3 ms·

> Constant scammed grain buyers, meat producers and millions of American consumers for a decade or more. The organic beef and poultry countless Americans were e

> Constant scammed grain buyers, meat producers and millions of American consumers for a decade or more. The organic beef and poultry countless Americans were eating during those years wasn’t organic after all. Uh, no - the only people scammed by him were consumers. All the middlemen and downstream producers unwittingly resold the product as organic. They didn't really lose anything.

Aperocky 7y ago
imo the only significant difference between organic an not organic in food itself is basically the label. Since the label has been there, I’d argue that customer didn’t really lose anything either. Their emotional need is fulfilled by that label. === Edit: point taken. The above serve as previous opinion.
- Jedd 7y ago
  > tbf, the only significant difference between organic an not organic in food itself is basically the label. I suggest you should have qualified with 'in my opinion', rather than 'tbf'. There's significant behavioural and environmental differences upstream with many practices that come under the organic umbrella, even if you don't agree (for example) that pesticides are profoundly bad for bees, or residual pesticides in food are bad for us, etc.
MR4D 7y ago
Trust. They lost trust. Not the same as money, but it will cause them lower profits in the future.
- phendrenad2 7y ago
  Exactly. A sinking tide lowers all boats. Why would I buy organic if this kind of thing can happen?
  - k_amnell 7y ago
    Why buy organic at all? There’s no proof that the meat is any better for you from the article. And unless there is more regulation of what is considered organic, I would argue that there is little environmental or philosophical reason to buy organic either. At least in the US, the standards for being organic are absurdity low.
- teclordphrack2 7y ago
  I only read half the article and skimmed past that to the end. Where does the article or in any court case is any individual buyer called out? While the case may of hurt the image of the organic re-sellers as a whole, how many people in the organic marketing space are advertising this?

Aperocky 7y ago

imo the only significant difference between organic an not organic in food itself is basically the label. Since the label has been there, I’d argue that customer didn’t really lose anything either. Their emotional need is fulfilled by that label. === Edit: point taken. The above serve as previous opinion.

Jedd 7y ago
> tbf, the only significant difference between organic an not organic in food itself is basically the label. I suggest you should have qualified with 'in my opinion', rather than 'tbf'. There's significant behavioural and environmental differences upstream with many practices that come under the organic umbrella, even if you don't agree (for example) that pesticides are profoundly bad for bees, or residual pesticides in food are bad for us, etc.

MR4D 7y ago

Trust. They lost trust. Not the same as money, but it will cause them lower profits in the future.

phendrenad2 7y ago
Exactly. A sinking tide lowers all boats. Why would I buy organic if this kind of thing can happen?
- k_amnell 7y ago
  Why buy organic at all? There’s no proof that the meat is any better for you from the article. And unless there is more regulation of what is considered organic, I would argue that there is little environmental or philosophical reason to buy organic either. At least in the US, the standards for being organic are absurdity low.
teclordphrack2 7y ago
I only read half the article and skimmed past that to the end. Where does the article or in any court case is any individual buyer called out? While the case may of hurt the image of the organic re-sellers as a whole, how many people in the organic marketing space are advertising this?