Originally posted by Metal Brain You can't use synthetic chemicals and have organic certification. Use of synthetic chemicals=non-organic. This statement is true.
That does not mean you can use any non-synthetic chemicals and have organic certification. I never made that statement so you are wrong. You talk as if you proved my statement wrong but you did not.
If you think you can ...[text shortened]... d with the use of synthetic chemicals go ahead and try. You cannot do it because you are wrong.
If you think you can prove organic certification can be obtained with the use of synthetic chemicals ...
I never said/implied this nor think this.
Use of synthetic chemicals=non-organic. This statement is true. (my emphasis)
-And "non-organic=synthetic" is false even though you said it was true. Stop trying to change the subject. You are now trying desperately to move the goal posts when I have already scored.
I didn't say “Use of synthetic chemicals=non-organic” -“synthetic” does NOT equate with “Use of synthetic chemicals”.
"non-organic=synthetic" implies a classification of chemicals (a false one as it happens) independent of their usage while “Use of synthetic chemicals=non-organic” involves usage thus doesn't mean the same thing at all.
The whole of your post is totally irrelevant because of this.
If you think you can prove organic certification can be obtained with the use of synthetic chemicals ...
I never said/implied this nor think this.
[b]Use of
synthetic chemicals=non-organic. This statement is true. (my emphasis)
-And "non-organic=synthetic" is false even though you said it was true. Stop trying t ...[text shortened]... mean the same thing at all.
The whole of your post is totally irrelevant because of this.[/b]non-organic is not the same as inorganic. Non-organic is not a chemical classification, inorganic is. We already went through that. You are being dishonest.
Unless something is "approved" for organic farming it makes no difference in the chemistry classification.
“Unless”? What are you talking about? It makes no difference anyway! In science, chemistry classification has nothing to do with what is or what isn't approved for organic farming -Unless you are talking about the extremely speciali ...[text shortened]... are safer alternatives. ..."
Do you disagree with the above assertion?
You said this:
"I happen to know that one of the "approved" chemicals for organic farming is sulfur (used as a fungicide). But, according to the science of chemistry, sulfur, which is a chemical element on the periodic table, is not organic. The point I am making here is what is "approved" to be "organic" and allowed for organic farming doesn't make any logical sense and is unscientific and thus should be rejected (not the chemicals "rejected" but the criteria "rejected" ) as being irrational."
Your above statement says the criteria for organic farming is based on whether or not the chemical classification for a chemical is organic or inorganic. This is not the criteria at all and that was what I was trying to tell you, but you incorrectly said it was. That is why I pointed out that salt (inorganic) is something that you cannot live without and many inorganic chemicals are essential to life.
Clearly you are the one who moved the goal post and now you are trying to move it back again. You are very dishonest because you are a sore loser!
Originally posted by Metal Brain non-organic is not the same as inorganic. Non-organic is not a chemical classification, inorganic is. We already went through that. You are being dishonest.
Non-organic is not a chemical classification, inorganic is.
Only in organic farming terminology. In chemistry, the two would equate via process of elimination just fine (if a chemical in chemistry is not organic, that just leaves organic). Do you deny this?
"I happen to know that one of the "approved" chemicals for organic farming is sulfur (used as a fungicide). But, according to the science of chemistry, sulfur, which is a chemical element on the periodic table, is not organic. The point I am making here is what is "approved" to be "organic" and allowed for organic farming doesn't make a ...[text shortened]... trying to move it back again. You are very dishonest because you are a sore loser!
Your above statement says the criteria for organic farming is based on whether or not the chemical classification for a chemical is organic or inorganic.
No, obviously the above statement doesn't say anything of the sort. Exactly WHERE in that above statement did I indicate that the “criteria” is based on organic and inorganic classification in the chemical classification? I obliviously didn't ever say/imply this nor believe this to be the case.
On the Soil Association website http://www.soilassociation.org if you read the blurb the criterion they use is synthetic rather than inorganic. The stated reason is that the synthesis of naturally occurring agents generates environmental harms away from the farm. According to Wikipedia most sulphur production is as a by production from oil extraction, but it does occur in pure form naturally. It's pretty clear that by organic they mean "from organisms" rather than in the chemistry sense.
Your above statement says the criteria for organic farming is based on whether or not the chemical classification for a chemical is organic or inorganic.
