This Company Was an American Success Story. Until MAHA Influencers Sank It. by Laurie P. Cohen at the Free Press.
At Apeel’s peak, 60 percent of the avocados sold in American grocery stores were coated with Apeel. The number is now zero. Almost all of Apeel’s revenue in the U.S. has disappeared, and the company was forced to lay off most of its employees. Rogers was replaced as CEO in 2024.
“I love the product. It’s a pity it’s not out there,” said Debora Langston, a consultant who spent months testing Apeel for Limoneira, comparing it with the wax coating used for decades. Friends in the food industry warned that Apeel was dangerous and could cause cancer. She expected poor results but reached the opposite conclusion. Her customers in Europe still use Apeel...Robyn Openshaw, a wellness influencer who markets herself as GreenSmoothieGirl, published over 60 anti-Apeel posts on social media and her own website from July 2023 to May 2025. She wrote that Apeel’s coating was made with heavy metals and solvents, including chemicals found in gasoline, and encouraged her “Green Smoothie Girl Army” to protest by phone and email and in person.
In June 2024, Openshaw called Edwards, the Limoneira CEO, on his personal cellphone, asking him if the company was selling Apeel-coated products. He replied by text: “Hi Robyn, We tested Apeel but never sold any products (avocados or lemons) with Apeel on them. We stopped when the market told us it doesn’t want Apeel.” She published a blog post with the headline: “GreenSmoothieGirl Gets Apeel Shut Down at Billion-Dollar Produce Company.” A video on YouTube boasted that she got Limoneira to “quit using Apeel products.”
I get a lot out of Instapundit, which is mostly pro-MAHA. But they are too pro-MAHA, never giving you both sides of the story. Every mention of it is positive now.
5 comments:
I cannot say anything for or against Apeel as this is my first time hearing about it, but how many influencers actually know what they are talking about?
The story is paywalled, but archived here: https://archive.ph/TAFP4. Even the headline is a study in mis-attribution if they're blaming MAHA for the behaviors of a few people that are after clicks. It's the first I've heard of Apeel as well, but something is off about the story. Really, a few self-aggrandizing internet influencers killed a company ? By printing untruths about its product? A long ways down, after huge pictures of Bill Gates and Michele Pfeiffer looking their Sith worst, we get to the part where the influencers retracted their stories, some of them only partially. I would have sued their sox off, but it sounds like they still have someone working at them from the shadows, so it makes me wonder if there's a competitor out there. The indirect tactic is something I've seen before - it suggests a large well-financed conglomerate going after a comparatively small fish, having sensed an excellent opportunity. I would be inclined to think someone like a P&G type is behind it. It's a shame, because it really seems like a good product. And who cares, anyway? It's not like an apple, where you're eating the skin.
I had a friend that started up a shaving products company in the UK, and it was a really terrific shaving gel, moderately priced but really superior. They tried to get it marketed in the US and found precisely this kind of indirect opposition blocking their efforts until, lo & behold, a major in the US came out with something very suspiciously similar (but not as good). Same kind of tactics, impossible to fight it head on. Goliath wins.
Meant to include: The FreePress should have included giant photos of the influencers as well, so the world can see their face. Without including any links.
This seems plausible
I didn't see in the article any support for the headline's description of the early and prominent influencer critics as "MAHA" affiliated/supporting. Nor can I find it for any of those listed in the article other than congressman Marlin Stutzman, who introduced a food labelling bill clearly based on misinformation. There are lots of claims that RFK Jr. is behind the bill, has spoken or written against Apeel, etc.; but none are sourced and no credible connection of RFK Jr. to the subject can be found.
MAHA and RFK Jr. appear to be red herrings in this discussion.
I suspect it's just that the article author associates science-free anti-'chemical' screeds with RFK Jr. and MAHA supporters (as do I) and reflexively includes that in her writing. A search shows the author engages with anti-MAHA content on social media, so I leave that as a data-point.
Post a Comment