organic means natural...

[kiran224]

Organic food refers to food items that are produced, manufactured and handled using organic means defined by certifying bodies such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under its Organic Food Products Act.

Natural food, on the other hand, generally refers to food items that are not altered chemically or synthesized in any form. These are derived from plants and animals. Thus a natural food item is not necessarily organic and vice versa.

[organicglow]

Its interesting to see this being discussed here!!

The company I represent has different definitions of organic and natural than most in the industry:

While the chemical definition of organic is "any compound containing carbon", (this is the defentition most companies use when they try to label their products organic) this company uses the definition "grown, cultivated and processed without the use of synthetic chemicals such as insecticides, herbicides and fumigants"

And while most companies define natural as "any ingredient derived from a natural substance", their definition is "existing in, or formed by nature; not artificial"

Its amazing what you can do with words LOL

[Aquaman]

Although all organic compounds are thos ewhich contain carbon, not all carbon compounds are considered organic. Diamond, graphite, Carbon dioxide, ammonium cyanate, sodium carbonate. These are all carbon containg compounds, but aren't organic. They are derived from minerals and have inorganic properties.

[organicglow]

Actually in chemistry terms they are considered organic compounds, because the chemistry definition of organic means containing carbon.

[Aquaman]

Organic literally means derived from living organisms. Organic chemistry originally was the study of compounds extracted from living organisms and their natural products. People also accepted vitalism, that there must have been some vital force which created natural products. Any chemist will tell you that there is no difference between a plant derived compound, and the identicle synthesized compound. So even though organic compounds do not need a vital force, they can still be distinguished from inorganic compounds. As I said all organic compounds contain carbon, that doesn't mean though that any carbon compound is organic. If the compound is mineral derived rather than from a living organism, it is inorganic.

Heres a page that lists inmorganic compounds and their properties. You will find many compounds which contain carbon.
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/chemistry/3_2/3_2.html

[organicglow]

I think my chemistry lecturer might disagree LOL

I think its really all about semantics and what situation the word is being used in.

[Aquaman]

Yah, my professor tends to agree with what I allready said, perhaps if I had your professor I might think differently. Though even my organic chemistry textbook claims that not all carbon compounds are organic. My chemistry professor doesn't believe in orbitals in the way text books explain them. I haven't quite figured out his reasoning completely yet, it's very confusing.

[organicglow]

LOL

orbitals are confusing enough anyway!!

Its so funny how they can't even agree on the simple stuff like what the classifications should be

[Skeptic]

I do not think you can define 'organic food' in any objective way. It is a collection of standards which permit certain processes such as natural toxins like rotenone as pesticides, and rejects other things such as synthetic pesticides, genetic modification etc.

The definition is totally subjective, and designed by committee, not by nature.

[Aquaman]

In Canada, we have a unique system of classifying plants that are genetically modified through breeding techniques. They are collectively known as PNT's or plant with novel traits. It is a science based policy which is unique in the world. There has been some opposition from producers regarding the transparency of the regulatory processes. Particularly with what is considered a novel trait.

Heres an excerpt from a working group on PNT's:

Current regulatory directives of CFIA state that a “novel
trait” is one not present in plants of the same species
already existing as stable, cultivated populations in
Canada, or present at a level significantly outside the
range of that trait in stable, cultivated populations of
that plant species in Canada. Examples given for novel
traits not present were herbicide tolerance and insect
resistance, while significantly outside the range was
further elaborated as being an incremental increase in
the trait beyond historical trends, such as rust
resistance way beyond previous breeding
improvements.

These plants cannot be legally placed in the environment unless approved by The Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I believe that this labeling by CFIA has lead to the PNT's being classified as GMO's in international trade.

Any thoughts?