Giving "Organic" a real meaning

[SRW]

I have always felt that the term "Organic" was silly and as currently used more
marketing hype then a worthwhile label. Now science is being applied to "going green" will it result in real and measurable results?

Beyond Organic

 

[macdoc]

Yes - it's been abused.
Sustainable with some real certification for sourcing is long overdue.
The Fair Trade program for coffee is pretty effective.

 

[Madalch]

I teach chemistry, including a large portion of organic chemistry.

Yesterday I had an argument with a student who insisted that gold was organic. Because it's natural, which means the same thing, apparently.

From this exchange, she decided that I must like McDonald's food.

 

[Number Six]

Yes - it's been abused.
Sustainable with some real certification for sourcing is long overdue.
The Fair Trade program for coffee is pretty effective.

I don't know the exact definition of "sustainable" in politics but in common sense usage I assume it'd mean "something that can be sustained" and in that sense I don't like how it is used in politics since it implies that anything that is not under the umbrella terms "sustainable" can't be sustained. The reason I think that is bad is that talking about something that can be "sustained" assumes nothing else is going to change and given that, can we continue doing X indefinitely? Or, if you do assume other things will change as they always have, then it seems impossible to determine what can or cannot be sustained.

Again, all that is a common sense usage of the word and just using reason to plow my way through it, as opposed to getting into all the politics. But I wish there was a better word that was implicitly less judgmental.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I teach chemistry, including a large portion of organic chemistry.

Yesterday I had an argument with a student who insisted that gold was organic. Because it's natural, which means the same thing, apparently.

From this exchange, she decided that I must like McDonald's food.

While she, on the other hand, eats gold for dinner?

 

[Madalch]

While she, on the other hand, eats gold for dinner?

I know of people who take colloidal gold and silver as a "nutritional supplement".

 

[Brian-M]

I have always felt that the term "Organic" was silly and as currently used more
marketing hype then a worthwhile label.

I've always felt that the phrase "Organic Food" is just a huge propaganda tool, implying that plants grown with the assistance of artificial chemicals and fertilizers are somehow "inorganic".

 

[SRW]

I teach chemistry, including a large portion of organic chemistry.

Yesterday I had an argument with a student who insisted that gold was organic. Because it's natural, which means the same thing, apparently.

From this exchange, she decided that I must like McDonald's food.

So in her mind gold is organic and hamburgers are inorganic...someday these people will run the country. Makes me glad to be old.

 

[paximperium]

I know of people who take colloidal gold and silver as a "nutritional supplement".

Lead and arsenic are 100% natural and "organic"

 

[Madalch]

Lead and arsenic are 100% natural and "organic"

Lead and arsenic are not organic. Tetraethyl lead and triethylarsine are, however. Some forms of arsine are actually "organic", in that they are made by living creatures without the aid of fertilizers or pesticides.

 

[Manger Douse]

I have always felt that the term "Organic" was silly and as currently used more
marketing hype then a worthwhile label. Now science is being applied to "going green" will it result in real and measurable results?
/QUOTE]

Be thankful you don't live in Spain where they use 'biological' where here it would be 'organic'

"Biological beet-roots eh? Whatever next"

 

[paximperium]

Lead and arsenic are not organic. Tetraethyl lead and triethylarsine are, however. Some forms of arsine are actually "organic", in that they are made by living creatures without the aid of fertilizers or pesticides.

Not according to your student. Do you like McDonald's or something?

 

[tesscaline]

Be thankful you don't live in Spain where they use 'biological' where here it would be 'organic'

"Biological beet-roots eh? Whatever next"

Wow... And I thought "organic" was pretty hilarious... I'm now imagining everything in my local grocery store that's currently labeled "organic" as being labeled "biological". Yikes!

Out of curiosity, how does that work with things like soap and clothing? Around here, we've got a large market of "organic" non-food items. Would one wear biological pants (oh dear that sounds bad) while eating biological beet roots and soaking their feet in a biological bath?

 

[Simon39759]

I have always felt that the term "Organic" was silly and as currently used more
marketing hype then a worthwhile label. Now science is being applied to "going green" will it result in real and measurable results?

