Think about this: a plant needs nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium to grow. Whether these are supplied in manure or in pure NPK fertiliser has no effect on the quality of the chemicals - they are identical in both cases.

There are other arguments for organic, e.g. that organic crops return a much higher sale price per tonne than conventionally produced crops, which is good for farmers. However, organic crops need around twice as much acreage per tonne of food produced, which means more land converted to agriculture - hardly “environmentally-friendly”.

If price was not a factor and you had to choose between two apples, one being organic certified by the USDA and the other just natural which in your scientific would you pick as being more Healthy for the Human Body?

Forget the speaker example, its a bad example. I just chose it because I felt the need to illustrate my point, and there is one on my desk.

Organic, on the other hand, has no concrete meaning within food production because it doesn’t have a discrete definition. Most people think it means food produced without fertilisers or pesticides, but neither is true. The choice of which additives are “organic” and which are not is arbitrarily decided by the certification panel, so in effect any logo or stamp is meaningless. None can claim any superiority over the others, because all are based on a hazy, ill-defined notion.

I know that the certification term can be taken out of context but you are implying any certification that uses that word is null because the real meaning of the word does not coincide with societies foundations of the word. Like the word Speakers. Most of society now accepts it as a sound emitting device, but by definition it was originally somebody who speaks. All food is organic, but we have set up a new meaning and there is plenty of certification (and very strict) for this new meaning.

I’m intrigued also that they seem to think that “Company websites … and toll-free phone numbers are easy and effective means of delivering proof.”