Originally posted by Metal Brain
"The distinction organic farmers make between 'organic' chemicals and 'non-organic' chemicals is both totally arbitrary and unscientific for science makes the distinction differently (for example, science defines DDT as an organic chemical!).
I guess organic farmers just decided to label nicotine as 'organic' in the hope that simply labeling it as 'orga ypocritical is based on misleading crap. You are the one making a moron of yourself!
Farmers are making the distinction between organic approved chemicals. Key word- "approved". This has nothing to do with the chemical classification in the field of chemistry
EXACTLY!
Strangely, you make the point for me here i.e. something being "approved" as being 'organic' and for organic farming having NOTHING to do with the rational chemical classification in the field of chemistry thus being totally arbitrary and unscientific. Many chemicals that are not "approved" as being 'organic' and for organic farming are at least as safe for the environment as many that have been approved.
One example; the organic active ingredient of hormone-based weedkillers used on cereal crops against broad-leafed weeds.
Why hasn't that been "approved" for organic farming? -answer, because it didn't come from a living thing nor mined directly from the ground but was manufactured. -but wait! what does whether a chemical was manufactured or came
directly from nature, i.e. how it was made, got to do with how safe or environmentally friendly it is to use on the farm? -answer, nothing!
So which chemicals are "approved" for organic farming are not "approved" using rationally-based criteria.
This is why I am against organic farming -it makes no logical sense.
A vastly more rational approach would to dump this arbitrary distinction between 'organic' and 'non-organic' chemicals and, instead, asses each different chemical on a case-by-case bases and simply weighing up the risks and environmental costs of the use of each chemical with its benefits and take into account whether there are safer alternatives.
For example, I doubt that DDT is worth the risks for the benefits it gives when used as an insecticides on food crops although it
may sometimes but not always be worth the risks when used against mosquitoes that spread malaria.
But most hormone-based herbicides are definitely worth the risks for they have either very low or no toxicity to humans and generally do little environmental damage but make weed control very efficient.