they are going to have to justify it within a certain scientific or regulatory context. The regulatory part is about bare minimums and preventing the word from becoming officially meaningless forever (like "natural"
, not about state-of-the-art (which is where I'd place the carbon emissions aspect at this point).
We all have different working, day-to-day definitions of many things. There is ample meaning in organic that is pretty specific, its just based on consensus and ongoing research. The more someone asserts a personal definition in the wider community, the more the dubious or dogmatic parts of that definition will be challenged. Some people make it sound like Luddism, and they are entitled to their impressions until they become strident... then they may be called out as ignorant.
Note the History sections of the organic-themed wikipedia pages. This one describes a shift away from traditional agriculture in the 1800s and then a wave of concern by soil scientists that laid the groundwork for organic, which has a specific history starting with a scientific approach in the 20th century.
The wider problem here is our cultural bias that results in people who are choosy about technology being derided as anti-technology and anti-science. We are supposed to react to every press release for a new product with wide-eyed wonder and hold off on criticism even when the developers are strongly implying certain assumptions.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read