Organics ARE chemicals

I'm not trying to debate if organics is better or worse, but to imply that organic fertilizer does not deliver a chemical payload is wrong. Once the microorganisms break down the organic material, it becomes chemical fertilizer. There is no plausible reason to think that organics are safer or cleaner than using pharmaceutical grade synthetic chemicals.

From Skeptiod

Scientifically, the term "organic food" is meaningless. It's like saying a "human person". All food is organic. All plants and animals are organic. Traditionally, an organic compound is one produced by life processes; chemically, it's any carbon-containing molecule with a carbon-hydrogen bond. Plastic and coal are organic, a diamond is not. So when we refer to organic food in such a way to exclude similar foods that are just as organic chemically, we're outside of any meaningful scientific use of the word, and are using it as a marketing label.

I want to stress that I am not opposed to organic food. It is generally a perfectly fine product. I do have objections to the way it's marketed: It's an identical product, sold at a premium, justified by baseless alarmism about standard food. Whether you agree or not that this alarmism is baseless, you should at least agree that that would be an unethical way to promote a product that offers no real benefit. I choose not to reward this with my food-buying dollar. People who willfully seek out the organic label when buying food are being taken advantage of by marketers employing unethical tactics.

The biggest misconception is that organic farming does not use fertilizer, herbicides, or pesticides. Of course it does. Fertilizer is essentially chemical nutrient, and the organic version delivers exactly the same chemical load as the synthetic. It has to, otherwise it wouldn't function. All plant fertilizers, organic and synthetic, consist of the same three elements: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Referring to one as a "chemical" and implying that the other is not, is the worst kind of duplicity, and no intelligent person should tolerate it.

Click to expand...

All plant fertilizers, organic and synthetic, consist of the same three elements: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Referring to one as a "chemical" and implying that the other is not, is the worst kind of duplicity, and no intelligent person should tolerate it.

Again, what ever you chose as a growing method is your business. I am simply trying to point out that organics do involve chemicals. I don't want to hear about improved taste or aroma, that is beyond the scope of this post. Fact is, synthetically fed bud is no more toxic or detrimental to your health than the same bud grown organically.

I grow ORGANICALLY - all my solid and liquid ferts are derived from plants and animals, living organisms - not from a Chemical Factory.

Spanishfly said:

Load of tosh IMHO.

I grow ORGANICALLY - all my solid and liquid ferts are derived from plants and animals, living organisms - not from a Chemical Factory.

Click to expand...

Yet when your organic material gets broken down by the microbes it becomes chemical fertilizer. There is no logical, plausible reason that fertilizer that comes from a "chemical factory" is a bad thing. It's all chemicals, whether it's derived from organics or it's synthetic.

Oranics vs synthetic is a preference not a debate, and is not the focus of this post. This post is to show that, in regards to health, they are both the same. Representing organics as somehow being safer or cleaner is a misstatement of reality.


All plant fertilizers, organic and synthetic, consist of the same three elements: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Referring to one as a "chemical" and implying that the other is not, is the worst kind of duplicity, and no intelligent person should tolerate it.

preferance not debate? go ahead use some salty chelated nutes id rather rely on my microbes

and yes they all contain the same things but there is a difference to how they are derived

Unnk said:

preferance not debate? go ahead use some salty chelated nutes id rather rely on my microbes

Click to expand...

yet i see organic people using Epsom salt all the time.

the astronauts use general hydroponics. so. . .

again, how does 'salty chelated' nutes make the final product more toxic? How does the way they are derived make synthetics less safe?

never said it makes the product SAFER i just see the plants thrive better in a active soil ive played both sides of the field and i just feel that a properly amended soil and a thriving microbe community salts kill microbes i find its best for me maybe not you but for me to just make a big batch of soil and roil with it for a while feeding with sucanat here and there have outstanding results compared to my last 5 harvests which were with a assorted amount of AN products and my first was even with hesi

fdd2blk said:

yet i see organic people using Epsom salt all the time.

