[s] of statements about how Monsanto obviously disregarded human health and public safety and the environment for profit, I wasn’t there. I can’t tell you what was in people’s hearts and minds. I do believe, however, that to some extent we’re being held against today’s standards for actions that occurred half a century ago.”
Perhaps we could agree that these actions occurred half a century ago if Monsanto had voluntarily embarked on a clean-up of PCB contamination in Anniston, Alabama, in any decade following the 50s or 60s. If they had, perhaps we could believe the corporation has grown a conscience. According to The Washington Post, it was February 2002 when Monsanto was held liable by an Alabama jury for all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. The Post quotes the legal definition of outrage under Alabama law as conduct, “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”
The Center for Food Safety maintains a website, www.monsantowatch.org. On this site they report, “In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.”
History tells us Monsanto was well aware of the damage their silence and lack of action brought Anniston as The Center for Food Safety also reports,
The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated.”
Monsanto can, however, claim the Monsanto of today is not the Monsanto of yesteryear. According to Wikipedia, the Monsanto of 1901-2000 and the current business are now two legally separate corporations, though they share the same name as well as many of the same executives and workers. The “new” Monsanto is an agricultural company (as opposed to a chemical company).
Are Monsanto’s misdeeds a thing of the past? In 2005, BBC News reported that Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5 million dollar fine for bribing an Indonesian official “to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its [bio-tech] cotton.” Monsanto said it accepted full responsibility for its “improper activities” and agreed to three years of close monitoring of its business practices by American authorities.
GMO seeds were approved by the FDA under the GRAS designation—generally recognized as safe. As such, Monsanto’s bio-tech seeds were granted exemption from premarket approval by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Due to this ruling, the onus to ensure the safety of genetically altered food created by Monsanto rests with Monsanto, a company whose actions have revealed an unparalleled disregard for human life and environmental safety.
Opponents of GMOs often quote a cavalier statement made by Phil Angell, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications to author Michael Pollan. In Pollan’s article, Playing God in the Garden, published in the New York Times Magazine in 1998, Angell is quoted as saying,
Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
We asked Brad Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs for Monsanto if we were dealing with a new Monsanto since our take on Monsanto’s reputation is one of deception, corruption, bribery, and environmental degradation, a company that made significantly bad choices. “I think more than anything, it’s a new age,” he said. “…I think you’re holding the Monsanto of the middle part of the 20th century against the standards of today. So, for instance, if you look at PCBs we all know today that what Monsanto did there was wrong. It shouldn’t have been done. Did we, Monsanto, or society as a whole know in the 60s or the 50s that that was wrong? I don’t think that we were as environmentally sophisticated as we are today.
…I’m not saying that we’re not liable, that we shouldn’t have done it, and all that, but you know, when you make these kind[s] of statements about how Monsanto obviously disregarded human health and public safety and the environment for profit, I wasn’t there. I can’t tell you what was in people’s hearts and minds. I do believe, however, that to some extent we’re being held against today’s standards for actions that occurred half a century ago.”
Perhaps we could agree that these actions occurred half a century ago if Monsanto had voluntarily embarked on a clean-up of PCB contamination in Anniston, Alabama, in any decade following the 50s or 60s. If they had, perhaps we could believe the corporation has grown a conscience. According to The Washington Post, it was February 2002 when Monsanto was held liable by an Alabama jury for all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. The Post quotes the legal definition of outrage under Alabama law as conduct, “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”
The Center for Food Safety maintains a website, www.monsantowatch.org. On this site they report, “In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.”
History tells us Monsanto was well aware of the damage their silence and lack of action brought Anniston as The Center for Food Safety also reports,
The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated.”
Monsanto can, however, claim the Monsanto of today is not the Monsanto of yesteryear. According to Wikipedia, the Monsanto of 1901-2000 and the current business are now two legally separate corporations, though they share the same name as well as many of the same executives and workers. The “new” Monsanto is an agricultural company (as opposed to a chemical company).
Are Monsanto’s misdeeds a thing of the past? In 2005, BBC News reported that Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5 million dollar fine for bribing an Indonesian official “to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its [bio-tech] cotton.” Monsanto said it accepted full responsibility for its “improper activities” and agreed to three years of close monitoring of its business practices by American authorities.
GMO seeds were approved by the FDA under the GRAS designation—generally recognized as safe. As such, Monsanto’s bio-tech seeds were granted exemption from premarket approval by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Due to this ruling, the onus to ensure the safety of genetically altered food created by Monsanto rests with Monsanto, a company whose actions have revealed an unparalleled disregard for human life and environmental safety.
