Here's a practical, measurable definition of "organic": Less pesticide residue on produce. Farm animals which haven't been fed other animals, growth hormones, or antibiotics.
Those are important qualities for food, no need to disregard it as spin.
Those are important qualities for food, no need to disregard it as spin.
Most organic produce probably has more pesticide residue than non-organic produce. Definitely more toxic residue than non-organic produce, as it turns out that agrichemical firms want to optimize their pesticides to minimize human harm as opposed to "natural" pesticides that rely on being toxic to everything.
Do you have any substantial sources for such a tragic claim?
For example here[1] is an EU funded meta-review from 2014 which finds: " the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was found to be four times higher in conventional crops, which also contained significantly higher concentrations of the toxic metal Cd. "
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n...
This doesn't accord with any existing definitions, which restrict the type of pesticide as well as perhaps the amount. Which then begs the question of which pesticides should be classed as organic. We already have stringent constraints on pesticide residue levels.