A food production time bomb?

Originally posted by humy

Now you are contradicting yourself. You had a problem with organic farmers using sulfur which is an inorganic chemical.

No I do not have no such problem and I didn't contradict myself. I never said they should not use an inorganic chemical. I was merely pointing out their logical inconsistency (of some of them).

So, back to my ...[text shortened]... have answered all your questions so wouldn’t it be polite if you would just answer mine?

"I have answered all your questions so wouldn’t it be polite if you would just answer mine?"

I already did. Can't you read?

" I was merely pointing out their logical inconsistency "

What inconsistency? Plants depend on inorganic compounds for life and so do you. If you denied any life form of inorganic compounds it would die. You can't get food from a dead plant.

What is wrong with you? Don't you understand written English?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So can you give us a definition of organic farming and an indication of what criteria are used when selecting which compounds may or may not be used?

A certified organic farmer cannot use synthetically made chemicals. There are lots of inorganic chemicals that are NOT synthetic. As humy pointed out there are natural chemicals that are poisonous, but I doubt you could extract the poison from hemlock and legally put it on your plants. If humy can prove I am wrong about that I would like to see the proof.

It is possible for a synthetic chemical to be safe, but sometimes chemists do not always manufacture a chemical correctly. THC (the psychoactive chemical in marijuana) is sometimes synthetically made. The molecule is close to the female hormone estrogen. In the past some chemists tried to make synthetic THC and botched the process and some men who took it to get high grew breasts. This is one of the concerns, but it is mostly the fear that a chemical thought to be safe will turn out to be very dangerous as many chemicals have. Monsanto has a bad track record of this and also of covering it up to preserve profits.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I have answered all your questions so wouldn’t it be polite if you would just answer mine?"

I already did. Can't you read?

" I was merely pointing out their logical inconsistency "

What inconsistency? Plants depend on inorganic compounds for life and so do you. If you denied any life form of inorganic compounds it would die. You can't get food from a dead plant.

What is wrong with you? Don't you understand written English?

"I have answered all your questions so wouldn’t it be polite if you would just answer mine?"

I already did. Can't you read?

I have read what you said there and it is OBVIOUSLY irrelevant to my question.
Reminder of my question;

"...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. ..."

Do you disagree with the above assertion? and, if so, which part and why? ...”

You responded with:

“You had a problem with organic farmers using sulfur which is an inorganic chemical. “

Which is, not only false, but OBVIOUSLY doesn't answer my question EVEN if it was true. My question was, OBVIOUSLY, do you DISAGREE with that assertion? I am not asking anything about 'sulfur' or anything to do with a 'problem' I have -I am ONLY asking DO you agree with that assertion, YES OR NO! My question only requires a very simple YES or NO -anything other response that doesn't mean/imply yes or no is obviously a non-answer.

" I was merely pointing out their logical inconsistency "

What inconsistency?

the inconsistency of some albeit not all organic farmers of arbitrary labeling of some substances as 'organic' and some as 'non-organic' (note I say “non-organic” and not “inorganic”! There should be no distinction between “non-organic” and “inorganic” but one of the many inconsistencies I was referring to earlier was the fact that many organic farmers would make that distinction despite that being inconsistent with what science says) using vague inconsistent muddled criteria that is also inconsistent with the way real science defines 'organic' which is vastly more concise and the one I claim we should stick to.

Plants depend on inorganic compounds for life and so do you. If you denied any life form of inorganic compounds it would die. You can't get food from a dead plant.

Obviously. But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the inconsistency I was referring to. I never said/implied that life does not depend on inorganic compounds. If you deny this, then please state exactly WHERE I said/implied this.....

Originally posted by humy

"I have answered all your questions so wouldn’t it be polite if you would just answer mine?"

I already did. Can't you read?

I have read what you said there and it is OBVIOUSLY irrelevant to my question.
Reminder of my question;

"...A vastly more rational approach would to dump this arbitrary distinction between 'organic' and 'non- ...[text shortened]... you deny this, then please state exactly WHERE I said/implied this.....

"...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. ..."

No. Synthetic chemicals are often deemed to be safe and later found to be very unsafe. This is often due to corruption in the FDA by the likes of corporations like Monsanto. Natural chemicals have no patent protection so that problem is avoided.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
This is one of the concerns, but it is mostly the fear that a chemical thought to be safe will turn out to be very dangerous as many chemicals have.

So its basically all based on peoples irrational fear of man made chemicals and their equally irrational belief that 'natural' products are safer? Is that about right?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Natural chemicals have no patent protection so that problem is avoided.

