By MEE staff Published date: 11 September 2025 22:49 BST

Ben & Jerry’s has started a public campaign to try to separate from its parent company so it can freely speak about the war in Gaza, racial justice, and other issues. Its parent company, Magnum, has refused to sell the iconic ice cream brand.

The war between the ice-cream giants comes as Ben & Jerry’s became part of the Magnum Ice Cream company on Tuesday and Unilever prepares to spin off Magnum into a separate public company, which includes brands such as Ben & Jerry’s, Walls and Cornetto, in mid-November.

all 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 26 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Ban & Jerry’s was and still is one of the few companies that took a stance against genocide, from the very beginning, and in today’s climate that put them in immediate financial danger. I wish them well

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Per the article, Ben & Jerry's the brand was sold to a multinational conglomerate years ago and is not permitted to take any stance the corporation finds controversial, which includes genocide. Ben & Jerry the people are, commendably, taking a stance against genocide and are sad that they can't align their company with that stance, since it is actually not their company because they sold it. I applaud them for speaking out, and roll my eyes at them for their naivity in thinking they could sell the company and still be allowed to take a moral stand with it afterwards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They do appear to have attempted to ensure contractually that the B&J (the company) be able to continue the mission side without intervention though. Unilever broke at least the spirit of the contract (though I’m sure their $ means they would win a formal legal battle).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    So I worked at a brewery that did some collabs with B&J pre their sale to Unilever.

    I didn't meet them, but a lot of my friends did. Everyone loved them. Seemed they were genuinely rad dudes and are through and through who they market themselves to be. Hope they can pull off some control of their brand again.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Ben & Jerry's also said Kulve, Unilever's head of ice cream at the time, said he was concerned that the company being vocal on the war on Gaza could lead to a "continued perception of anti-Semitism".

    Aren't both Ben and Jerry Jewish?

  • source
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago

    Sounds to me like a marketing campaign that cynically uses tragedy

  • source
  • 36 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 171 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    Surely they kind of knew what they were getting themselves into back in 2000 when they sold their company to Unilever? I know that was 25 years ago now. But multinational corporations have been acting this is way for a long time.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 1 year ago

    But especially Unilever. Pretty much the only way to fuck up worse would have been to sell to Nestle. Both are asshole companies that were known to remove and substitute cheaper ingredients in food and other products well before the year 2000.

    Members of my family will literally go without rather than use a Unilever product.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    If all the employees/execs agree, could they quit en masse and form a new company? I guess they'd need to build new factories. And maybe run afoul of non competes.

    But yeah, seems like selling your soul and then asking the public to ransom it for you is irresponsible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Unilever probably owns all the copyrights on their flavors, and maybe on dinner other stuff like production processes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Generally speaking, recipes can't be copyrighted (the specific wording of a written recipe might be protected, but the general idea of combining certain ingredients in a specific way can't)

    The names of the flavors, branding, etc. can be (or trademarked, or various other IP terms)

    And aspects of the production process might be covered by patents and such.

    And of course non-competes and such could complicate things for the actual people involved

    And how you acquire those recipes can be a factor, that could rub up against non-disclosure agreements, corporate espionage laws, etc. you may need to be able to say that you came up with it on your own independent of the original recipe or pieced it together from publicly available information.

    But in general, if anyone wanted to start up an ice cream company selling exact duplicates of Ben & Jerry's flavors,they could do that as long as they called them all something different

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    copyrights on their flavors

    Jesse, WTF are you talking about?

    They could trademark the flavor names and copyright the carton art, but they can't copyright the recipes themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    They'll try, and our current crop of government would allow it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Again, consider the government

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    He says in his first paragraph:

    Generally speaking, recipes can't be copyrighted (the specific wording of a written recipe might be protected, but the general idea of combining certain ingredients in a specific way can't)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (6 children)

    I think, in certain cases, they can. IANAL, but I'm thinking about the formula for Coke or KFC's 11 herbs and spices recipe. Aren't those consider trade secrets? I mean they probably can't protect "vanilla," but they can trademark their specific formulation named something like "virgin snow vanilla?" I actually cringed a bit writing that...

    edit: spelling

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    It's right there in the name, trade SECRETS.

