Well it’s not an official position. It’s just the opinion of someone who used to talk to CEOs of food companies all day and is probably presently the CEO of a food company.
Besides which, it’s a straw man. Being nutritious is not the value proposition of organic food.
I would say being nutritious is absolutely part of the image they push. But you’re right, they lie/deceive about much more than that. Such as it being better for the environment, using no/safer pesticides, that gmos are bad, etc…
Honestly, I don’t know what this refers to. How does who push what image? I’m not inundated with pro-organic propaganda every time I go online or go to the shop.
Often product selections include different options: low fat, low sugar, high protein, organic. People tend to overlay whatever preconceptions they like on to those variants.
I’m confused. You said that “Being nutritious is not the value proposition of organic food.” so you clearly have an idea of what the “value proposition” is. Where do you think you got this idea? If it was just from going to the store and seeing the packaging, well there ya go. That’s how they pushed the image onto you. But it’s a 60 billion dollar industry. The entities pushing this are the mainly the OTA, but other groups that stand to benefit from the naturalistic fallacy.
The value proposition, that purported by the industry, is merely that no artificial fertilisers or pesticides are used.
Consumers will apply their own ideas on top of that, but implied benefits like “more nutritious” are better left unsaid by the industry because they’re demonstrably false.
You seem to agree that they do imply other benefits outside of just not using artificial fertilizers. This would mean that pointing out that these implied benefit don’t actually exist is not really a strawman. It’s like saying Trump didn’t try to pressure the GA official to overturn the outcome of the election because he never explicitly said it, he just implied it, so pointing out his criminal behavior here is a “straw man.”
Besides which, it’s a straw man. Being nutritious is not the value proposition of organic food.
Yep. “Marketing tool” is a value-neutral description of all labeling schema and does not imply that it’s just meaningless marketing.
This quote is just the Secretary of Agriculture clarifying that organic food isn’t more nutritious and conventional food isn’t poisonous, which is obviously true, important for the Ag Sec to clarify and doesn’t speak to the many benefits to the ecosystem that make organically grown produce important to consumer.
What a daft thing to say. As you well know the term “organic” has different meanings in different contexts, conflating those meanings (deliberately in this case) is illogical.
Well it’s not an official position. It’s just the opinion of someone who used to talk to CEOs of food companies all day and is probably presently the CEO of a food company.
Besides which, it’s a straw man. Being nutritious is not the value proposition of organic food.
I would say being nutritious is absolutely part of the image they push. But you’re right, they lie/deceive about much more than that. Such as it being better for the environment, using no/safer pesticides, that gmos are bad, etc…
Honestly, I don’t know what this refers to. How does who push what image? I’m not inundated with pro-organic propaganda every time I go online or go to the shop.
Often product selections include different options: low fat, low sugar, high protein, organic. People tend to overlay whatever preconceptions they like on to those variants.
I’m confused. You said that “Being nutritious is not the value proposition of organic food.” so you clearly have an idea of what the “value proposition” is. Where do you think you got this idea? If it was just from going to the store and seeing the packaging, well there ya go. That’s how they pushed the image onto you. But it’s a 60 billion dollar industry. The entities pushing this are the mainly the OTA, but other groups that stand to benefit from the naturalistic fallacy.
The value proposition, that purported by the industry, is merely that no artificial fertilisers or pesticides are used.
Consumers will apply their own ideas on top of that, but implied benefits like “more nutritious” are better left unsaid by the industry because they’re demonstrably false.
You seem to agree that they do imply other benefits outside of just not using artificial fertilizers. This would mean that pointing out that these implied benefit don’t actually exist is not really a strawman. It’s like saying Trump didn’t try to pressure the GA official to overturn the outcome of the election because he never explicitly said it, he just implied it, so pointing out his criminal behavior here is a “straw man.”
That’s more or less the opposite of what I said.
Yep. “Marketing tool” is a value-neutral description of all labeling schema and does not imply that it’s just meaningless marketing.
This quote is just the Secretary of Agriculture clarifying that organic food isn’t more nutritious and conventional food isn’t poisonous, which is obviously true, important for the Ag Sec to clarify and doesn’t speak to the many benefits to the ecosystem that make organically grown produce important to consumer.
Except it does because all fucking food is organic
Words sometimes have multiple meanings.
We’re not talking about chemistry. There’s no need to purposefully misapply the wrong definition for the context.
What a daft thing to say. As you well know the term “organic” has different meanings in different contexts, conflating those meanings (deliberately in this case) is illogical.