Skip to main content

View Diary: Is USDA Organic Really Organic? (28 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's almost as if the same word can have (0+ / 0-)

    more than one commonly accepted meaning depending on context.

    "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

    by JesseCW on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 07:29:27 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Sure, but the point is that one (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Remembering Jello

      "commonly accepted meaning" actually has meaning.

      The other is nothing but gibberish - as nicely illustrated by the definition MB posted above:

      3a (1):  of, relating to, or derived from living organisms

      (2):  of, relating to, yielding, or involving the use of food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides

      b (1):  of, relating to, or containing carbon compounds (2) :  relating to, being, or dealt with by a branch of chemistry concerned with the carbon compounds of living beings and most other carbon compounds.

      That definition, while "commonly accepted" is complete scientific nonsense considering that each and every plant out there requires "chemically formulated fertilizers"  - for example gaseous nitrogen (N2) that has been chemically formulated (aka known as "fixed" in this context) to ammonia (NH3) - which can be accomplished either industrially or by symbiotic bacteria in some cases.  But either, they need it, and can't tell the difference one they receive it.

      Similar considerations apply to phosphorous, a chemical that plants must obtain from the outside to live and grow, and further this chemical must be formulated into phosphate.

      That's just the tip of the iceberg, but I think the point is made that just because something is commonly accepted, that it means anything.

      But like myself and others have pointed out, it's a great marketing scheme.

      •  A fantastic marketing scheme. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy

        I still can't quite believe that there's a market for "organic" tobacco/marijuana.

        Folks, yer gonna light it on fire and then inhale the smoke.

        The byproducts of that reaction are going to be much much more toxic than anything that was used on the plants.

        ...And yet you'll pay significantly more.

        •  Reminds me of a tour of an RJReynolds (0+ / 0-)

          facility (back in the '80s, don't know if they still give them) where they played up how clean their tobacco processing facilities were - they were WAY below (the quite low) government limits for rat feces, dead insects, etc being accidentally introduced into their products.

          Yeah, like * that's * the problem with cigarettes!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site