No, obviously the above statement doesn't say anything of the sort. Exactly WHERE in that above statement did I indicate that the “criteria” is based on organic and inorganic classificat ...[text shortened]... ical classification? I obliviously didn't ever say/imply this nor believe this to be the case.
This is where:
"The point I am making here is what is "approved" to be "organic" and allowed for organic farming doesn't make any logical sense and is unscientific and thus should be rejected (not the chemicals "rejected" but the criteria "rejected" ) as being irrational."
Why should the criteria be rejected as irrational? Inorganic is natural and essential for all life. I proved that. The chemical classification has nothing to do with what is approved for organic farming.
"The point I am making here is what is "approved" to be "organic" and allowed for organic farming doesn't make any logical sense and is unscientific and thus should be rejected (not the chemicals "rejected" but the criteria "rejected" ) as being irrational."
Why should the criteria be rejected as irrational? Inorganic is natural and ...[text shortened]... chemical classification has nothing to do with what is approved for organic farming.
Why should the criteria be rejected as irrational?
Because neither synthetic nor unnatural equates with bad and neither non-synthetic nor natural equates with good and yet at least in a highly implicit form this is in part the generally unstated criteria they use (i.e. equating them together when they do not equate) although I acknowledge they obviously also make major use of other criteria both explicit and implicit. I know this because I have spoken to several organic farmers face-to-face and their thinking on this is pretty consistently like this and I am also familiar with the Soil Association.
Contrary to what you keep making out, I NEVER said/implied their criteria was irrational MERELY BECAUSE they allow inorganic compounds. If you don't believe me, go back to my posts and read them through again.
Inorganic is natural and essential for all life. I proved that.
Well done, and this has nothing to do with what I said/implied/claimed or believe. Merely allowing the use of inorganic chemicals is not irrational.
Why should the criteria be rejected as irrational?
Because neither synthetic nor unnatural equates with bad and neither non-synthetic nor natural equates with good and yet at least in a highly implicit form this is in part the generally unstated criteria they use (i.e. equating them together when they do not equate) although I acknowledge ...[text shortened]... d/implied/claimed or believe. Merely allowing the use of inorganic chemicals is not irrational.
You are such a liar! You never used the word synthetic at all or even implied it. You had a problem with sulfur being considered organic certified which is natural and not necessarily synthetic at all.
You moved the goal post and simply will not admit it. You will not admit you are wrong so you simply deny and that is what you have done repeatedly throughout this thread. Deny, deny, deny.
Originally posted by Metal Brain You are such a liar! You never used the word synthetic at all or even implied it. You had a problem with sulfur being considered organic certified which is natural and not necessarily synthetic at all.
You moved the goal post and simply will not admit it. You will not admit you are wrong so you simply deny and that is what you have done repeatedly throughout this thread. Deny, deny, deny.
You are such a liar! You never used the word synthetic at all or even implied it.
You are such a liar! You never used the word synthetic at all or even implied it.
Where did I say I did?
Sulfur is natural. The Chinese have been using it for black powder before synthetic sulfur even existed. You can't criticize a criteria when natural is the criteria and change it when you are exposed for being wrong.
Even if you meant synthetic (which I don't buy at all) you still end up being wrong when stating the criteria because sulfur is natural in the environment.
Originally posted by Metal Brain Sulfur is natural. The Chinese have been using it for black powder before synthetic sulfur even existed. You can't criticize a criteria when natural is the criteria and change it when you are exposed for being wrong.
Even if you meant synthetic (which I don't buy at all) you still end up being wrong when stating the criteria because sulfur is natural in the environment.
I never said/implied that sulfur is synthetic nor would I think that thus your two last posts are totally irrelevant.
Originally posted by humy I never said/implied that sulfur is synthetic nor would I think that thus your two last posts are irrelevant.
"The point I am making here is what is "approved" to be "organic" and allowed for organic farming doesn't make any logical sense and is unscientific and thus should be rejected (not the chemicals "rejected" but the criteria "rejected" ) as being irrational."
Then you don't have any basis for rejecting the criteria. That makes your posts irrelevant. You backed yourself into a corner and made yourself look like a fool here for all to see. Live with it.
A food production time bomb?
15 Jul '13 17:3012 edits
Back to Top