Today saw mixed economic data in housing and in industrial production, yet the market rose again. The notion that a fed-exit policy is slowly forming had no significant impact on stocks and mush of the traffic still seems earnings-related.

Here were today's unofficial closing bell levels:

Dow 10,309.24 +40.43 (0.39%)
S&P 500 1,099.51 +4.64 (0.42%)
Nasdaq 2,226.29 +12.10 (0.55%)

Top Analyst Upgrades/Downgrades
Top Stock & Market Rumors

Time was, we all felt rich. And we all felt entitled to spend money on ridiculous items at chocolate stores like Godiva, coffee shops like Starbucks (NYSE: SBUX) and, yes, upscale supermarkets like Whole Foods (NASDAQ:WFMI).

Those days are long gone, and even today's reduced expectations for this extremely well-run company are possibly too optimistic. EPS for 2008 were down 20% and company shares, floating in the $7-$10 range, are well off of 52-week highs.

With a lower-cost competitor entering the field in the form of McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) and grave concerns about the company's brand/future, you'd think Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) would want to do everything it its power to retain its status as a premium brand.

You'd think. But you'd be wrong. The Wall Street Journal is reporting (subscription required) that Starbucks is discontinuing the sale of organic milk. To be fair, the rationale behind the decision is that the company has completed its switch to serving milk exclusively provided by cows not receiving artificial growth hormone. One of the main reasons consumers sometimes opt for organic milk is frequent use of hormones in regular milk and, given that drinks with organic milk (which the company charges extra for) account for only about 1% of beverage sales, this might seem like a smart move. The company says it's part of its strategy to cut down on the number of items on the menu, and emphasize more exciting options.

But I think that not serving organic milk will irritate a few customers -- I think we all know someone who won't touch anything that isn't organic. Starbucks needs to focus on pleasing its customers, even if that means a short-term slowdown in earnings growth.

Of course this won't have any material impact, and will probably save the company some money. But with Starbuck's in a battle to retain its iconic status, Schultz and company need to keep it as classy as possible.

With the headline shock of seemingly-daily recalls of China-made products sending consumers into a frenzy, Trader Joe's has taken an unusual step. The California-based purveyor of private-label, mostly all-natural products will stop importing single-ingredient products from China by January first.

The official reason is concerns on the part of consumers about whether China-made products labeled organic conform to the USDA standards for that label.

Trader Joe's is by far my favorite grocery store, and it certainly seems to have a rabid cult following. Part of the reason could be its responsiveness to consumer concerns.

In other organic scandals, Aurora Dairy, the nation's largest producer of organic milk, is being sued by consumers in 27 states after a USDA audit found that the company was labeling milk as organic when its production methods were not in line with the law.

I recently wrote a piece about how being more environmentally conscious can be great for your heart and health without hurting your pocketbook. Now SmartMoney's Kelli Grant has some great tips for going organic on a budget. Her five tips include setting priorities (buy organic where it really matters), consider your alternatives, buy on sale, buy from local farmers, and try generic brands.

But there's another side to this: One of the main culprits of the obesity epidemic is the wide availability of inexpensive, empty calories. Hostess cupcakes anyone? As former Senator Phil Gramm put it, "Has anyone ever noticed that we live in the only country in the world where all the poor people are fat?"

So buying organic foods, even if it does cost more, might be good for you. It could help you eat less! I would wager that if the average American kept their grocery budget the same but switched to organic foods, our collective waistline would shrink pretty substantially.

So remember: When it comes to food, paying a little more might be better for you.

Right now, it seems like everywhere I turn, I see an increase in organic and natural food and products offerings. People in this country and abroad are more and more conscious of what they are consuming, both for the sake of the planet and for their own health reasons. A recent New York Times article pointed out how it also has become fashionable to buy organic. This is great news for companies that have long been players in the organic and natural foods market.

One of these is Hain Celestial Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HAIN), based in Melville, NY. This leader in the natural and organic food and personal care products industry has a strong presence in
North America and Europe, and is pushing into Asia.

