It’s funny how just the other day I was arguing with someone who was trying to claim that “organic” is just a meaningless label designed to dupe people into spending more on groceries…
People who buy organic are trying to avoid precisely this kind of shit.
Hold up. Organic just means containing carbon which is the building block of life.
This leads to a strange statement like organic farmers shun organic pesticides.
Only that isn’t actually the truth. Oganic farmers can still use pesticides. There is some nuance here but for the most part organic farmers use 30% less pesticides. In some circumstances organic farmers may even apply more pesticides than a regular farmer on a single spraying.
There are certain pesticides that are approved for organic farmers. I don’t know the details of the chemistry or whether those pesticides are actually organic, but there’s a whole list of pesticides that aren’t allowed if you want the organic label. I can only assume the ones mentioned here are or will be among them.
Sure, Monsanto has shady business practices and uses biased internal studies to get “organic” versions of things that are still harmful, but that’s a Monsanto issue and an issue with the politicians who have Monsanto in their pockets. Same deal with roundup being labeled “safe” for household use even though independent studies say otherwise.
But if you want to make this about semantics, then “organic” means “containing carbon which is the building block of life” when you’re talking about chemistry. When you’re talking about geometry, organic means something different. When you’re talking about processes, organic means something different. I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to say organic also means something different when talking about food labels, especially when the definition in that context is clearly defined by legislation/regulatory policy.
If you don’t know the pesticides then who is to say they are worse or better. Having studied this myself I would not tout organic farming as anything else than slightly better in some ways but not all.
They use copper sulfate which causes heavy metal buildup that leads to liver damage and kidney disease.
They used to use rotenone but it caused mitochondria damage leading to Parkinson’s
They use pytherins that are highly toxic to insect but the FDA considers “not likely to cause human cancer”.
They use Spinosad which is minimally toxic to mammals.
The thing is though they often have to use much more of these comparatively to regular farming. Essentially you can be trading slightly more environmental damage for slightly less human poisoning.
There is no doubt Monsanto’s products have always caused cancer, they knew this from the start very reminiscent of big tobacco and oil. While they do criticize organic farming bringing them up as a shield of criticism for organic farming is disturbing to say the least.
Using the proper definition of a word is not fucking semantics. Organic is meant to mean natural in marketing terms which is based off its actual definition of containing carbon. I am not sure why you insist on caring water for organic farmers.
I will be frank, we need much better systems than the current organic farming scheme. It is not even arguably better because of the trade offs with environmental degredation.
My whole point was that “the proper definition” of a word changes based on context or domain.
“Field” can mean a place where you grow crops, or a place where you play sports. Which one is “the proper definition”?
“Organic” has multiple “proper definitions” based on what you’re talking about.
Also, it does not mean “natural” in marketing terms. “Natural” has no regulatory definition; “organic” does.
I’m not arguing that we can’t approve improve the agricultural systems writ large. That’s something that we must do. But complaining about organic farming is something I mostly hear from conservatives who also deny climate change and think industrial farming is the only way to feed a civilization.
I like how you want to lecture about context or domain and then say organic is not meant to mean natural in marketing terms. You clearly don’t get it. That is okay.
I am not fucking complaining. This is called criticism. Stop carrying water for organic farming techniques. To say we can develop something far better is a dramatic understatement.
Context does matter. I’m sure when I select “organic tree supports” in the slicer software for 3D printing, it’s not talking about organic chemistry. It’s talking about organic geometry.
When you say a group or event develops organically, you’re not talking about chemistry. You’re talking about how it wasn’t centrally planned but more grew on its own.
It’s not that strange for a word to have multiple potential definitions depending on how it’s being used, so talking about the definition of organic used in chemistry to refute all other uses of the term, as if it were the only possible definition, is not a good argument.
And it’s hilarious that you’re trying to draw a false equivalence between “organic” and “natural” when one has a precise regulatory definition, and the other doesn’t.
Anyway, you’re on a thread about the trump admin approving dangerous chemicals for use in food production. If those chemicals somehow make their way onto a list of being approved for organic produce, I’ll eat my shoes.
What part of regulatory definition do you not understand?
The only one acting like a “moron” is the one reduced so far as to rely on that as an insult to deflect from their inability to refute my point.
You made a lot of red herrings to try to bait me into a defensive position. I only bothered addressing the parts that were relevant to the points that I actually made.
organic farmers use different kinds of pesticide if they use pesticide
they need to use non-pesticide methods first, and any pesticide use is heavily regulated
while some of the organic and limited synthetic pesticides could and do have potential human health implications, the vast majority of the synthetic pesticides used on conventional produce are widely recognized as probably having some damaging impacts on humans eating produce contaminated by them.
As a result
Conventional vegetables were contaminated with 2 to 17 times as many pesticides as were organic vegetables. Conventional fruits were contaminated with 6–75 times as many pesticides as organic fruits.
The dietary risk index was more than 50 times higher for conventional vegetables than for organic vegetables, and more than 130 times higher for conventional fruits.
Don’t both sides this. The person saying buying organic is just raising your grocery bill without changing your pesticide exposure or risks is objectively, factually wrong.
If you haven’t studied this then trying a gotcha is pretty dumb.
Slightly less exposure to chemicals and a higher impact on the environment isn’t always the win you think it is.
Don’t turn this into a both sides issue. Stop carrying water for organic farming practices when you don’t know what the fuck you are even talking about!
It’s funny how just the other day I was arguing with someone who was trying to claim that “organic” is just a meaningless label designed to dupe people into spending more on groceries…
People who buy organic are trying to avoid precisely this kind of shit.
