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.”
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.