3 ms·

All “organic” farming has achieved is taking word that had a particular meaning, and removed any trace of that meaning. What does “organic” mean? Well it certai

All “organic” farming has achieved is taking word that had a particular meaning, and removed any trace of that meaning. What does “organic” mean? Well it certainly no longer means organic. It also doesn’t refer to a set of more “natural” farming principles. Depending on who you ask, each certifying body will have their own unique definition that amounts to hundreds of pages of regulations. “Organic” is equally as meaningless and nonsensical as “chemical free”.

fact_factory 7y ago
>Depending on who you ask, each certifying body will have their own unique definition that amounts to hundreds of pages of regulations. “Organic” is equally as meaningless and nonsensical as “chemical free”. That’s not accurate in the United States. All the organic certifying bodies are required to apply the same rules. >§205.501 General requirements for accreditation. (a) A private or governmental entity accredited as a certifying agent under this subpart must: (1) Have sufficient expertise in organic production or handling techniques to fully comply with and implement the terms and conditions of the organic certification program established under the Act and the regulations in this part; (2) Demonstrate the ability to fully comply with the requirements for accreditation set forth in this subpart; (3) Carry out the provisions of the Act and the regulations in this part, including the provisions of §§205.402 through 205.406 and §205.670; [0]https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d2567878d0b94a88ef69dbb5d11f493d&mc=true&node=se7.3.205_1501&rgn=div8 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d2567878d0b94a88ef...
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  I’m not sure what you think you’ve proven here. The USDA has its own unique, long winded definition, so does the EU, and so do many other countries, and private organisations. In this context the world has no relation at all to its original meaning, it cannot possibly be concisely defined, as the only way to define it is with an exhaustive set of rules and regulations, and has no consistent meaning, because you can only talk about it in the context of the rules and regulations defined by one of many organisations at a time.
  - fact_factory 7y ago
    >The USDA has its own unique, long winded definition, so does the EU, and so do many other countries, and private organisations. It’s not “hundreds of pages” as you originally claimed, and the interpretation does not vary substantially among certification bodies, as you implied. Supposing arguendo that there are major differences between the definitions in the US, EU, and elsewhere, perhaps that is a feature, not a bug. Many other regulations are different from country to country, and to some degree that’s the point of having different countries. Can you explain what the problem is? >In this context the world has no relation at all to its original meaning, it cannot possibly be concisely defined, as the only way to define it is with an exhaustive set of rules and regulations, and has no consistent meaning, because you can only talk about it in the context of the rules and regulations defined by one of many organisations at a time. The modern world (to include agricultural technology) is indeed complex and consequently the laws reflect that. It’s not that difficult for the professionals to understand the details, and while I agree that the handful of pages of regulations are a bit too much for the average consumer, that’s the point of distilling them to a few principles and a regulated label. This way the consumer doesn’t need to decipher fine print on every label if they want to be cautious and environmentally responsible with their purchases. Do you have an alternative to the current system to suggest? As it stands it’s pretty good for everyone. Firms that want to use modern biotech are able to do so, firms that want to hew a more cautious course are able to pursue organic certification, and consumers have a variety of products to choose from without being overburdened by complexity in an unfamiliar domain. There’s always room for improvement, can you suggest a way to improve this system without disrupting things for all the current stakeholders (consumers, biotech producers, and organic producers)?
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      > It’s not “hundreds of pages” as you originally claimed The regulation itself is about 60 pages, and references numerous other regulations itself. It most certainly adds up to hundreds of pages of regulation. Not that that changes anything, usage of the word in this way still precludes the possibility of any sort of concise definition. > and the interpretation does not vary substantially among certification bodies, as you implied. Then why are inter-jurisdiction equivalence programs so complex? Typically only including a short list of equivalent countries, with all other imports requiring recertification. Oh, except with USDA Organic. That doesn’t have an equivalence program. > Do you have an alternative to the current system to suggest? Come up with a label that doesn’t unduly prejudice consumers, and doesn’t strip another word of its meaning. The word organic did used to have a very clear meaning before “organic” farming came about. If you were to ask an average consumer whether they knew their organic food was allowed to be treated with chemical pesticides and synthetic opioid painkillers, I bet they’d be pretty surprised by that. GDPR is a complex set of regulations. People understand this when they talk about it, even if they don’t understand all of the rules. Thankfully it’s not called Privacy Certified, with a restriction preventing any non-certified business from using the word “privacy” to describe their product.