Thats simply not true. One does not need patent protection in order to have a commercial interest in a chemical, natural or otherwise.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"...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. .. ons like Monsanto. Natural chemicals have no patent protection so that problem is avoided.

No. Synthetic chemicals are often deemed to be safe and later found to be very unsafe.

Two obvious things wrong with that statement:

Firstly, where did my assertion refer to “synthetic” chemicals? I was clearly NOT saying anything about “synthetic” chemicals. You are apparently here saying "No" NOT to MY assertion but a DIFFERENT assertion about “synthetic” chemicals that you just made up in your head!
Reminder of what I said:

"...A vastly more rational approach would to dump this arbitrary distinction between 'organic' and 'non-organic' chemicals and, ….”

A “synthetic” chemical could be either organic or non-organic. A none ”synthetic” chemical could also be either organic or non-organic.
I think you are now trying to move the goal posts here.

Secondly, why wouldn't it not be also true that “NONE Synthetic chemicals are often deemed to be safe and later found to be very unsafe”?
I mean, what has whether a chemical being “synthetic” got to do with the probability of it being initially deemed safe but latter found to be very unsafe?

I tried googling “"synthetic chemicals" just in case that has some special technical meaning I am unaware of but what I got was several rather vague logically conflicting definitions. So, can you clarify your meaning: what exactly do YOU personally mean by “synthetic chemical” and how is it distinguished from a chemical that is not “synthetic”?

I managed to get: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/synthetic

“2. Chemistry Produced by synthesis, especially not of natural origin. “

But that would make virtually ALL chemicals BOTH synthetic AND non-synthetic! This is because all types of chemicals in nature, without exception, can be produced synthetically in the laboratory (it is a commonly propagated myth that there are some organic compounds found in nature that are impossible to synthesis in the lab -some of the very complex ones are merely extremely difficult and expensive to synthesis in the lab but NEVER impossible!). Oxygen and water are just two examples of that.

This is often due to corruption in the FDA by the likes of corporations like Monsanto. Natural chemicals have no patent protection so that problem is avoided.

Which has NOTHING to do with my assertion. My assertion doesn't say or imply anything about how to avoid corruption nor anything about patent protection.

Seems you just cannot handle the concept of relevancy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So its basically all based on peoples irrational fear of man made chemicals and their equally irrational belief that 'natural' products are safer? Is that about right?

No, that is NOT about right. Look back and see my response to your post where I talk about the natural poison in hemlock.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thats simply not true. One does not need patent protection in order to have a commercial interest in a chemical, natural or otherwise.

Patent protection is a legal monopoly. I never said anything about a commercial interest. You are being unreasonable. Don't you know anything about patents? Are you really that ignorant?

Originally posted by humy

No. Synthetic chemicals are often deemed to be safe and later found to be very unsafe.

Two obvious things wrong with that statement:

Firstly, where did my assertion refer to “synthetic” chemicals? I was clearly NOT saying anything about “synthetic” chemicals. You are apparently here saying "No" NOT to MY assertion but a DIFFERENT asser ...[text shortened]... ng about patent protection.

Seems you just cannot handle the concept of relevancy.

You might want to read my post in response to twhitehead. If you can prove that all natural organic chemicals are approved foe use in organic farming I will be impressed. I don't think you can do that.

You clearly do not know what organic farming is. I'm using the term "synthetic" for a reason. Because you are not using the term "synthetic" it shows your ignorance. You do not know what you are talking about.

Tell me what you think are approved chemicals in organic farming. Can you do that without proving yourself wrong? I don't think you can.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You might want to read my post in response to twhitehead. If you can prove that all natural organic chemicals are approved foe use in organic farming I will be impressed. I don't think you can do that.

You clearly do not know what organic farming is. I'm using the term "synthetic" for a reason. Because you are not using the term "synthetic" it shows y ...[text shortened]... n organic farming. Can you do that without proving yourself wrong? I don't think you can.

You apparently yet again completely ignore everything I said in my post by giving yet another totally irrelevant post that has nothing to do with what I said. Did you even bother to read a single word or did you just give your usual hateful automated response?

If you can prove that all natural organic chemicals approved for use in organic farming I will

OBVIOUSLY I neither said nor implied anything about “ all natural organic chemicals approved for use in organic” being either true or false. You are just being stupid here.

I'm using the term "synthetic" for a reason.

Yes, to change the subject completely when you know you have lost the argument and cannot admit when you are wrong.
I know this in part because I CLEARLY was not originally talking about "synthetic" anything!

Originally posted by humy
You apparently yet again completely ignore everything I said in my post by giving yet another totally irrelevant post that has nothing to do with what I said. Did you even bother to read a single word or did you just give your usual hateful automated response?

[quote] If you can prove that all natural organic chemicals approved for use in organic farming ...[text shortened]... know this in part because I CLEARLY was not originally talking about "synthetic" anything!

Hateful? Is that all you can do is make silly allegations?

Dude, what is the difference between synthetic chemicals and non-organic chemicals? You already said non-organic was different than inorganic. That leaves synthetic. Did you read anything I wrote in my post?

You are clearly the one who can't admit you are wrong. You just keep going in circles constantly avoiding common sense. If you were not talking about "synthetic anything" then be specific or admit you are wrong.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Hateful? Is that all you can do is make silly allegations?

Dude, what is the difference between synthetic chemicals and non-organic chemicals? You already said non-organic was different than inorganic. That leaves synthetic. Did you read anything I wrote in my post?

You are clearly the one who can't admit you are wrong. You just keep going in circ ...[text shortened]... . If you were not talking about "synthetic anything" then be specific or admit you are wrong.

If you were not talking about "synthetic anything" then be specific

I have already stated EXACLY what I am talking about again and again and again for about ten times now.
If you just bother to actually read my posts before spouting off total irrelevancy, you would see I have already said twice on this page alone “'organic' and 'non-organic' chemicals “ and stated this same sub-statement several times in earlier posts and made it OBVIOUS that THIS was the subject of my original conversation and statements all along.
Note the words “'organic' and 'non-organic' chemicals” do not include the word “synthetic” nor imply it.
Is THAT “specific” enough for you?
Is there any part of that you claim you don't understand?
I have answered all your questions and you still refuse to answer my original question that has NOTHING to do with "synthetic" nor "corruption" nor "patent protection". I guess, out of hatred, you never will. That's fine by me -it just shows what kind of person you are.

Originally posted by humy

If you were not talking about "synthetic anything" then be specific

I have already stated EXACLY what I am talking about again and again and again for about ten times now.
If you just bother to actually read my posts before spouting off total irrelevancy, you would see I have already said twice on this page alone “'organic' and 'non-orga ...[text shortened]... you never will. That's fine by me -it just shows what kind of person you are.

Non-organic=synthetic. If you claim non-organic is anything else you are lying. It is pretty simple. You are not fooling anybody. You can avoid defining your definition of non-organic all you want, but anyone with a brain knows knows by your posts that you eliminated any other definition but synthetic. You already said non-organic is not inorganic. That leaves synthetic. There are no other alternatives. You are such an idiot!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Non-organic=synthetic. If you claim non-organic is anything else you are lying. It is pretty simple. You are not fooling anybody. You can avoid defining your definition of non-organic all you want, but anyone with a brain knows knows by your posts that you eliminated any other definition but synthetic. You already said non-organic is not inorganic. That leaves synthetic. There are no other alternatives. You are such an idiot!

You can avoid defining your definition of non-organic all you want

In the context of categories of chemicals:

non-organic = not organic = inorganic.

You already said non-organic is not inorganic.

NO, I did NOT! I said, in the real science of chemistry, there was NO distinction between the two. It is only some albeit not all organic farmers that make such an irrational distinction between the two. I clearly said this! This just proves you don't really read my posts properly. Here is a reminder of what I ACTUALLY said:

“...(note I say “non-organic” and not “inorganic”! There should be no distinction between “non-organic” and “inorganic” but one of the many inconsistencies I was referring to earlier was the fact that many organic farmers would make that distinction despite that being inconsistent with what science says) ...” (my emphasis)

“There should be NO distinction between “non-organic” and “inorganic”” means just that! -emphasis on the "NO".

Non-organic=synthetic.

NO. Just two example:

The chemical element Arsenic. But, if you disallow chemical elements, what about when that poisonous Arsenic is found in nature in crystal form?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic
“...Crystals of elemental (native) arsenic are found in nature, ...”

The crystals of elemental arsenic found in nature, is clearly NON-organic BOTH by the rational definition of organic in chemistry and surely also any definition of organic by organic farmers for it is very poisonous!
But, those crystals of elemental arsenic found in nature, are clearly NOT “synthetic” because they are found IN NATURE.

If you claim non-organic is anything else you are lying.

You mean anything else other than synthetic? Really? OK then, just TELL US;

1, are crystals of elemental arsenic found in nature non-organic? YES or NO?

2, are crystals of elemental arsenic found in nature synthetic? YES or NO?

If Yes to one but NO to the other, In what sense am I lying here?

If you are not satisfied with just one example: naturally occurring uranium ore.