It’s always been funny to me that the term “organic” is used to refer to certain foods as a category, (and excluding other foods) especially when it’s fruits, vegetables, and meats. Some vegetables, fruits, or meats are organic and some are not? That’s silly! Excepting ultra-processed crap engineered in a chemistry lab from unpronounceable and ridiculously-spelled compound ingredients, all food is organic. Fruits, vegetables, and meats are all obviously organic because they are living things that we kill and eat. You can’t get any more organic than that, no matter how you try to spin or redefine it. They really should have selected a different word to appropriate for representing this hyper-inflated-cost hippie food category than ‘organic’, since its original definition invalidates its new marketing-hype meaning.
The first part of the dictionary definition of the word ‘organic’ (from the one that came with my computer) is: “ORGANIC: 1 of, relating to, or derived from living matter. Chemistry of, relating to, or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin. Compare with INORGANIC.” (I underlined the important parts.) Yes, now there is a new, marketing-term definition for the word ‘organic’ (it’s even in that very same dictionary), but it’s just a PR label intended to peer-pressure you into paying more money for your food (see prices at Whole Foods for verification of this). But why choose the word ‘organic’? All food has mostly organic components in it, or else it wouldn’t be edible/digestible. It seems as ridiculous to me as trying to expropriate the word ‘food’ from all farmers, supermarkets, restaurants, packaged food companies, etc., and then having the government agree that you can only call food “food” if you succinctly subscribe to their specific agricultural methodology (even though it obviously would still be food anyway). Re-branding certain food with a new definition of the word ‘organic’ doesn’t invalidate the organic nature, or ‘organicosity’ (Okay, I just made that word up.), of all other food outside of the new category, so it’s a bad choice of words.
There must be a better term to use than “organic” in reference to extremely-expensive, politically-correct food. It’s just funny to me when I think about, for example, fruit that is ‘not organic’. It’s correct to say it’s organic, whether it’s “organic” or not, so it’s a little perplexing and hypocritical that they use the word ‘organic’. The least they could do, it seems to me, if they’re going to create a category of food that’s going to cost us a lot more money to buy than regular food, is come up with a term that makes sense and is not laughably vague and contradictory. How about calling it “ecologically friendly”, or “agriculturally sustainable”? Even calling it simply “eco”, or “agra”, would make a lot more sense and open itself up to less ridicule than using the term “organic”. Unless they’re planning on revoking the food status from all food that is not “certified organic”. Perhaps that’s their evil plan: to outlaw all food that’s not grown the way they demand, so we’re never allowed to have home-grown tomatoes or whatever else, and we’re all forced to pay every penny we earn for the ultra-expensive hippie food. It is said that whoever controls the supply of food controls the world. Perhaps this is just the hippies’ way of taking over the world by force, in addition to punishing us, since we wouldn’t “give peace a chance”.
