It appears Floralia made an exception for me and refunded the order amount, a resolution I'm satisfied with. But it doesn't really give confidence for future orders. Here's the email text they sent:
Quote:
Thank you for your email. We regret the plants came with virus.
As per our price list terms , we don’t guarantee that the plants are virus free. However, as this is your first order, we will refund the value of your order.
As to the plants you should destroy them, we don’t want them back.
If you have any questions,please let us know
|
For what it's worth, their price list and website actually did not mention any terms regarding viruses.
It looks like some ebay buyer will be spared.
As for people telling me that it's unethical to sell virused plants, I agree. But your criticisms ring hollow to me when the overall orchid community turns a blind eye to the problem, with many members here and elsewhere even defending businesses selling virused plants. No one wants a virus, but no one cares that much about the prospect of getting them. Here are a few that I've heard for not testing:
- It would be impractical.
- Most orchids are virused anyways, but undetectable.
- Viruses aren't all bad.
- It doesn't matter when there are no symptoms.
- Viruses don't matter when plants are healthy.
So the only functional difference here is that I have tested all my plants, 100+ of them, with my own money, and threw away the positive ones even when they had no symptoms. I've spent at least $2000 -- just on tests.
Every vendor out there knows that they have viruses, even the ones that have a no virus guarantee. I've spoken to a couple that would admit that up to 10% of plants are probably virused if someone did a randomized test, but no one is going to. So how is it more ethical to just feign ignorance about it? If I sell a plant that's virused, it's deemed unethical. Nurseries don't know whether an orchid is individually virused, but they know they are selling virused plants. Then, it would seem that for example if I do a batch test of 10 orchids with one well, and a positive signal indicates that between 1-10 orchids are virused, then selling these would be okay? It seems like the less someone tests, the more okay it becomes.
I've lost hundreds of dollars over this double standard, and if we collectively as a community turn a blind eye to big businesses selling virused plants because it's financially impractical for them, then why should I be the one absorbing that cost? Why am I being held to a higher standard than all the highly rated vendors that people rave about here that sell virused plants?
As shown in the pictures, no one who posted in this thread would have tested them if that's what you received. They'd be sitting happily in your collections, like the thousands of other collections with plants from venerable industry experts of the likes of Jerry Meola, Steve Champlain, and Steve Moffitt. Your orchid society might have hosted them for talks and raffled these to your members. Those members might have showed off their blooms to Orchidboard. There must have been at least dozens of people that bought from Floralia at Tamiami. Hundreds of people partake in Rare Earth's semi-annual sales. Big Leaf, Hausermann, SBOE, et. al. are almost universally raved about as role models of the orchid industry. Everyone is happy until I spend $5 on a test strip.
I'm sad to say that if I sell a virused plant, I would still be in the top 10% of orchid vendors having respectable policies as long as I refund the 0.1% of buyers that test. Those are the economics that everyone here defends.
It's moot in this instance since Floralia took responsibility. I won't post about this again, since we all know what's right and wrong, but also we all know what's acceptable. It's not a reality that I want to accept, but it's one that everyone had before I even bought my first orchid.
Sorry for being dramatic I felt like I needed to iterate through my thoughts. I simply can't continue to buy orchids if every purchase is going to be a dice roll on how much money goes straight into the trash. Everyone else here has those same dice, but very few people roll them. I can't be blamed when I'm the one taking precautions. That's my point.
P.S. First Orchid Nursery of Apopka, FL, part of Florida's "best kept secret" according to this video (
https://youtu.be/86sd6Y_D42c?si=U__o8fk6ExsoWXeZ&t=608), sells mericlones wholesale. I don't know what their virus rate is, honestly, but what I do know is that at least dozens or likely hundreds of people must have bought plants from the same batch as the one I got. I'd email some of them, but ebay makes buyer's account names private. Food for thought. 99% of their buyers are going to be satisfied with that purchase, because they never test. It was a nice plant for the price. The rest of them are going to give them a pass due to the goodwill and reviews of that 99%. This would be true whether I had a one-off ORSV positive or even if the whole batch was hypothetically virused. As long as no one knows which it is, it's an acceptable outcomes since it's impractical to expect them to test each and every plant. But once they do test, it becomes downright unethical for them to sell them. It kind of makes the case for never testing, doesn't it? The certainty only seems to lose goodwill, despite the costs.
---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis_W
If I got mugged I could cut my losses by mugging another person.
The buyer is innocent and doesn't deserve to be victim of this.
|
It's more like this. If a company sold lead crystal decanters, and everyone played down the risks of lead because they're just so beautiful to look at. Then a scientist buys one and runs some tests and tries to sound the alarm about the negative health effects. But everyone came up with justifications such as, "There are tons of pollutants that we are in contact with everyday," or, "Lead is fine as long as we exercise and take care of our bodies." And they continue buying lead decanters anyways.
Then is it right for that scientist to resell the lead decanter that he purchased? Is it ethical? Arguably not. But is it acceptable? Yes, it is. Not because he thinks the buyer should store wine in lead, but because everyone else had accepted it.
If someone is an activist against homelessness, and goes to the local town hall to argue against ordinances and gentrification without much success. Then raising the prices on his own rental property to keep up with market conditions, so he could afford the mortgage, does not invalidate his activism.
---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subrosa
Floralia might have known they were selling infected plants, and they might not have known. You don't have the benefit of that doubt.
|
I frankly do not care whether Floralia "knows" they're selling plants with viruses. Everyone knows nurseries sell plants with viruses, including nursery owners themselves. Most people excuse it when there is no knowledge of a specific plant being virused. A lot of people have trouble thinking statistically. If 10% of the orchids in a nursery is virused, then on average they are selling a virused plant for every 10 plants that they sell. It's not a matter of "if" they are.
They are. You don't care that they are selling virused plants. Everyone's complaint has been that it's wrong to know the specific plant that's virused.
Linear Mode