Anyone who shops in health food stores -- or even in mainstream supermarkets -- has likely seen a HAIN brand. They include Celestial Seasonings®, Terra Chips®, Health Valley®, Earth's Best®, Arrowhead Mills®, FreeBird™, Hain Pure Foods®, Rice Dream®, Soy Dream®, Queen Helene®, Batherapy® and Footherapy®, and the recently acquired Avalon Organics® among many other brands. Hain Celestial provides specifications to independent food processors to produce the various brands.

Though it's not easy for consumers to be green, MSN Money's Abby Schutlz points out that it's possible to be environmentally sensitive and fiscally prudent.

Since buying organic food is expensive -- organic milk is about double the price of the conventional variety and produce can be 200% higher -- Schultz points out that people need to make an organic budget for their environmentally friendly purchases. This can be as simple as buying organic products when they are on sale to the price disparity isn't as great or purchasing produce such as cherries, grapes and peaches that retain less pesticide residue then their conventional counterparts.

I was particularly interested in the piece because I would like to be more environmentally conscious but, like many Americans, I'm not sure about how much I am willing to sacrifice economically to do that.

While hybrid cars are still quite expensive and will likely stay that way for awhile, Schultz advises readers that simply driving less is great for the environment too. And with our country in the midst of an obesity epidemic, walking or biking makes sense for a lot of reasons.

Similarly, simply cutting back on energy use probably does more good for the environment than expensive all-natural products.

So while being green-friendly might seem more expensive, many aspects of conservation will actually save money: Buying products in bulk with less packaging is cheaper, and so is using the library instead of the bookstore.

Does anyone have any tips for being environmentally conscious on a budget? I've talked to some friends, and one of the main reasons people don't make more of an effort to go green is the cost.

If Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) is going to get investor's attention, it will have to demonstrate some organic growth, and not growth from simply adding on more sales from the recent slew of acquisitions.

Oracle reports results following the market's close tonight with profits expected to rise to $1.81 billion, or 35 cents a share, excluding one-time items for the May 31 quarter. Net income was $1.3 billion, or 24 cents, a year earlier.

Ellison set a target of $50 billion in annual sales by 2012 in a recent meeting with his sales force. Hitting that target would require a 23 percent annual sales increase, a huge number. That figure exceeds Oracle's recent growth rate of about 20 percent.

The Redwood City-based software company will once again post massive cash flow generation, however, if investors sense intense pricing pressure by combining product offerings and dropping prices, do not expect much upside in Oracle's stock price. Conversely, if price compression is not too bad, investors may be all over this stock.

I'm not an expert on organic food, but this seems sort of weak: "The Department of Agriculture, the final arbiter of all things organic, is poised to approve a list of non-organic ingredients that can be used in food stamped with its green-and-white organic seal."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of organic food that the ingredients are organic? The organic advisory board recommended that 38 non-organic ingredients be added to a list of substances allowed in organic foods. Some complain that, while this may not be a significant event by itself, it's indicative of efforts by big businesses to water down the definition of organic to increase profits.

The industry and regulators must walk a tight line. Making minimal adjustments that don't change the meaning of organic substantially could make products more affordable for more Americans. That's good for everyone -- farmers, retailers, and consumers.

On the other hand, changing it to the point where organic no longer means anything (sort of like "homemade," which means nothing) would kill the industry.

Assuming the changes are made with little public outcry, it could be good for companies like Whole Foods Market, Inc. (NASDAQ: WFMI), which could see a decrease in its cost of goods. Passing the savings onto the consumer would result in more organic shoppers. As of right now, many Americans really can't afford to shop organic. Lowering prices could change that.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) has been under fire recently for the possible mislabeling of "organic" foods and produce in its stores. To bring you up to speed, the world's largest retailer embarked on bringing higher-end food goods into its stores last year to attract higher-income shoppers who require healthier foods not tainted by pesticides, preservatives and fake colors and flavors (like most processed foods).