Opponents of GMOs often quote a cavalier statement made by Phil Angell, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications to author Michael Pollan. In Pollan’s article, Playing God in the Garden, published in the New York Times Magazine in 1998, Angell is quoted as saying,
Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
When we asked Mr. Mitchell if he was familiar with this statement, he said he thought the statement had been made by a Monsanto foreman and that it was taken out of context. “I don’t know the gentleman, but I do know the general feeling here. There is nobody here at Monsanto that I know that says, ‘Screw safety, that’s not our problem, it’s FDA’s.’ I think what the gentleman quoted is referring to is that when it comes down to it, the law, by the law, it’s FDA’s responsibility. I don’t know a single person at Monsanto who does not believe that we have the responsibility. But if you want to look at the law, the final say on this, and the final arbiter, and the people legally charged with safely stating whether it’s safe or not is not Monsanto, it’s FDA.”
Mitchell tells us he and Monsanto’s scientific team have never seen a study that shows any significant risk associated with GMO foods.
I’ve worked with our scientific affairs team, so when studies come out to do analysis and that sort of thing, we have yet to see a study which we think shows us any significant risk with these things. So, those studies are best addressed on a one-on-one basis, and I would say that there are just as many studies, independent as well, that show (chuckles) that there are not risks with them [GMOs].”
He argues that the oft referenced study by Árpád Pusztai showing GMO potatoes was flawed. “My understanding is that there were only six animals in each control group, so statistical significance is pretty weak there.” In addition, he states that Pusztai did not go through the basic safety processes. “The premise of biotech safety in virtually every country that allows these things is something called substantial equivalence. You compare a genetically modified potato to a non-genetically modified potato against a whole bunch of parameters on stuff they contain. And essentially if it doesn’t cause any physiological or physiochemical differences in the potato, they’re deemed to be substantively equivalent, which means that they are pretty much the same with the exception of the protein that’s expressed in the genetically modified one. …Now the ironic part is that Pusztai, when he did his test, never analyzed the potatoes for substantial equivalence. And in fact there is very good evidence that snowdrop lectin [used in the study] will actually—the protein itself, will change the physiology of that potato where it would not meet the standards of substantial equivalence. So he’s testing a GM product that was never commercialized, that has never even been even through the most basic level of safety, with a poor study, that basically shows and basically came to the conclusion that all genetically modified crops have risks, when he hasn’t even done the basic tests that genetically modified crops go through before being approved.”
In 1997, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were hired by Fox Television as the researchers and stars of a new investigative news show, called The Investigators. Akre says they were told, “Do any stories you want. Ask tough questions and get answers.” One of the first stories they proposed was an expose on Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone, rBST, also known as Posilac. Their investigation revealed that Canada refused to approve Posilac, citing health concerns, that Posilac was linked to cancer, and that the FDA had rubberstamped the product without proper testing.
While Monsanto’s publicity stated, “Posilac is the single most tested new product in history,” Wilson and Akre’s investigation revealed that the longest test Monsanto had done for human toxicity was for 90 days on 30 rats.
Legal threats from Monsanto prompted Fox to kill the story and set in motion a chain of events that resulting in Fox firing Steve Wilson and Jane Akre for insubordination after several attempts failed to convince them to kill the story, re-write the story, or out and out lie about its contents. Fox even attempted to bribe the pair, offering them the rest of a year’s salary in exchange for their silence about the story and Fox’s part in it.
Brad Mitchell stated, “We would still contend that Monsanto [rBST] is a safe product. The FDA would support us on that. It’s still being used, albeit by a different company.”
Mitchell also tells us recent Internet rumors that Monsanto was opposed to or tried to prevent the labeling of milk as rBST free were absolutely untrue.
What we were trying to prevent was misleading labeling of milk as being rBST free. And many of the milk companies out there who were labeling it were doing so in a way that was in violation of FDA guidelines and made it basically sound like our product wasn’t safe, and the scientific consensus, at least in this country, was that it is.
“You know, we obviously would prefer that it wasn’t labeled that way, but our gripe was not against people who were labeling milk as rBST free; our real concern was people who were labeling it in opposition to what FDA guidelines set. And the vast majority of the state legislation and the things you saw really were just forcing milk labelers to label in accordance to those guidelines.
“I’ll give you an example, where some milk labels said it’s hormone free. Well, no milk is hormone free. It’s just misleading to say so. Now, if you want to say it’s rBST free, that’s better. What the FDA suggested was that it says this milk comes from cows not treated with rBST. Obviously we would prefer that people didn’t put that in writing and that people didn’t see a problem with our products. But if they were labeling milk accurately, we would not have had an issue with them.”
