A word about the 'O' word.

[Mr Potato Head]

Well I think it's time for a little definition about what is 'Organic' in the context of the KG forum. (If I could change the actual word I would, but it's the one that has stuck)

I'm doing this because I want to prepare a baseline for future debate about the subject so that we can move on from the endless slanging matches that I think we're all a little tired of (and move on to new ones. )

Please be clear, I'm not trying to dictate what you think 'Organic' is, or make any value judgements on the way that you may live / garden / shop etc.

Firstly, in an effort to say what Organic is, I'll start by saying what it is not.

'Organic' is not the same as organic chemistry. Organic chemistry is a Victorian concept about the fundamental nature of chemicals, and as we all know harmful substances can be organic and inorganic, so it doesn't really help our debate.

It is not 'Organic' as laid down by the legal definitions for commercial organic farming & the labelling of goods. In fact, as I hope to explain, this is unhelpful to the definition of 'Organic' in that it provides a minimum baseline to adhere to rather than an ideal to strive for.

Which brings me to my definition of what 'Organic' is:

'Organic' is an ideal; a vision of a time / situation where no harmful substances are used to raise perfect produce that is consumed where it is grown.

Not many of us can manage this ideal, but we can aim towards it.

I don't expect the debate to stop (in fact I sincerely hope it does not), but I do hope to stop some of the daft comments, and at least we're examining the same notion. (In fact I hope to stimulate debates around what constitutes a 'harmful substance' and 'perfect produce', what is 'consumed where it is grown' and why any of this might or might not be a good idea!)

-----

For a limited time I'll accept submissions to change the wording for the KG definition of 'Organic', then lock the thread. Then the arguments can really start.

[alan refail]

Well said Mr PH.

It's a real pity we are stuck with the word ORGANIC, I agree. I cannot think of any useful alternative, but it might be useful to add the concept of growing with RESPECT (for nature, wild-life, the seasons, humanity, the planet etc, etc).

It might be a good idea if future debate, which I too hope to see, could be focussed on specific topics re. beneficial vs harmful practices. No debate is advanced by the predictable railing against HDRA (of which I am a member) or the Soil Association (of which I am not a member). Sadly this is what any mention of the "O" word generates.

And a little politeness towards each other would not come amiss.

viewtopic.php?t=3753

Cofion gorau - Regards

Alan

[richard p]

im beginning to think we should ditch the word, as it is the soil association appear to have monopolised its use, ie you have to be certified by them and pay fees to apply it to a product. Effectifly their definition is "a product produced to SA rules ". Which incidentally go beyond specifying what chemical treatments can or cannot be used to incude wider issues such as crop rotation and their idea of good practise.
As a private gardener producing for my own consumption the SA and their rules are irrelevant to me. I dont really care what sort of lable anyone wants to attach to my methods or whether anyone else agrees (or not) with what i am doing in my garden. I think my methods are based on informed choices and have minimum impact on the wider environment .

[Cider Boys]

Quote:
'Organic' is an ideal; a vision of a time / situation where no harmful substances are used to raise perfect produce that is consumed where it is grown.

Well well I've been growing 'organically' all my life then.

Barney

[Allan]

I use chemicals on my gardening, none of which are harmful as they are all approved by FSA etc. I certainly don't want to be bracketed with Organic growers.
Allan

[Compo]

Allan you have just started to spoil the debate as you often do.........the FSA approves hydrogenated vegetable oil as safe to eat.........square that one with the word 'safe'?? Having said that there is a chance that some 'sprayed' produce won't harm you when it is consumed, but I think the jury is out on that one. But if you can grow without it you have to be eating more safely surely?

Having said that it is extremely difficult to grow commercially without a small amount of sensible chemical use.

This one has already gone west I think MR PH, however, I for one can vote with your definition for the purpose of this debate. Perhaps we could agreed that if you don't subscribe / sign to this definition of the word organic, you may need to think about NOT posting on the topic.

Compo

[alan refail]

Compo

You refer to Allan (2 L's) not me Alan (one L). Just wanted to make that clear

You suggested: "Perhaps we could agree that if you don't subscribe / sign to this definition of the word organic, you may need to think about NOT posting on the topic."

A bit of a red rag to the bulls. But, fair play, I had pondered the possibility of a new forum entitled "We don't like Organic, Soil Association, etc." Then the predictable few could post their by now predictable comments, and the rest of us could simply not look at that forum.

Mr PH

As for the definition of what Organic home growing is, I can think of no better summary than that prepared by HDRA/Garden Organic:

http://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/guidelines/index.php

which is pretty much the same as that stated by Organic Gardening magazine:

http://www.organicgardeningmagazine.co. ... rganic.php

Cofion gorau - Regards

Alan

[Mr Potato Head]

That's cool Alan, I like those definitions. I think I was trying to boil it down to a single statement that also included something about stuff being grown locally, as this often enters the debate on this forum.

