in the big picture of food production, your sample size and perspective is on a single pixel.
Folks that shop at Whole Foods have different motivations but they generally have more disposable income than the general population. They are also a miniscule fraction of the population that likes to eat (many of whom dont happen to be in the US).
I'm completely supportive of Whole Foods and their clones (I've only shopped at a couple of Trader Joes and wasnt impressed). However, I'd bet that for any town that has both Whole Foods and Walmarts, if you compare the grocery traffic, the sum of the Walmart traffic will dwarf that of the Whole Foods. The folks that design the stores obviously recognize that fact.
Walmart sells organic stuff too but most of their customers are mostly concerned about price. The lower price of "conventional" products comes from mass production and efficiency. Part of that efficiency is a product of the use of chemicals in growing the crops.
Since i like precision in language: the use of the word "organic" to differentiate food products is stupid (i.e. at a higher level of idiocy that you recently ascribed to the chemical company CEO). Yet because its usage has become common amongst a rather effete demographic, it is accepted. For most products, I have no idea what differentiates "organic" from "conventional" but i do know that many "organic" grain products taste like cardboard. I suspect most people who blather on about "organic" foods would be horrified to hear that organic chemicals are used to grow food regardless of whether it is "organic" or "conventional". I'd also bet that the death rate from starvation would dramatically increase dramatically if agricultural chemicals were not used routinely.
