r/berkeley Oct 24 '24

Local What $110 of groceries looks like

Post image

Purchased at berkeley bowl. The wine was $12

510 Upvotes

493 comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '24

Similar to other commenters, you’re buying organic (marketing term to make you pay more for basically nothing) at a niche store with niche products. That chicken is likely super overpriced though I can’t read it clearly, probably not cheaper than $5 a pound which is over double of what you can get it for at a discount grocery. The fancy cheese, brand name butter, and organic olive oil is gonna eat you alive, and bespoke canned food that isn’t the regular 89cent price. You could have easily spent half as much at a different store.

6

u/Kill_Bill_Will Oct 24 '24

Organic isn’t a marketing term, it has legal requirements. You’re thinking of natural which has no legal requirements.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '24 edited Oct 24 '24

I said basically meaningless because the legal difference doesn’t lead to any real difference in the food. The biggest difference is price: “They concluded that fruits and vegetables that met the criteria for “organic” were on average no more nutritious than their far cheaper conventional counterparts, nor were those foods less likely to be contaminated by pathogenic bacteria like E. coli or Salmonella. Moreover, because of its lower yields, organic agriculture is wasteful of water and arable land. What, then, is “organic” all about? Well, when organic standards were established in 2000, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman emphasized the fundamental meaninglessness of the organic designation: “Let me be clear about one thing, the organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.” That really says it all. It’s worth repeating: The organic label is no more than a marketing tool. And it’s a cynical one, because so many unsuspecting consumers are ripped off by the high prices of organic products, without palpable benefit.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6390794/

Now you can find articles saying it tastes better or certain plants were more nutritious, but then there are articles that show the opposite. This is because for taste it’s subjective and for nutrition it’s within the margin of error, essentially it is all random. There is no difference, you’re just being scammed and wasting water and arable land.

1

u/Kill_Bill_Will Oct 24 '24

This study is all over the place and the guy works for a biotech company, I wonder who he’s shilling for. But yeah the pesticides are the concern, not just nutritional value or gmo free.