What it means as a food label is (theoretically, at least), “not made with inorganic ingredients” i.e. certain kinds of pesticides/fertilizers or additives
This is blatant misinformation. Most food labels like “free range” mean whatever the labeler wants it to mean, as long as there is some definition available on the label (or a very small printed link to a website with the definition). The organic label, as far as I can tell, is the only one with a precise definition and requirements outlined by the USDA.
For crops this means a lack of certain pesticides/chemicals used, regenerative techniques for the fields, and no GMOs. For animals it requires certain living conditions and a diet of nearly entirely organic food.
Which part was misinformation? That inorganic things aren’t food? Good luck arguing that point lol. Everything else I said was an opinion so idk where you’re coming from there. I’m aware that a person or a committee or something somewhere was paid to redefine a word that already had a static, objective meaning for no reason other than to make more money, that doesn’t stop it from being misleading and unnecessarily ambiguous. Why that word? Sure you’ve done your homework about this so you might consider yourself “immune” to the false advertising, but the majority of Americans have no clue and believe everything they see, as far as they can understand it. Most people like you who would be curious enough to do that research probably already know what organic and inorganic actually mean so they weren’t really going to get duped anyway, but they make up a tiny portion of the population.
Try eating nothing but salt, see how that works out for ya. “Food” is metabolizable, salt isn’t. Salt’s as necessary as water, yes, but also like water, it’s not enough on its own.
I never gave “my” definition of organic and logic really has nothing to do with it, it has an objective scientific definition already. With all due respect, if you’re out there buying organic salt, you’re exactly the kind of under-informed, over-paying consumer I’m trying to look out for.
The misinformation is the part where you’re pushing a false narrative that using the term organic in any way other than being organism-derived (or however you prefer to define it) is inherently misleading and wrong. Unless you want to argue that a word can’t have two meanings, in which case good luck arguing that point. Unlike the word “literally” it’s pretty easy for a layperson to tell which definition is being used based on context. “There is organic material in this sample” is clearly referring to the only definition you’ll accept. Saying “this tomato I bought is organic” is pretty easy to understand that the tomato in question is more similar to a naturally occurring tomato than one that has undergone alterations, even if the person saying that doesn’t know the specifics. Why not that word? If the term the USDA used was “natural” you’d be telling me right now that if it wasn’t natural it wouldn’t be food.
I do think the term “organic” should be split into at least four different terms to cover all the major qualifications (GMO-free, synthetic pesticide free, sustainable, free range for animals but actually defined) to be called organic, but that’s different than saying that it’s inherently misleading as a term or that it would be misleading on purpose. What purpose? To make more money? It’s more expensive to grow produce that meets the requirements to be called organic. If there was legitimately no difference between organic-labeled and non-organic-labeled food you might have a point, but there is.
They’re using it in its chemistry meaning. In chemistry organic means a category of carbon based chemicals and reactions. Ironically that includes petrochemistry. This is a popular gotcha for a certain type of nerd.
But yes, organic farming is a different meaning of the word, and it derives from a movement to treat the farm as an organism.
It’s easier to squeeze out smaller competition that can’t afford to meet the requirements but aren’t necessarily cutting corners or providing unhealthy or even less healthy products, netting more money for the companies that can jump through the hoops. And like you say, it’s more expensive to get that organic label, that means someone is making more money. Now I assume I don’t need to explain conflicts of interest or political lobbying to you, but that’s because you’re seem much more informed and aware than the average American consumer.
I wish I had as much faith in American regulatory institutions as you, I guess experience has left me too jaded.
I’m well aware of the “theories”, what it actually functionally means is they can charge more while falsely implying food without that label is necessarily unhealthy and may, in fact, not even be food at all.
If someone is uneducated about what food labels mean and which ones have a regulatory definition and which ones don’t, then sure they might be duped into overpaying for shit that doesn’t deliver on its promises. But organic is one of the few terms that are actually defined by regulation and have specific requirements to meet to use the label, so it’s kind of weird that you would choose this one to pick a bone with.
if someone is uneducated about what food labels mean and which ones have a regulatory definition and which ones don’t
Yeah you just described 95% of Americans, maybe more, thanks for illustrating my point! “They” (read: A politician) chose to use a word that already has specific implications for that market, which they absolutely didn’t need to do and, imo, they almost certainly did on purpose. I don’t like that, sorry 🤷♂️
Wait what politician is using the word in this context? I must have missed something.
And just because loads of people are ignorant and uneducated doesn’t mean we should abandon words just because they can be misunderstood. It was a weak point.
I was referring to the politician in charge of the USDA when they decided to redefine a scientific term for no other determinable reason than to make more money. Loads of people being ignorant and uneducated enough to misunderstand advertising is exactly the reason we have and need strong consumer protection regulations, like antitrust and fair competition laws.
Idk what the last sentence is referencing or I’d address it, sorry.
What it means as a food label is (theoretically, at least), “not made with inorganic ingredients” i.e. certain kinds of pesticides/fertilizers or additives
This is blatant misinformation. Most food labels like “free range” mean whatever the labeler wants it to mean, as long as there is some definition available on the label (or a very small printed link to a website with the definition). The organic label, as far as I can tell, is the only one with a precise definition and requirements outlined by the USDA.
