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.
I never said anything about regulatory definition. Your reading comprehension isn’t that great I guess. You making a point about something unrelated doesn’t exactly add to the conversation. But thanks for the information I already knew.
I apologize if insulting your behavior hurt your feelings.
I never said anything about regulatory definition.
I did, and you’ve been conveniently ignoring that instead of addressing the points I actually made. Have you forgotten who posted the top-level comment here? This chain is you replying to me, dude. You don’t get to decide what this argument is about just to make me seem in a weaker position. You don’t decide what my argument is just because the one I’m actually making is too hard for you to refute.
You making a point about something unrelated doesn’t exactly add to the conversation.
That’s exactly what you’re doing. Projection in a nutshell.
I apologize if insulting your behavior hurt your feelings.
My feelings aren’t hurt, I’m simply pointing out that you apparently don’t have any good-faith arguments left because you’ve resorted to projection, strawmen, and namecalling.
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.
I never said anything about regulatory definition. Your reading comprehension isn’t that great I guess. You making a point about something unrelated doesn’t exactly add to the conversation. But thanks for the information I already knew.
I apologize if insulting your behavior hurt your feelings.
I did, and you’ve been conveniently ignoring that instead of addressing the points I actually made. Have you forgotten who posted the top-level comment here? This chain is you replying to me, dude. You don’t get to decide what this argument is about just to make me seem in a weaker position. You don’t decide what my argument is just because the one I’m actually making is too hard for you to refute.
That’s exactly what you’re doing. Projection in a nutshell.
My feelings aren’t hurt, I’m simply pointing out that you apparently don’t have any good-faith arguments left because you’ve resorted to projection, strawmen, and namecalling.