This company Highlight is continued in our next issue. Click to readMonsanto Company Profile Part II, Monsanto’s Turn. We will discuss Monsanto’s stand on patent infringement lawsuits and high yield potentials of GM crops, Europe’s attitude toward GMOs, and more.
It’s unfortunate, but true. Medical doctors tend to attribute disease to a cause-and-effect paradigm that absolves the patient of responsibility. If you get sick, well, there’s a flu or a virus going around. If you get diabetes, sorry, but you are genetically programmed to get it. You can’t help it. If you have cancer, well, we never know why these things happen to some and not to others.
While these aren’t direct quotes from any specific doctor, this is the mindset of conventional medicine. There is very little accountability for health these days, along with a belief that most of our health issues are incurable and a resignation that we should accept the side effects of conventional treatment. While most people do resign themselves to this belief system, others, like Mark Hyman, M.D., do not.
Mark Hyman is a brilliant man, one of those people who can multitask, easily remember, and just plain excel in whatever task relies on his intelligence. But when he was in medical school, he did what many interns are forced to do—he pushed his body to unreasonable limits, working shifts up to 60 hours. Then he went to work in China for a year, breathing in the coal-soaked, mercury-laden air. After he came back to Massachusetts, he again lived with sleep deprivation when working crazy shifts in an inner-city emergency room. Then he realized he could no longer remember things easily. Sleep became problematic. He was drained—mentally, emotionally, and physically. Depression and anxiety became familiar parts of his life.
Unlike so many doctors who look for the “one thing” that caused the problem and the one treatment to alleviate the symptoms, Dr. Hyman recognized that his problem had more than one cause. In his book he says, “It was everything piled higher and higher until my brain and body couldn’t take any more.”
The Ultra Mind Solution title is a bit misleading, but at the same time, it’s perfect. If your brain is not working right, many health problems will arise. On the other hand, if your body is overburdened with toxins, lack of quality sleep, and a lack of nutrition, at some point the whole system is going to break down. Mark Hyman took a holistic approach. He decided if his brain was broken, his whole body was in trouble. He learned that many of today’s
Théra Wise Product Review
Many people who choose eco-friendly products or healthy, all natural foods still resort to conventional ointments when faced with a cut, a burn, or acne. Théra Wise has an alternative. Using naturally occurring, “body-friendly” source ingredients and low impact manufacturing processes, Théra Wise offers a better alternative to chemical ointments, four natural, bio-active, therapeutic ointments:
HmR Natural Hemorrhoidal Ointment, which contains witch hazel extract, organic chamomile extract, barley beta glucan concentrate, grape seed oil, seabuckthorn berry oil, organic aloe extract, argania spinosa (argan) oil (containing EFAs, tocopherol, and phytosterols), butcher’s broom extract, vitamins A, C, and E, olive oil emulsifiers and waxes, and natural plant preservatives.
SHO Natural Skin Healing Ointment, which contains calendula extract, organic chamomile extract, burdock root extract, barley beta glucan concentrate, organic rose hip seed oil, soya sterols, seabuckthorn berry oil, organic aloe extract, argania spinosa (argan) oil (containing EFAs, tocopherol and phytosterols), organic tea tree oil, vitamins A, C, and E, olive oil emulsifiers and waxes, and natural plant preservatives.
VpR Natural Vaporizing Decongestant Rub, which contains eucalyptus leaf oil, white pine oil, peppermint oil, camphor oil, asian berry wax, organic rose hip seed oil, white thyme oil, bitter orange oil, argania spinosa (argan) oil (containing EFAs, tocopherol ,and phytosterols), vitamins A, C, and E, olive oil emulsifiers and waxes, and natural plant preservatives.
Ac+ Natural Acne Ointment, which contains witch hazel, tea tree oil, organic tamanu oil, alpha lipoic acid, marine algae extract, barley beta glucan concentrate, aloe extract, organic rose hip seed oil, alpha glucan, vitamins A, C, and E, olive oil emulsifiers and waxes, and natural plant preservatives.
Though we were unable to test out the Hemorrhoidal Ointment, we compared the other three products to their conventional counterparts and found Théra Wise to be just as effective – in fact, more so. Vapor rub and hemmorrhoidal ointment are available in the U.S. through CVS.com.
