Is My Banana Organic?

As often as it has been in the time of my life, I have often seen people in the groceries stall or supermarkets ask if their purchased food is organic. When approached with such a question, most scientists or students - who aspire to be scientists - may wonder if the questioner is even scientifically literate at all. Why then do such questions still persist in the public?

I have learnt from basic chemistry, as well as for all other students of science, that when something is organic, it contains a carbon skeleton. Whether a carbon-based compound is a derivative of an organism’s biochemical processes or not, it is considered as being organic nonetheless. It should be noted, however, that all organic beings, complex or not, contain organic substances. This includes all life form ranging from the smallest microbial life to the biggest of animals, including plants. Needless to say, bananas are organic, for they do contain carbon skeletons. I hope nobody actually challenges me on this, for this is the basis of organic chemistry – in modern science – that is backed up by a great amount of scientific research.

This then begs the question. Why then do fruits and vegetables need to be certified to be ‘organic’, since they are already, by nature, organic? The answer is that is with the persistence pseudoscientific ideas, the ever-present scientific illiteracy in society, and the reluctance of post-Christian spirituality to fade away.

According to one article1 in “Skeptical Inquirer”, the idea of whether food products are ‘organic’ or not comes from an old belief about ‘Mother Nature’. The belief is that “…the material substance of living organisms was fundamentally different from that of nonliving organisms – organisms and products are considered by definition, while nonliving things were mineral or inorganic.” This means that even if a synthesized product composed of a carbon skeleton, it would still be considered inorganic! This is just downright strange.

The delusion persists as when compounds such as Pyrethrin and Rotenone are used for agricultural purposes, of which both are considered to be ‘organic’, and therefore friendly, even if “Pyrethrin…is one of several common toxic chemicals sprayed onto fruit trees by organic farmers…” and “…Rotenone [is] a potent neurotoxin, long used to kill fish, and recently linked to Parkinson’s Disease…”. These farmers “…justify the use of chemical pesticides [by]… the delusion that substances produced by living organisms are not really chemicals.” Well technically, a chemical means “a substance with a distinct molecular composition that is produced by or used in a chemical process”. They have violated a fundamental law of logic, that is, the law of non-contradiction by Aristotle. This law states that a one cannot hold a belief “p” and another belief “not-p” simultaneously. Either both are wrong, or one of them are right. Here I have generously assumed that they are scientifically literate. Yet, their claim seems more like an argument from ignorance. Remember that are products such as “…peanuts, soybeans, tree nuts, eggs, milk, shellfish…” are considered ‘organic’, even if they have the potential to “…provoke an allergic immune response in susceptible people.

As the author argues, such “…stubborn persistence of irrational beliefs that fly in the face of scientific knowledge and empirical evidence can usually be traced to religious [affiliations].” He argues that although we humans have power over the animals and plants – as shown in the Chapter of Genesis – some Christians have differentiated in this view. The “post-Christian spirituality” that he alludes to in his title, “The Clash of Biotechnology and Post-Christian Spirituality”, is characterized by the belief that Mother Nature’s creatures are all part of its sacredness, and that manipulating this sacredness is sinful and immoral, thus being of the ‘nature’ of being ‘inorganic’. This is in light of the morphing from “[t]he sacredness of the material human body – symbolized in Jesus - …into the sacredness of a material Mother Nature. It is strange that the general people would rather believe in such a speculation, than all the scientific evidence that is still growing even until this date.

Rather than concluding by criticizing Christians, I would rather conclude and aim at the important point here. Scientific illiteracy is a problem in society. Even if education is increased, people still do not have an elemental understanding of basic scientific concepts, and thus confuse them with their own delusional thinking. It is always good to question the plausibility and truth of any concept, and never to accept an idea simply for comfort sake. We must always be rational and skeptical about what we are being told, and we must pursue the matter until we have a deep understanding and acceptance for an idea. Without such determination for having true beliefs, we will always live in delusions and such shall inevitably be taught to future generations to come.

The following article that I mentioned, and used mainly for my argument here, is from the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, Vol.31 Iss.2, Article Title: The Clash of Biotechnology and Post-Christian Spirituality.