Alan was asked what his thoughts were on Organic, here is his reply:

The report is done, the van is dead in the driveway and dog walking and my lunch date are off; so, as promised, some thoughts on ‘organic’.

Your selection of the Canadian General Standards Board definition "... a holistic system of production designed to optimize the productivity and fitness of diverse communities within the agroecosystem, including soil organisms, plants, livestock and people. The principal goal of organic agriculture is to develop productive enterprises that are sustainable and harmonious with the environment." (CAN/CGSB-32-310) illustrates my point quite beautifully. Organic can mean whatever you want it to mean, but you’d better define it before you use it or nobody will know what you are talking about.

If fifty people off the street are asked what ‘organic’ means, I doubt that even one of them will come up with the CGSB’s definition. A few might remember enough of their school-days chemistry to say carbon based and the rest, if they’ve heard the term at all, will base their opinion on deliberately misleading marketing which implies that ‘organic’ means ‘healthy’ or ‘better for you’ or suggests some other benefit. Advertisers, those same purveyors of ‘knowledge’ who profit by encouraging the notions that ginseng makes you smart, ground-up rhino horn makes you sexy, that polar bear liver does something - I forget what, and that copper bracelets cure arthritis; all of which are strongly-held beliefs of at least hundreds-of-thousands, and maybe tens-of-millions, of people.

The abuse of ‘organic’ seems to have started with Sir Albert Howard (1873-1947), an early back-to-the-land proponent. Howard could have picked on: ‘green’ or ‘humic’, or ‘popsicle’ for that matter, as the descriptor for how he did his gardening, but he happened to glom on to ‘organic’. Organic has a sort of scientific feel to it, without being too scarily technical, so perhaps that’s why he liked it. It would have been much better had he coined a new word - like xeriscaping to mean dry gardening - but he likely never even dreamed that, half-a-century on, his word would have morphed into a whole new and very profitable religion.

Although organic basically describes the molecular structure of a substance, by extension the word can reasonably suggest the presence of life or of being derived from living things - all known life being based on the carbon atom. In literature organic can further be extended to give life to non-living things; as the sinuously woven and re-woven channels in a river delta might be described as changing ‘organically’.

While the word organic by itself is clearly defined in any dictionary worth the name, if organic is combined with some other word the meaning can be modified. For instance, organic chemistry is a very specific branch of science dealing with carbon based materials: plastics, oil, coal, ethanol, alcohol all being organic substances. Organic agriculture, on the other hand, is a meaningless term in as much as all agriculture is carbon based. Advertising an organic apple is like peddling wet water or cholesterol-free broccoli.

In grocery stores, where the word is usually thrown around carelessly and with a complete lack of scruples, if organic and Canada come together on a label - as in Biologique Canada Organic - it has a very precise and valid meaning. The relevant legislation is available on the government of Canada website and it is quite specific that what is being regulated and certified is a particular method of production. The authors make it very clear that no claim is made as to the quality, nutritional value, or even the purity, of the products resulting from these production methods. The resulting products/produce carrying the label Biologique Canada Organic must meet the same legislated standards, regulations, etc., as products/produce resulting from any other method or process.

Harking back to the CGSB’s definition, I would observe that, like many government documents and like dogma in general, it is very long on rhetoric, fine words and sentiment, but sadly short on specifics. It gives no indication as to how the stated objectives might be met. Indeed, every farmer and agribusiness strives to "develop productive enterprises that are sustainable and harmonious with the environment" and for "production designed to optimize the productivity and fitness of diverse communities within the agroecosystem". To do otherwise is to drive up costs, to reduce efficiency, and, over the long-term, to reduce profits.

I forget who made the point - a C of E ecclesiastic probably - but someone observed that it did not matter at all if there was or was not a god, it was what the people believed that counted. People do not make decisions based on demonstrable facts, they act on what they believe. So it is, that Moslems buy halal meat, Jews seek out kosher foods, and those who worship at the altar of Sir Albert go for stuff marked organic. Personally, I tend to buy produce on little white styrene trays, wrapped with plastic and marked-down to ninety-nine cents. After all, it might not be environmentally desirable but it would be a sin to let good food go to waste.

Over the years organic has appeared in the Guardian columns many times and all are available on the PTG website (www.teachinggarden.org), in the Eclectic Gardener Archive, and can be found using the word search feature. Column number 230, dated 26th January 2007, is particularly relevant.


Day -8 sun and cloud Wind W22km/h P.O.P.11%
Night -13 partly cloudy Wind WSW6km/h P.O.P.11%