Be thankful you don't live in Spain where they use 'biological' where here it would be 'organic'

"Biological beet-roots eh? Whatever next"

Same thing in France, it must be something with the term 'organic' that does not ring with the Latin hear.
But, MAldach, maybe you can use this example to explain to your student how term that already exist and have a definition were co-opted for marketing/labeling reasons.
From there, it should be reasonable to settle on the chemist' definition as far as the chemistry class is concerned...

 

[anor277]

I have always felt that the term "Organic" was silly and as currently used more
marketing hype then a worthwhile label. Now science is being applied to "going green" will it result in real and measurable results?

Be thankful you don't live in Spain where they use 'biological' where here it would be 'organic'

"Biological beet-roots eh? Whatever next"

The term "biological" or "bio" are fairly common designations for "organic" foods in Europe, and I think it's preferable (for instance "biological salt" is surely less of a non-sequitur than the organic variety, which is marketed where I live). Agreed that "organic" is a marketing term, but it must surely be one of the most successful exercises in branding ever. Produce "organic" food and it commands a premium price just for the name.

Perhaps the oil companies should start selling organic petrol? (But then they'd have to pay royalties to the UK Soil Association.)

 

[soylent]

I don't know the exact definition of "sustainable" in politics but in common sense usage I assume it'd mean "something that can be sustained" and in that sense I don't like how it is used in politics since it implies that anything that is not under the umbrella terms "sustainable" can't be sustained.

Actually no; one of the most common definitions for sustainable development is development that meets the needs of today without compromising the needs of tomorrow.

This definition is of course ignored when convenient because it requires you to actually think.

Solar is clearly sustainable for use in calculators in lieu of batteries, it's sustainable for use in satellites, it's sustainable for use in various low-power off-grid sensor system but it's not sustainable for large scale grid energy production if it cannot be made to meet the needs of today.

Nuclear might be sustainable even if we never adopt any other reactor than light water reactors and disallow any new uranium mines from being established anywhere. Why? Because if it serves as a stopgap measure until we get nuclear fusion or until solar becomes sustainable then it didn't compromise the needs of tomorrow, it enabled them to be fulfilled.

Coal power is unsustainable not because it runs out of fuel at some point but because global warming compromises the needs of tomorrow.

 

[soylent]

In Sweden we use "ecological" in lieu of "organic" in the food context. I pitty the spanish who have to suffer through "biological".

Just be glad that organic farming's older, crazier half-brother biodynamic farming never caught on. It combines a similar set of arbitrary restrictions as organic farming with elements of new-age mysticism, alchemy and astrology.

 

[Complexity]

I think that people should be beaten with the words that they have abused.

 

[paximperium]

I think that people should be beaten with the words that they have abused.

Organic words are 100% natural.

 

[Number Six]

Actually no; one of the most common definitions for sustainable development is development that meets the needs of today without compromising the needs of tomorrow.

This definition is of course ignored when convenient because it requires you to actually think.

Solar is clearly sustainable for use in calculators in lieu of batteries, it's sustainable for use in satellites, it's sustainable for use in various low-power off-grid sensor system but it's not sustainable for large scale grid energy production if it cannot be made to meet the needs of today.

Nuclear might be sustainable even if we never adopt any other reactor than light water reactors and disallow any new uranium mines from being established anywhere. Why? Because if it serves as a stopgap measure until we get nuclear fusion or until solar becomes sustainable then it didn't compromise the needs of tomorrow, it enabled them to be fulfilled.

Coal power is unsustainable not because it runs out of fuel at some point but because global warming compromises the needs of tomorrow.

And how is "compromising the needs of tomorrow" defined? And when is "at some point?" That's my issue. Coal doesn't compromise tomorrow literally, but if we're talking about tomorrow as in 100 years from now then it does. But then again, if we project far enough into the future then anything compromises "tomorrow." Except that the farther out our projections go, the less certain we are of them.

Think about the gasoline powered automobile. Is that sustainable? If not, was it ever sustainable? And if it was sustainable, then at what point did it become unsustainable?