fact_factory 7y ago

>Depending on who you ask, each certifying body will have their own unique definition that amounts to hundreds of pages of regulations. “Organic” is equally as meaningless and nonsensical as “chemical free”. That’s not accurate in the United States. All the organic certifying bodies are required to apply the same rules. >§205.501 General requirements for accreditation. (a) A private or governmental entity accredited as a certifying agent under this subpart must: (1) Have sufficient expertise in organic production or handling techniques to fully comply with and implement the terms and conditions of the organic certification program established under the Act and the regulations in this part; (2) Demonstrate the ability to fully comply with the requirements for accreditation set forth in this subpart; (3) Carry out the provisions of the Act and the regulations in this part, including the provisions of §§205.402 through 205.406 and §205.670; [0]https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d2567878d0b94a88ef69dbb5d11f493d&mc=true&node=se7.3.205_1501&rgn=div8 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d2567878d0b94a88ef...

AmericanChopper 7y ago
I’m not sure what you think you’ve proven here. The USDA has its own unique, long winded definition, so does the EU, and so do many other countries, and private organisations. In this context the world has no relation at all to its original meaning, it cannot possibly be concisely defined, as the only way to define it is with an exhaustive set of rules and regulations, and has no consistent meaning, because you can only talk about it in the context of the rules and regulations defined by one of many organisations at a time.
- fact_factory 7y ago
  >The USDA has its own unique, long winded definition, so does the EU, and so do many other countries, and private organisations. It’s not “hundreds of pages” as you originally claimed, and the interpretation does not vary substantially among certification bodies, as you implied. Supposing arguendo that there are major differences between the definitions in the US, EU, and elsewhere, perhaps that is a feature, not a bug. Many other regulations are different from country to country, and to some degree that’s the point of having different countries. Can you explain what the problem is? >In this context the world has no relation at all to its original meaning, it cannot possibly be concisely defined, as the only way to define it is with an exhaustive set of rules and regulations, and has no consistent meaning, because you can only talk about it in the context of the rules and regulations defined by one of many organisations at a time. The modern world (to include agricultural technology) is indeed complex and consequently the laws reflect that. It’s not that difficult for the professionals to understand the details, and while I agree that the handful of pages of regulations are a bit too much for the average consumer, that’s the point of distilling them to a few principles and a regulated label. This way the consumer doesn’t need to decipher fine print on every label if they want to be cautious and environmentally responsible with their purchases. Do you have an alternative to the current system to suggest? As it stands it’s pretty good for everyone. Firms that want to use modern biotech are able to do so, firms that want to hew a more cautious course are able to pursue organic certification, and consumers have a variety of products to choose from without being overburdened by complexity in an unfamiliar domain. There’s always room for improvement, can you suggest a way to improve this system without disrupting things for all the current stakeholders (consumers, biotech producers, and organic producers)?
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    > It’s not “hundreds of pages” as you originally claimed The regulation itself is about 60 pages, and references numerous other regulations itself. It most certainly adds up to hundreds of pages of regulation. Not that that changes anything, usage of the word in this way still precludes the possibility of any sort of concise definition. > and the interpretation does not vary substantially among certification bodies, as you implied. Then why are inter-jurisdiction equivalence programs so complex? Typically only including a short list of equivalent countries, with all other imports requiring recertification. Oh, except with USDA Organic. That doesn’t have an equivalence program. > Do you have an alternative to the current system to suggest? Come up with a label that doesn’t unduly prejudice consumers, and doesn’t strip another word of its meaning. The word organic did used to have a very clear meaning before “organic” farming came about. If you were to ask an average consumer whether they knew their organic food was allowed to be treated with chemical pesticides and synthetic opioid painkillers, I bet they’d be pretty surprised by that. GDPR is a complex set of regulations. People understand this when they talk about it, even if they don’t understand all of the rules. Thankfully it’s not called Privacy Certified, with a restriction preventing any non-certified business from using the word “privacy” to describe their product.