For My KIDS Product Review
This month we had the pleasure of trying out an array of products from a small, idealistic company called For My Kids. We fully endorse this company and their products, and we also found their website to be informative. Here is an excerpt: “In an investigation of the ingredients in more than 23,000 personal care products, Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that nearly one of every 30 products sold in the United States fails to meet one or more industry or governmental cosmetics safety standards. They found nearly 400 products sold in the U.S. containing chemicals that are prohibited for use in cosmetics in other countries, and over 400 products containing ingredients that cosmetic industry safety panels have found unsafe when used as directed on product labels, including the U.S.-based Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) and the International Fragrance Association. Their analysis of ingredients in more than 23,000 products finds that 751 different products fail to meet one or more industry or government safety standards and 98% of all products contain one or more ingredients never publicly assessed for safety. — Environmental Working Group, Skin Deep (2007).”
Vinegar of the Four Thieves
Vinegar of the Four Thieves is a natural alternative to antibacterial disinfectants. It is based on a well-known formula of vinegar and organic herbs that has been used for centuries to prevent contagious disease. Although they do not, (likely because they cannot) claim For My Kids Vinegar of the Four Thieves is an antiseptic, antimicrobial, antibacterial, or antifungal, the ingredients are commonly known to have these properties. Does it work? We really have no idea. We believe it does, but we’d need a lab and a bunch of scientists to check out the efficacy of a disinfectant. The recipe is good and the idea is sound. No chemicals. Nothing we wouldn’t put on our skin. And think about it; if you’re one of those people cleaning your counter tops, your cutting boards, and your doorknobs with Lysol handy wipes or some other chemically derived, superbug creating disinfectant, it’s getting on your skin and in the air you breathe. If you do feel the need to disinfect, either once in a blue moon or 117 times a day, this is the product for you.
All Natural Hand Wash
This all-natural, lavender-scented spray is ideal for times when you can’t get to soap and water. Just spray and wipe your hands together until they’re dry.
My Mommy’s Face Care
The first time one of our testers used this product, she didn’t read the directions. Assuming this was a moisturizer, she used it as such and reported back that it was really good, though kind of heavy or greasy. After reading the directions and discovering this product is actually a facial cleanser that is supposed to be wiped off with a dry cloth, she tried it again and returned with glowing reports. It is a great make-up remover. We wouldn’t recommend it for the morning, though, or as a cleanser to use before applying make-up. The coconut oil and almond oil are great moisturizers, but, in our opinion, would not be a great base for make-up.Vegan Lip Balm
All Natural Vegan Lip Balm (Peppermint)
Made with great ingredients, this lip balm feels very good on your lips and works well. This is one of the very best lip balms we have ever tried.
All Natural Comfrey Salve
This product is for “boo-boos and bug bites.” We didn’t have any kids running around with any “owies” so our editor-in-chief decided to try this salve as an aftershave. He’s a bit clumsy and ends up with “boo-boos” every time he shaves. He also has sensitive skin. Even with the protocol he has developed to get the best shave, he still doesn’t like the way his face feels after shaving. But he said All Natural Comfrey Salve, “… calms, soothes, and worked well. It even absorbed well, and left my face without an oily look. I would repackage this and market it as an aftershave!”
Insect Repellant
We tried, but unfortunately it was too cold for us to find any insects to repel! This repellant does have a nice earthy smell and feels good on the skin, kind of like a moisturizer.
Happy Fun Dough
No chemicals. No artificial colors. We love it!
Conclusion
All of the For My Kids products are made without chemicals and many of their ingredients are organic. And their products work. We recommend For My Kids for both kids and adults.
Intentional Chocolate sent us a box of their “Love Truffles” and hot cocoa to review. They say their chocolates are embedded with this intention: “Whoever consumes this chocolate will manifest optimal health and functioning at physical, emotional and mental levels, and in particular will enjoy an increased sense of energy, vigor and well-being for the benefit of all beings.” They also tell us, “In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study that was published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing (October 2007) it was found that one ounce of Intentional Chocolate™ per day for three days increased subjects’ well-being, vigor and energy by an average of 67 percent and, in some cases, up to 1,000 percent, when compared to a control group.”
While they use Hawaiian Vintage Chocolate, which the New York Times says is “among the best in the world,” they claim their focus is on intention, not ingredients.
When we think of good intentions, we think of words like organic, unrefined, and fair-trade. Why don’t their ingredients reflect good intentions? Did this chocolate increase our “well-being” more than the organic, fair-trade chocolate we usually eat? Nope. Would we feel better eating Intentional Chocolate rather than conventional chocolate sweetened with refined sugar? Likely.
We do believe in the power of intention, but we believe in the ingredients as well. Good intentions conflicting with poor actions do not yield the most positive results. If a company’s “good intentions” were more than a marketing gimmick, we believe those intentions would be reflected by the ingredients. We believe our health and our environment are better intentions upon which to focus.
