> Obviously the people who want to buy organic and the people who want to avoid plastic the most are probably almost the same group. They know this. It feels like "Fuck you environmental-aware buyers" to me.

They're different types of environmental. One is "I don't like pesticides and I have money" and the other is "I don't like eternal plastic waste".

▲

jraph a day ago | parent [-]

Different things, same group of people (money matters aside - people don't buy because it's more expensive, but despite it), no?

The "I have money" part is obviously unfortunate. Buying healthy and environmentally-friendly shouldn't be conditioned by money. The next best individual thing is voting with one's own wallet in the meantime.

The "I don't like pesticides"¹ and the "I don't like eternal plastic waste" are very compatible. Both pesticides and eternal plastic waste hurt the environment in their own ways.

I suppose the target is the restricted set of people who are interested in organic products for their own individual health and who don't push the reasoning far enough to see that their health depends on the environment being healthy in the long term. Or, people who prefer buying organic food and who will make a compromise.

Do you have a different reading?

¹ we will note that organic doesn't mean "no pesticides", and is broader than just pesticides, but I accept the shortcut.

▲

philipallstar a day ago | parent [-]

> (money matters aside - people don't buy because it's more expensive, but despite it), no?

I didn't say people buy it because it's more expensive.

▲

jraph a day ago | parent [-]

Indeed, but removing the money part of your sentence:

> They're different types of environmental. One is "I don't like pesticides" and the other is "I don't like eternal plastic waste".

Makes its clear that both concerns would come from the same group of people, more or less.

Or not? This is my question to you. Just take my previous comment as "What do you mean, different?".

You have a point with your money thing. Supermarkets absolutely make their choices with individualistic assumptions, taking in account classes of people and their revenues, and I suspect this is how we ended up with this wrapped organic vegetables heresy.

▲

philipallstar a day ago | parent [-]

> I suspect this is how we ended up with this wrapped organic vegetables heresy

It could be that things treated without pesticides might require more protection against things attacking them in transit? Who knows.

▲

jraph a day ago | parent [-]

It would be quite concerning :-)

That would mean that we eat active pesticides when buying non organic food. Not that it would totally surprise me neither.

We do know that organic markets don't need the plastic though. But they might have shorter circuits as well (which is also a good thing).

▲

philipallstar a day ago | parent [-]

> That would mean that we eat active pesticides when buying non organic food. Not that it would totally surprise me neither.

Not necessarily. It could be microbes downstream of pests touching your crops that shorten the shelf life, for example.

> But they might have shorter circuits as well (which is also a good thing).

It's a good thing if you have the time and money to buy things that are more expensive to produce.

▲

jraph a day ago | parent [-]

> It's a good thing if you have the time and money to buy things that are more expensive to produce.

Again with the money! We are looping here. I really don't know what you are trying to defend, but not the same thing as me for sure.

I think I will stop there, we are not having a constructive discussion. You are just opposing random stuff without answering key points.

	▲	philipallstar a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Again with the money! If you claim something is good, it's maybe okay to point out that it might not be good.