    Those are kept safe by legal agreements compelling secrecy, not letting most people know the secrets and other methods, but, if the secrets got out, the person who leaked it might get in trouble for breaking a legal contract or breaking and entering or whatever, but, the rest of the world would be able to legally sell things made using those recipes, but they probably wouldn't be able to reference the original company directly (ie, Crowns Chicken, now using KFCs original recipe!) ... "11 herbs and spices" is probably a term that's trademarked too, but I'm sure some marketing person would find a creative way to tell everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Okay, yeah, if Ben and Jerry (the people) have signed non-disclosure agreements preventing them from using their knowledge of the recipes at another company, that could indeed be an issue.

    But what threw me off reading your comment is that trade secrets have absolutely fuck-all to do with copyright.

    RMS has a good explainer about how trying to glom the unrelated concepts of copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets together as "intellectual property" is actively harmful loaded language, and falling for it results in the kind of cognitive bias and misunderstanding that you just exhibited. It's more important than you probably yet appreciate that you make an effort to keep those concepts separate in your mind and talk about them with precision.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    His overall point seems to be that, because intellectual property consists of several things with distinctions among them, the use of a categorical term is incorrect. This seems flawed, as all categories are defined as such. The only problem OP has here is a lack of familiarity with those individual components, i.e. to know that trade secret is different than copyright/trademark. I don't see how getting rid of the term IP would help to educate people on those differences.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I'm pretty sure they explicitly made sure that they would retain complete control over the company's political activism.

    So yeah, they knew they'd try shit like this, which is why they specifically protected themselves from it in their contract.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 62 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't know what you expect when you sell the company to Unilever.

    But I didn't know it was being spun off:

    The war between the ice-cream giants comes as Ben & Jerry’s became part of the Magnum Ice Cream company on Tuesday and Unilever prepares to spin off Magnum into a separate public company, which includes brands such as Ben & Jerry’s, Walls and Cornetto, in mid-November.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Hate to say it but they made their bed with the decision to sell their names to corporate America. This was to be expected unfortunately and if they want to be a voice for good in the ice cream market, they'll have to start a new company.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago*

    I remember going to Ben & Jerrys once a few years ago and there was only one worker there at the time, dude was really cool and even though company policy didnt let me take a disposable cup he still went around it and found one so I could drink and walk as I usually prefer with milkshakes (I think they were running out of disposable cups or smth, dont remember the reason).

    Anyway, he told me just how much he loved working there, that he knew the entire story of the brand and how really liked how it stood for many progressive things like LGBT rights and stuff. The store closed during the pandemic but I hope he still kept his job and is doing all right. Also I hope Ben and Jerrys can be independent again, they do some nice things.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So how does the public help? Just stop buying anything from Magnum brands or Ben & Jerry’s? That could work in theory, but a lot of us have never purchased either brand, regardless. I appreciate B&J’s efforts, but I just don’t eat enough ice cream (as in, none) these days anyway.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • 1 comment in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    When you sell your shop to corporate America, you sell your soul, kinda obvious. They should've turned it into an ESOP back in the day

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/palestine@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] -3 points 1 year ago*

    What happens when become a sellout

    Sold your ethics for a check now got seller's remorse

    In April 2000, Ben & Jerry's sold itself to British multinational food giant Unilever for $326 million ($607 million in 2025 accounting for inflation).[16] In the acquisition agreement, Unilever agreed to carry on the company's tradition of engaging "in these critical, global economic and social missions".[17] Following the acquisition, both founders remained employed at the company, though not in a position of operational or managerial responsibility,[18] though Cohen remained on the governing board of directors.[19]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_%26_Jerry%27s

  • source