The only problem was, as I noted several times in the last year, was that the smaller organic farming industry was not at all prepared to supply the needs of Wal-Mart. Hence, Wal-Mart's "organic" retailing machine was doomed from the start I believe. It could still arrive to where it needs to be, but with allegations of mislabeling regular food as "organic," maybe its heart was never in it to begin with.

Fast forward to 2007, where the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection says it found numerous instances of conventional food products improperly labeled as organic. The culprit? Wal-Mart. Big surprise, right? The findings were made public after a three-month investigation found that the term 'Wal-Mart Organics' were being used on non-organic products. That, my friends, is easily a blatant misrepresentation. The term 'Wal-Mart Organics' sounds great from a marketing perspective, but those goods better be actual organic foods of the hammer will start swinging.

Quite a while ago, I mused on Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s (NYSE: WMT) impact on the organic food industry. In this interview, health advocate Mike Adams interviews a representative from the Organic Consumers Association who echoes many of the thoughts that I've written on in the past. Namely, how smaller organic suppliers respond to the increasing customer demand to eat healthier -- and buy more organic foods as a result.

In other words, when Wal-Mart knocks at the door of organic food suppliers and requests a huge quantity with a lower price, many have (and will) scoff at the retailer and flatly turn down the business. There are reasons for this: having pride in the smaller organic marketplace, not alienating existing customers and not giving into greed (read: selling to Wal-Mart) are all reasons smaller organic suppliers have chosen to keep respective businesses small. There are a few, like Horizon and Aurora Organic, that sell to Wal-Mart and in turn have angered the organic industry. In fact, the Horizon Organic milk from Wal-Mart is anything but, according to reports.

So therein lies the question -- what does Wal-Mart's volume and price demands do to the overall organic foods marketplace? With more and more companies labeling food as "Organic" when that means very little in truth, the organic marketplace seems to becoming more and more of a "half-truth marketplace" in some respects, with the larger discount retailers to thank for this. In other words, if you were to select ten organic food items inside your local Wal-Mart and actually research every one to determine if it in fact really has been "certified" as organic, what would the passing and failing percentages be?

I've been in love with natural foods grocers since I was a little girl, when Fred Meyer opened a little mini-store dedicated to raw peanut butter, tofu, wheat germ and a dozen different kinds of bulk grains. The store had candy bars made out of honey and I loved it. Since then, my understanding for and appreciation of the natural grocer has grown up with the industry; from the cute little small-town co-op where I shopped in college, to the Fresh Fields (acquired, and already assimilated by, Whole Foods Market, Inc. (NASDAQ:WFMI)) I fell in love with in Philadelphia during business school, to the discovery of the Portland, Oregon New Seasons chain when I moved "back home" in 2001. I noshed at every quick-service franchise that jumped on the healthy foods wagon, from spirulina-spiked smoothies to bagels loaded with sprouts and hummus.

Natural and organic grocers always seemed like the nice (if a bit militant) guys, interested in supporting the local farmer, providing non-toxic food and diapers for our babies, striving to make sure our bodies were healthy and our baths were perfumed with chamomile and lavendar. And then 2005 happened.

Suddenly Wal-Mart Stores, Inc (NYSE:WMT) was in the organic grocery game. Safeway Inc. (NYSE:SWY) started its own line of "O" organic foods. Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) created a line of herbal-infused babycare products and Kellogg Company (NYSE:K) launched organic Rice Krispies and Corn Flakes. Big business had figured it out and suddenly it wasn't smelling much like chamomile and patchouli. No. It smelled more like war.

With the news yesterday that Whole Foods was set to acquire Wild Oats Markets (NYSE:OATS), the war seems ever more bitter.

I'm a libraphile (is that the word?) and I began filling my children's shelves with books years before I had even purchased my first pregnancy test. By far my favorite image in any book is the overleaf of Blueberries for Sal, a bucolic and all-blue illustration of Sal and her mother. They are canning blueberries in a 40s-era kitchen, complete with hand-cranked egg beater, polka-dot curtains, and a cast-iron wood cooking stove. Every time I gaze at that picture I believe for a second that I will go downstairs and preserve something in one of the old-fashioned Ball jars I found at a garage sale.