Click to expand...

epsome salt is not chelated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation heavy metal products and such ever smoke bud that was not cured properly grown with chelated nutes and get the sparkle and crackle those are heavy metal particals poping lol

I use bennies in my DWC set up to discourage root disease. They thrive just fine in the 'salt', maybe soil is a different story.

Heisenberg said:

again, how does 'salty chelated' nutes make the final product more toxic? How does the way they are derived make synthetics less safe?

Click to expand...

May not be SAFER. Just tastes better.

Hey we are being TROLLED here - someone just trying to provoke a reaction.

yea organics probly does have some chemicles in it... but your soil is more "alive" then just dumping chemicles made in some factory.

Spanishfly said:

May not be SAFER. Just tastes better.

Hey we are being TROLLED here - someone just trying to provoke a reaction.

Click to expand...

I making a valid point, and providing research to back it up. That hardly constitutes trolling.

As I stated, improved taste and aroma are beyond the scope of this post. Seems like you didn't read my original post before responding. This is about safety, and how there is no difference between the two in that regard.

purpz said:

yea organics probly does have some chemicles in it... but your soil is more "alive" then just dumping chemicles made in some factory.

Click to expand...

You miss the point. Organic material becomes chemical fertilizer after microorganisms process it, to the plant it's all the same. So organics don't just have some chemicals in with it, it IS chemicals. Why is 'chemicals from some factory' a bad thing? Your food comes from factories, as does your medicine.

Yes your soil is alive, yes you should treat the soil and not the plant. I am NOT suggesting soil growers switch to synthetic fertilizer. My ONLY point here is that one is just as safe as the other. Promoting organically grown bud as less toxic is unethical.

our food and medicine isnt safe though lol infowars.com prisonplanet.tv but neither here or there use it to your own preferrance that being the key word

Heisenberg is right....but is also posting in an organics form....he may not be trolling, but it's as close as you can get if he's not.

I am simply trying to clear up a misconception while remaining civil and polite. There are some people who tell medical patients that synthetically grown bud will hurt them, and then charge a higher price for the organic version. I find that to be unethical, and am just trying to inform.

In the title of this sub-forum it says "the clean way, no chemicals". That statement implies that anything other than organics is dirty, and clearly to say there are no chemicals involved is incorrect.

Perhaps I am taking the statement too literally or not seeing the context, but it doesn't say "the way that tastes better".

I listened to a discussion on The John Doe Radio Show about organics with some local shop owners in Denver. They grow exclusively organic. They had a lot of good points to make, but most of the cautions were; if you use synthetic chemicals be sure the company isn't putting other things that may be toxic into the mix, and that the chemicals they use are pure pharmaceutical grade. They had no problem with the base chemicals themselves, or the concept of synthetics. One of them did say he read some research that gravity, which a lot of soil growers use, is pretty dirty stuff and possibly carcinogenic.

So again, I don't mean to step on anyone's toes. There is nothing wrong with the organic method, my problem is the way they are often represented to medical users.

Again from skeptiod

The National Review reports that Americans believe organic food is healthier by a 2-1 margin, despite the lack of any evidence supporting this. When you take the exact same strain of a plant and grow it in two different ways, its chemical and genetic makeup remain the same. One may be larger than the other if one growing method was more efficient, but its fundamental makeup and biochemical content is defined by its genes, not by the way it was grown. Consumer Reports found no consistent difference in appearance, flavor, or texture. A blanket statement like "organic cultivation results in a crop with superior nutritional value" has no logical or factual basis.

Organic methods require about twice the acreage to produce the same crop, thus directly resulting in the destruction of undeveloped land. During a recent Girl Scout field trip to Tanaka Farms in Irvine, California, one of the owners told us his dirty little secret that contradicts what you'll find on his web site. Market conditions compelled them to switch to organic a few years ago, and he absolutely hates it. The per-acre yield has been slashed. Organic farming produces less food, and requires more acreage.

Click to expand...

Spanishfly said:

May not be SAFER. Just tastes better.

Hey we are being TROLLED here - someone just trying to provoke a reaction.

Click to expand...

Kinda like this? https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/370745-molasses-didn-t-do-anything.html

You are quoting someone who has opinion based articles with ZERO references or proof.

Does not really help.