Hold up. Organic just means containing carbon which is the building block of life.
This leads to a strange statement like organic farmers shun organic pesticides.
Only that isn’t actually the truth. Oganic farmers can still use pesticides. There is some nuance here but for the most part organic farmers use 30% less pesticides. In some circumstances organic farmers may even apply more pesticides than a regular farmer on a single spraying.
https://rozenbergquarterly.com/do-organic-farms-use-pesticides-how-organic-and-conventional-farming-differ/
So the person you were arguing with isn’t completely wrong and you are not completely right.
There are certain pesticides that are approved for organic farmers. I don’t know the details of the chemistry or whether those pesticides are actually organic, but there’s a whole list of pesticides that aren’t allowed if you want the organic label. I can only assume the ones mentioned here are or will be among them.
Sure, Monsanto has shady business practices and uses biased internal studies to get “organic” versions of things that are still harmful, but that’s a Monsanto issue and an issue with the politicians who have Monsanto in their pockets. Same deal with roundup being labeled “safe” for household use even though independent studies say otherwise.
But if you want to make this about semantics, then “organic” means “containing carbon which is the building block of life” when you’re talking about chemistry. When you’re talking about geometry, organic means something different. When you’re talking about processes, organic means something different. I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to say organic also means something different when talking about food labels, especially when the definition in that context is clearly defined by legislation/regulatory policy.
If you don’t know the pesticides then who is to say they are worse or better. Having studied this myself I would not tout organic farming as anything else than slightly better in some ways but not all.
They use copper sulfate which causes heavy metal buildup that leads to liver damage and kidney disease.
They used to use rotenone but it caused mitochondria damage leading to Parkinson’s
They use pytherins that are highly toxic to insect but the FDA considers “not likely to cause human cancer”.
They use Spinosad which is minimally toxic to mammals.
The thing is though they often have to use much more of these comparatively to regular farming. Essentially you can be trading slightly more environmental damage for slightly less human poisoning.
There is no doubt Monsanto’s products have always caused cancer, they knew this from the start very reminiscent of big tobacco and oil. While they do criticize organic farming bringing them up as a shield of criticism for organic farming is disturbing to say the least.
Using the proper definition of a word is not fucking semantics. Organic is meant to mean natural in marketing terms which is based off its actual definition of containing carbon. I am not sure why you insist on caring water for organic farmers.
I will be frank, we need much better systems than the current organic farming scheme. It is not even arguably better because of the trade offs with environmental degredation.
My whole point was that “the proper definition” of a word changes based on context or domain.
“Field” can mean a place where you grow crops, or a place where you play sports. Which one is “the proper definition”?
“Organic” has multiple “proper definitions” based on what you’re talking about.
Also, it does not mean “natural” in marketing terms. “Natural” has no regulatory definition; “organic” does.
I’m not arguing that we can’t
approveimprove the agricultural systems writ large. That’s something that we must do. But complaining about organic farming is something I mostly hear from conservatives who also deny climate change and think industrial farming is the only way to feed a civilization.I like how you want to lecture about context or domain and then say organic is not meant to mean natural in marketing terms. You clearly don’t get it. That is okay.
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2019/09/organic-vegetables-and-fruits-are-a-marketing-ploy
I am not fucking complaining. This is called criticism. Stop carrying water for organic farming techniques. To say we can develop something far better is a dramatic understatement.
Context does matter. I’m sure when I select “organic tree supports” in the slicer software for 3D printing, it’s not talking about organic chemistry. It’s talking about organic geometry.
When you say a group or event develops organically, you’re not talking about chemistry. You’re talking about how it wasn’t centrally planned but more grew on its own.
It’s not that strange for a word to have multiple potential definitions depending on how it’s being used, so talking about the definition of organic used in chemistry to refute all other uses of the term, as if it were the only possible definition, is not a good argument.
And it’s hilarious that you’re trying to draw a false equivalence between “organic” and “natural” when one has a precise regulatory definition, and the other doesn’t.
Anyway, you’re on a thread about the trump admin approving dangerous chemicals for use in food production. If those chemicals somehow make their way onto a list of being approved for organic produce, I’ll eat my shoes.
What part of marketing do you not understand!?
Please lecture me more on context. You are acting like a moron at this point.
Anyway, I made some points and you said what you said. Cheers!
What part of regulatory definition do you not understand?
The only one acting like a “moron” is the one reduced so far as to rely on that as an insult to deflect from their inability to refute my point.
You made a lot of red herrings to try to bait me into a defensive position. I only bothered addressing the parts that were relevant to the points that I actually made.
Huh? From your own link
As a result
Don’t both sides this. The person saying buying organic is just raising your grocery bill without changing your pesticide exposure or risks is objectively, factually wrong.
If you haven’t studied this then trying a gotcha is pretty dumb.
Slightly less exposure to chemicals and a higher impact on the environment isn’t always the win you think it is.
Don’t turn this into a both sides issue. Stop carrying water for organic farming practices when you don’t know what the fuck you are even talking about!
uses facts from your own link that contradict the point you’re trying to make
Okay… 🙄
What exactly contradicted my original statement.
Please just stop acting stupid it is not a good look.
It’s funny how it’s typically the ones with the flimsiest arguments that say shit like this.
If you can’t see the contradiction then you apparently didn’t even read it.
I can see you are unable to point out the contradiction.
I guess I was right. Cheers!
I see no need to point out what’s already plain as day for everyone who reads this thread.
I won’t dance for you like a monkey wearing a vest, go play your tune somewhere else