[whatshisface]

>The term "organic" is especially dangerous, because of its connotation to organic vs. inorganic chemistry and the loss of information when converting between the technical definitions and cultural perceptions.

In the United States, "organic" in the context of food is not a cultural perception, it is an FDA-regulated certified word with a very strict definition and penalties for misuse.

https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national...

[nickbauman]

There's a guy who's a convicted felon in the US for misrepresenting conventional as organic:

https://thecounter.org/organic-food-fraud-usda-doj-randy-con...

[kyuudou]

Wow, that's terrible the path that he chose but aside from that, I am glad to see legal precedence laid out for this because I know damn well others are trying to be bad actors about this.

People I trust to know these things have always said the USDA-certified Organic label is pretty legit.

[mikorym]

My issue with the USDA-certified organic label is not that their label is not well-defined, but rather that the definition is not necessarily in line with 1) what you expect healthy food to be or 2) what the most sustainable approach would be or the most recent research suggests.

To give you an example, weather driven modelling in conventional agriculture has the potential to make a massive difference in, for example, pesticide application. But if you use less pesticides as part of your daily routine, that does not mean that you have the right sticker or label to represent your produce and your incremental improvements. The reason why I say this is that pesticide should be applied at a very precise point of the target organism's life cycle, but it is not always possible for the farmer to do it without considerable new added effort.