Alas, it never quite happens that way, but just reading the book makes me feel connected to the farm-wife ideal. Much like a wander through today's grocery store aisles. As Kim Severson mentions in today's New York Times, she feels smug when she puts a bag of Cascadian Farm organic French fries in her grocery cart (she calls is "greenwashing" and the marketers call it "an authentic narrative"): "a gentle image of a field or a farm ... suggest[s] an ample harvest gathered by an honest, hard-working family." And in creating these images for us, in selling us the hard-working farm family, marketers know that just for a minute we've left our wired, fossil-fuel-guzzling lives for a hand-hewn pine kitchen table in that log house in Maine.

In short, we're being sold our ideal lifestyle in a box, bag or can.

A classic mistake of any individual investor is to maintain a position in a money-losing stock for too long. You calculate, you reason, you infer, you hope and, finally, you pray that it will come back. And still you hold on.

If you didn't, how would you prove you were right to have bought it in the first place?

That kind of thinking gets investors nowhere. The truth is, with money-losing stocks, it's often better to unload them and move on -- especially at this time of year when you can turn at least part of that investment loss into tax savings. (See more year-end tax tips.)

Review your portfolio. If you have a sizable loss and don't see a catalyst in the next few months that could drive the stock higher, sell now and reap the tax benefit. If you love a company, you can always buy it back next year (but be sure to wait at least 30 days so you don't violate the "wash sale" rule).

The following is a list of six companies covered at Blogging Stocks that are year-end "sell" candidates. These stocks are all down significantly year-to-date, face headwinds going forward, and -- perhaps most importantly -- have a tendency to inspire a somewhat irrational loyalty among the individual investors who own them. As they say in the dating world, maybe it's time to "take a break" from these names:

Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO): It's still an Internet leader, to be sure. But competition from Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) is slaying this one-time giant while smaller, more nimble competitors are encroaching on its turf. Meantime, recent management reshuffling signals more turmoil ahead. The stock started the year at $41 and is now at $26 for a 36% year-to-date drop.

Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (NASDAQ: SIRI) and XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: XMSR): A word of apology to all the fans of satellite radio out there. I know you love these stocks and are rooting for them to turn around. Maybe they will someday? But as Doug McIntyre wrote recently, it seems the more their businesses mature, the worse the stocks do. Sirius is down 42% this year and XM is off 47%. That's a tax loss you can take to the bank.

I love labels. I especially love labels when they're devised by 'savvy' marketing analysts or pollsters. And the newest target for the corporate marketing dollar? 'Yoga Moms.'

I love this one particularly, not least because I'm totally a Yoga Mama (I prefer the "mama" moniker to "mom," as do most Yoga Mamas; you all may want to make a note of this). In fact, I registered the domain "spa mama.com" years ago and still receive email to some variant of "zen@" said dotcom. And yes, I do a lot of yoga. Yoga Mamas are said to be very particular about eating organic and feeding it to their kids; buying natural products; and we'll pay top dollar for it.

Whoa! Hold on. Maybe I'm not a Yoga Mama after all. Or maybe y'all have it wrong (still taking notes?) In fact, in my market analysis (done among my friends, many of whom I met at prenatal yoga, or at new mama knitting circles, or at the organic foods market, or as kindred spirits on some mama-centric web site), Yoga Mamas aren't willing to pay top dollar for anything organic or natural; in fact, our choices are much more shrewd than that.

My friends are, in fact, always talking about how they're on a budget, or they don't have money for this luxury or that luxury. Most of us don't spend much on our own clothes, for instance, and we're savvy resale shoppers -- often picking up expensive labels, to be sure, but for a fraction of the retail price. While we'll occasionally splurge on treats for ourselves (heck, someone's keeping those manicurists in business, and we love a good glass of Pinot Noir) we're also fanatic 'unit price' comparers and we won't go back to a place that doesn't fit in with a raft of values, from "respectful" to "green" to "treats its employees well." None of us shop at Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE:WMT). All of us shop at Trader Joe's.