Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Again, that is anti-scientific fluff (0+ / 0-)

    specifically this:

    Describes agricultural raw materials which ave been grown without chemical fertilizers, pesticides or growth promoters
    .

    nothing grows without "chemical fertilizers" - be they natural (e.g.,  manure or nutrients leached out of rock) or man-made (Miracle-Gro), they are involved in the process.

    Similarly, if you don't give plant "artificial" pesticides, they make their own, in massive quantities in many cases.  It is simply not possible to have a pesticide free plant.

    Similarly, "growth promoters" is an incredibly vague term that could mean anything at all.

    And finally, same with "genetic modification" - all foods people eat have been genetically modified.  

    Basically, all of these processes are ubiquitous, and seem to be perfectly fine if they take place "naturally" but are taboo is done with human assistance - even though your blockquotes seem to avoid explicit mention of such anti-scientific Ludditism.

    Thus, the only definition of "organic" that is rigorous is the "carbon containing" one.  In the context of foodstuffs, the term is totally marketing fluff.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site