Oh, and to make it ambiguous(?) enough to cover other things apart from vegetables, perhaps even food!

[Cider Boys]

Isn’t it ironic that some contributors that support politeness, on another thread, show such intolerance for other peoples views when they are unable to comprehend them?

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Allan’s posting, it is both polite and factual.

May I also politely suggest that the organic lobby has clearly lost the debate and now seeks to change the definition of the word organic to suit their ideals.


Barney

[richard p]

i think live and let live sums it up. we cant have a black and white definitiom , leave definitions as loose ideas, if Allan thinks his sprays are harmless thats his inturpretation ( why no spell check )but the SA will never certify him as organic by their rules.

When you actually read the posts from the "chemical champions" "pragmatists" call them what you will they arnt actually doing that much different from what the "organic zeollots" /"freaks" are doing.

the soil association does appear to be nobody's favourit.

[Mr Potato Head]

Ho ho Barney, nice one... I'd love it if this debate was dead - it'd make my life a lot easier!

I think the point is that the debate is still going on, that the idea of 'Organic' is coalescing, and what I'm suggesting is that we move on from a pissing match about who is and who is not 'Organic' (or who wants to be) and actually start examining the issues and not the word.

All I'm trying to do in this particular topic, is provide a baseline for future debate so that the anally retentive on both sides can perhaps agree to talk without going 'I'm organic' or 'I don't want to be organic, but I'm more organic than you anyway' or 'I'm totally organic, therefore you are a toxic polluter'

Perhaps I'm agreeing with Barney here... organic is dead - long live Organic!

Can I suggest that from this point forward, that we examine the statement, and stop sniping - after all if we can agree on a consensus about what the word should mean, then we can really attack those who use it to abuse others!

[Allan]

You have got an impossible job on as everybody who grows purely for their own consumption is allowed to call their gardening and produce organic without restraint whatever they do. I can show you an article in a magazine NFU Countryside where the use of Roundup was quoted, but anybody who is organic was told to use glyphosate!
Why on earth they could not call it "To Soil Association Standards" beats me, no need to hijack the original defenition of the word, we can blame John Gummer for the present madness.
Nor is it any good taking refuge in buzzwords like local, you might have the sole factory farm on your doorstep when local would be meaningless in terms of method of growing, on the other hand there are no banana growers in this contry so one must accept imports there. Nor is it wrong to get new potatoes from Pembroke or Jersey.
Allan

[Mr Potato Head]

Looks like your reply pretty much explains why I felt the need to do this Allan. Because in an ideal 'Organic' scenario, you could have bananas that you grew yourself; perhaps it is debatable whether Jersey potatoes are acceptable (if you don't live in Jersey); and it's precisely why I avoided the use of the word 'local' in the definition...

You have a perfectly valid point, and have made it sensibly - and this is what I would like to encourage, by placing the debate within the context of a common starting point.

As I was trying to state with regards to the SA, whilst I may or may not agree with their work, setting a standard means that there are those that will do the minimum required, rather than striving for perfection.

Perhaps being 'Organic' also means learning to live without the things that may compromise those principles, whether it be bananas, chemicals or transportation...

[Jenny Green]

[quote="Mr Potato Head"]

All I'm trying to do in this particular topic, is provide a baseline for future debate so that the anally retentive on both sides can perhaps agree to talk without going 'I'm organic' or 'I don't want to be organic, but I'm more organic than you anyway' or 'I'm totally organic, therefore you are a toxic polluter'

quote]

Do the debates really revolve around this kind of thing Mr Potato Head?
Isn't it more a case of people who grow without resort to artificially manufactured chemicals being labelled as Luddites, freaks, worshippers etc. and being goaded into having to defend their position? (And having to defend completely unsubstantiated claims about the SA too.) We're accused of not understanding the meaning of the word 'organic' (it means carbon chemistry) nor 'chemical' (everything's a chemical).
I've never come across any of the 'pragmatists' being labelled as 'toxic polluters' or any such thing. I've no idea why they feel the need to ridicule.
As far as I'm concerned there aren't two sides to this debate. We're all gardeners and if we could actually discuss factual pros and cons of the many different approaches to gardening we might actually have an interesting and informative discussion, rather people retreating to their respective poles.

[alan refail]

Jenny

You say

"Isn't it more a case of people who grow without resort to artificially manufactured chemicals being labelled as Luddites, freaks, worshippers etc. and being goaded into having to defend their position? (And having to defend completely unsubstantiated claims about the SA too.) We're accused of not understanding the meaning of the word 'organic' (it means carbon chemistry) nor 'chemical' (everything's a chemical)."

I agree with you 100%. It is tedious to read the predictable replies from the (self) chosen few who use this sort of approach and language. It makes debate difficult and makes me tend to say, "Let's just ignore them." In many cases their views are based on past (bad) experiences, prejudice, or just plain ignorance. (Sorry to sound impolite, but I name no names.)

Alan