Refuted roots of organics

Grass Based Health explains the refuted roots of organics:

Can you tell the difference between these two molecules of urea?





The urea on the left can be isolated from cattle urine (urea is the principal nitrogenous waste product of amphibians and mammals). The urea on the right can be produced via the Wohler process. They are, of course, exactly the same molecule. Subscribers to organic farming methods, however, believe that the urea on the left is an acceptable nitrogen source, while the urea on the right is not.

Once upon a time, many years ago, people who considered such things believed that there were substances that could only be synthesized by living organisms. This dichotomy between living (organic) and non-living (inorganic) is the basis of today’s chemistry sub disciplines. It was understood that life arose from and involved “life forces” that were apart from the purely physical and chemical realm. In other words, all “living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things”.1 This is the philosophy of “vitalism.”

In 1828 Friedrich Wohler accidentally made urea in the laboratory. This marked the breaking of the barrier between “organic” and “inorganic” compounds (he told his teacher that he had made “urea without requiring a kidney of an animal, either man or dog.”). He had refuted a core tenant of vitalism. Wohler wrote that he had witnessed “the great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” Vitalism was fiercely debated for the next 75 years before it was replaced by our modern understanding of chemistry and biology. Yet this belief system, perhaps unknowingly, is held by many today. . .

 A friend bought some organic wine then looked at the ingredients and discovered chemicals.

She asked how that could be and was told the grapes were grown organically but the wine didn’t have to be made that way.

Organics seems to be based on the premise that natural is good and something assisted by people isn’t.

That is not necessarily so.



17 Responses to Refuted roots of organics

  1. Mr E says:

    Organic products are only defined as organic based on the standards applied. Often these standards have been arbitrarily selected by ‘people in the know’. In my experience often the consumers of such products have no connection or understanding of they standards that their products meet.

    Some certified products have chemicals applied to them.
    All organic certified meat has unnecessarily struggled with parasites and disease.
    Nearly all organic products have inputs applied that if mixed up would be defined as chemicals.
    Some organic products have inputs applied that if eaten by humans in even small amounts would kill.

    Many organic consumers I meet consider their products to be ‘more natural’. But often they don’t understand the implications of being ‘more natural’. Many think it is all positive stuff. But frankly and honestly, I believe going organic is not all positive. There are some big negatives. Morally and financially.

    Although I believe it is undeniable that negatives exist, it is extremely hard to find an organic supporter who is even willing to discuss them. For this reason I sometimes liken organics to a religion.

  2. Dave Kennedy says:

    My personal support for organics or biological farming stems from using what is readily available and using it well. Why produce urea from other sources if it is readily available on the farm already. I once heard the term energy leakage in reference to the nitrogen and phosphorus that flows from farms and into our waterways. It can also refer to the methane that is given off from our dairy ponds. Rather than importing urea and fuel to run our farms doesn’t it make sense to reduce our huge current account deficit and farm more sustainably?

  3. Andrei says:

    The looney tunes greens where wandering down Queen Strrt this morning in a polar bear suit – raising awareness about the “melting Arctic” or some such other nonsense.

    More money than sense these idiots.

    God help us all – the world has gone totally insane.

  4. robertguyton says:

    The argument over the ‘urea molecules’ is a nonsense. Just as we don’t eat a spoonful of pure starch, but prefer a potato, it’s the ‘also contains’ that matters. Synthesized products, stripped of their natural ‘buffers’ are often harmful, where taken in their raw form, that is, as they came in nature, are made easier to digest etc, than when the simplified ‘ingredient’ is substituted for the natural, balanced product. The best example is sugar. Taken pure (in it’s ‘urea’ form) it rots teeth rapidly. Eaten as cane, chewed and masticated in the way food was meant to be eaten, it does nothing harmful, as witnessed by the gleaming white, strong teeth of Island children who have ready access to sugar cane.
    These ‘organic’ principles are not difficult to grasp, however, the willingly blind have no trouble in failing to understand them.

  5. TraceyS says:

    ^ There’s an awful lot of misinformation in that, Robert. Where are your references? When stating something as fact, it is wise to check your sources even if you choose not to quote them, rather than relying on some hazy recollection.

  6. robertguyton says:

    Clear as a bell, my recollection, Tracey.
    Your insistence on references is ridiculous, Tracey and I’ll demonstrate just how silly you are being:
    You say:
    “When stating something as fact, it is wise to check your sources even if you choose not to quote them”
    Where are your references to back your claim that “it is wise to check your sources”? Is that claim something you hazily recollect? How can we know without links to your sources?

  7. TraceyS says:

    Don’t you know the difference between giving general advice and making a fact-based assertion?

    But if you’d like me to back my advice up with references I can do that for you. Can you do the same for me?

  8. robertguyton says:

    Yes, Tracey, I’d like you to do that and in return, I’ll back my claims.

  9. Mr E says:

    Sugar cane causes tooth decay.

  10. Viv K says:

    Just passing by, wasn’t planning to comment again and suprised that my only comment in months is to say Tracey is right . Robert you are wrong about cane sugar not rotting teeth. Plaque bacteria don’t care if the sugar comes from honey, organic dates, sugar cane, blue m & ms or coke sweetened with corn syrup, they all rot teeth. I remember being told that it is standard practice for Fijian kids to have their 6 year old molars extracted before the 12 year old ones come through, because of the very high decay rates from snacking on sugar cane. No references sorry, but they can probably be googled. Don’t be too nasty to each other everyone. Regards, Viv (still Red and Green and self employed and gardening organically) ps Tracey, I don’t think you are right about everything else though 🙂

  11. TraceyS says:

    I’m happy for Viv to have the last word on this.

    Right, now off to frame your comment and hang it on the wall…

  12. Mr E says:


  13. robertguyton says:

    I stand corrected, though will look into where I got that belief from. Weston Price, I think. (A quick whiz around the interweb shows Viv to be correct – it’s gratifying that the only time I’ve ever been wrong about anything, I was set straight by a knowledgeable Left winger 🙂

  14. robertguyton says:

    Oops, sorry, Mr E. Just saw your link then. A Left winger then, and an anonymous can’t-decider.

  15. Mr E says:

    Viv who?

  16. TraceyS says:

    “I stand corrected, though will look into where I got that belief from. Weston Price, I think.”

    And therein lies the reason you should reference your claims when you are stating them as unequivocal facts.

    Returning to the source-work refreshes the memory. Citing it gives credit were credit is due. It prevents you misrepresenting others’ work. It helps you establish fact from belief.

    The work of Weston A Price is unique enough that anyone knowledgeable of it would have realised that you were hazily referring to it, and getting it wrong. His was a great study of indigenous people all over the world and it was offensive to see you (mis)using it in the way you did.

    Shame on you Robert.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: