Yeah, we're not communicating well: I'm sorry. I'm making an effort. I don't remember anywhere suggesting that _I_ was talking about tattoo ink. Context sugges

Yeah, we're not communicating well: I'm sorry. I'm making an effort. I don't remember anywhere suggesting that _I_ was talking about tattoo ink. Context suggests that I meant the toxic heavy metal… and while I obviously am not petrified with fear of cadmium if I keep Cadmium Yellow around, I don't propose to lick it even if your context suggests it's effectively as harmless as Burnt Sienna (iron oxide-based). And this is the point: 'organic' farming doesn't typically consist of salting one's fields, but ultra-modern high efficiency farming is based on extremely complicated chemistry and people not in the industry cannot hope to even guess at what's being done out there. Non-farmers probably don't know what crop rotation is either (an anachronism in synthetic farming) but ultra-modern farming has a nasty way of dumping LOTS of very strange chemistry into people's diets. Trust is the issue, not 'referencing chemistry accurately' because it's not my job as a food-eater to analyze chemical compounds and reference chemistry appropriately. Try to look at the organic farming movement as a trust issue: a vote of no confidence in current and future inventions for increasing crop efficiency. In that light, 'water is a chemical' is not an effective counter, and pouncing on cadmium in the water table (known for kidney damage) and talking of tattoo ink which is cadmium sulfide, cadmium sulfoselenide or zinc cadmium sulfide, is more behavior that tends to erode trust.