For crops this means a lack of certain pesticides/chemicals used, regenerative techniques for the fields, and no GMOs. For animals it requires certain living conditions and a diet of nearly entirely organic food.
Source: I wanted to understand what food labels and “organic” food means a year or two ago and spent a few hours reading the laws provided by the USDA. Turns out they also have a basic outline of the requirements: https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means
How does that in any way contradict what I said?
You know what most of those pesticides and other disqualifying things are? Inorganic.
Of course there’s more complexity to it than that, but in a nutshell that’s why it’s called “organic” and not “gleebleglanic”
I said there’s more complexity to it than that. I was putting it in overly simplistic terms to make it easier to grasp for the willfully ignorant.
Also, plants don’t require NaCl. Sodium is actively harmful to plants. They don’t crave electrolytes.
Sorry, I think I meant to reply to the same comment you did. I’ve been running on just a few hours of sleep the past few days.
Okay, that makes a lot more sense now…
Which part was misinformation? That inorganic things aren’t food? Good luck arguing that point lol. Everything else I said was an opinion so idk where you’re coming from there. I’m aware that a person or a committee or something somewhere was paid to redefine a word that already had a static, objective meaning for no reason other than to make more money, that doesn’t stop it from being misleading and unnecessarily ambiguous. Why that word? Sure you’ve done your homework about this so you might consider yourself “immune” to the false advertising, but the majority of Americans have no clue and believe everything they see, as far as they can understand it. Most people like you who would be curious enough to do that research probably already know what organic and inorganic actually mean so they weren’t really going to get duped anyway, but they make up a tiny portion of the population.
Sodium Chloride is not “organic” but there is not a single kind of life on the planet earth that can survive without it.
So according to your (il)logic, NOTHING can be organic, your definition, not mine.
Try eating nothing but salt, see how that works out for ya. “Food” is metabolizable, salt isn’t. Salt’s as necessary as water, yes, but also like water, it’s not enough on its own.
I never gave “my” definition of organic and logic really has nothing to do with it, it has an objective scientific definition already. With all due respect, if you’re out there buying organic salt, you’re exactly the kind of under-informed, over-paying consumer I’m trying to look out for.
The misinformation is the part where you’re pushing a false narrative that using the term organic in any way other than being organism-derived (or however you prefer to define it) is inherently misleading and wrong. Unless you want to argue that a word can’t have two meanings, in which case good luck arguing that point. Unlike the word “literally” it’s pretty easy for a layperson to tell which definition is being used based on context. “There is organic material in this sample” is clearly referring to the only definition you’ll accept. Saying “this tomato I bought is organic” is pretty easy to understand that the tomato in question is more similar to a naturally occurring tomato than one that has undergone alterations, even if the person saying that doesn’t know the specifics. Why not that word? If the term the USDA used was “natural” you’d be telling me right now that if it wasn’t natural it wouldn’t be food.
I do think the term “organic” should be split into at least four different terms to cover all the major qualifications (GMO-free, synthetic pesticide free, sustainable, free range for animals but actually defined) to be called organic, but that’s different than saying that it’s inherently misleading as a term or that it would be misleading on purpose. What purpose? To make more money? It’s more expensive to grow produce that meets the requirements to be called organic. If there was legitimately no difference between organic-labeled and non-organic-labeled food you might have a point, but there is.
They’re using it in its chemistry meaning. In chemistry organic means a category of carbon based chemicals and reactions. Ironically that includes petrochemistry. This is a popular gotcha for a certain type of nerd.
But yes, organic farming is a different meaning of the word, and it derives from a movement to treat the farm as an organism.
It’s easier to squeeze out smaller competition that can’t afford to meet the requirements but aren’t necessarily cutting corners or providing unhealthy or even less healthy products, netting more money for the companies that can jump through the hoops. And like you say, it’s more expensive to get that organic label, that means someone is making more money. Now I assume I don’t need to explain conflicts of interest or political lobbying to you, but that’s because you’re seem much more informed and aware than the average American consumer.
I wish I had as much faith in American regulatory institutions as you, I guess experience has left me too jaded.
I’m well aware of the “theories”, what it actually functionally means is they can charge more while falsely implying food without that label is necessarily unhealthy and may, in fact, not even be food at all.
If someone is uneducated about what food labels mean and which ones have a regulatory definition and which ones don’t, then sure they might be duped into overpaying for shit that doesn’t deliver on its promises. But organic is one of the few terms that are actually defined by regulation and have specific requirements to meet to use the label, so it’s kind of weird that you would choose this one to pick a bone with.
Yeah you just described 95% of Americans, maybe more, thanks for illustrating my point! “They” (read: A politician) chose to use a word that already has specific implications for that market, which they absolutely didn’t need to do and, imo, they almost certainly did on purpose. I don’t like that, sorry 🤷♂️
Wait what politician is using the word in this context? I must have missed something.
And just because loads of people are ignorant and uneducated doesn’t mean we should abandon words just because they can be misunderstood. It was a weak point.
I was referring to the politician in charge of the USDA when they decided to redefine a scientific term for no other determinable reason than to make more money. Loads of people being ignorant and uneducated enough to misunderstand advertising is exactly the reason we have and need strong consumer protection regulations, like antitrust and fair competition laws.
Idk what the last sentence is referencing or I’d address it, sorry.