Because 25% less than 50% more means still 25% more than most Wal-Mart shoppers can afford. And let's talk about the "mostly" portion of "mostly organic"...
That place is the worst for driving prices down from suppliers, destroying two middle class incomes at once. Those of the supplier's workers and those of their own.
Apropos nothing, the founder of Wild Oats was caught soliciting sex with a minor. Probably just wanted to sow some, right?
75% of 150% is only 112.5% (not 125%), which is not too much more than the price for GM food.
Mostly, shmostly. As far as I'm concerned, all food is organic.
Unless you're on food stamps and trying to make it through the week on too little as it is.
Isn't that just another way of saying not organic? I don't know what US regulations say regarding organic food but this just sounds wrong.
Never, ever use absolutes...
Some food is inorganic: Edible Silver Foil
Is this really news?
This headline is from 2006:
"Critics Blast Wal-Mart for Low-Priced Organic Foods"
Does water count as food? Because that cannot be organic.
Well, if 'organic' is healthier than non-organic then this is a good thing for most people.
If the value of 'organic' for most people is in its status signalling qualities, they will have to find some other way of differentiating themselves from the common rabble. If you can buy it at Wal-mart, it no longer provides you with status.
The "mostly" part seems to refer to ready meals that don't exclusively have organic ingredients, but are somehow supposed to be healthier than the normal all-GM option. It does open the door to the kind of claims you see such as "made with (12%) whole grain flour (and 88% white flour)". If anything, I'm surprised this is news now though: watering down a respected indication of quality like "organic" seems like the kind of thing they would have done years ago.
(Edit: thanks, @skeptic, it makes sense that it's nothing new).
The joke here is that anybody who cares enough to pay for organic, also cares enough to avoid WalMart. So who exactly is the target market?
That's the thing, they've realized they can't get any more of the low end market so they're trying to upscale. There are enough people who are on the edge of organic who don't want to pay full markup that would make the move there. They're trying an experiment to increase their market any way they can.
And/or cash in on the buzzword. Slap the word organic on the box somewhere, make a million bucks. It's easy!
Remember those little silver balls used for decorating cakes and cookies? Reminds me of a joke we used to tell about a woman who ran out and substituted BBs instead. The punchline, as you can guess, was, "Honey, I just farted and shot our neighbor!"
People on food stamps can afford fresh vegetables!? What's next, lobster?
Kidding aside, according to WebMD if you're tight on cash you may want to avoid the luxury of less efficiently produced organic food, seeing as we've proven that vegetables are important but have yet to show the same for organic farming.
But food experts caution that while the big picture is important, you must make the decision that makes the most sense for you. If you can manage the higher price, and you like the idea of fewer pesticides and a more environmentally friendly production system, organic food may be for you. But don't skimp on healthy conventional foods just because you think you need to save your pennies for the few organic items that you can afford.
"The best thing you can do for yourself is to eat lots of fruits and vegetables and grains. And eat variety. From my perspective, it doesn't matter whether they are organic or conventional," Winter says.
I expect that one day there will be a Fox News piece about 'people on welfare who are living at coastal New England and are eating lobster.'
If silver and water do, then I dont see why not.
If we keep this up, we could create the worlds first truly non-organic meal.
next page →