Not allowing ammonia-based fertilizers to be used in growing organic food is absurd. And requiring parental livestock to be organic for organic feeder livestock is absurd. Those absurdities are keeping quality food away from people.

People exhale ammonia; and farmers are not supposed to use ammonia to grow organic food on. There is not a good substitute for ammonia where nitrogen is low in sandy soil such as California. So the alternatives are dangerous, which sometimes (more and more) includes adding sewage sludge which has every chemical synthesized by humans in it including heavy metals such as mercury, lead and arsenic. The fluorocarbons are beginning to be recognized.

Supposedly sewage sludge is tested for heavy metals before being put on agriculture fields. That's a sick joke. Uniform distribution is needed for testing, which is preposterous for sewage sludge.

Why is the label called organic? So corrupters can remove the only reliable source of added nitrogen in agriculture—ammonia-based fertilizers—which are called inorganic in chemistry. Otherwise, the term organic is nonsensical for food, because all plant material is organic in chemical terms.

People can eat ammonia based molecules, but they are not allowed to put it on the ground for so-called organic food. Ammonia is exhaled in human breath. Urea is excreted in urine. Why must such molecules be kept away from plants? Corruption, as always. Corrupters subvert everything, because they need fraud for power.

On top of that, ammonia in the ground will not exist in the plants, because microbes absorb ammonia as fast as possible. Ammonia is the gold of the soil for microbes, because it is easily converted into biological material being high in energy. So microbes absorb ammonia uninhibitedly.

If the ground is too dry for microbes, the ammonia will enter plant roots and create nitrogen burn. All farmers know that; so they make sure there is enough moisture in the ground for microbes to metabolize ammonia before it is applied.

Trying to produce a substitute for ammonia based fertilizers requires contortions which reduce food quality and make it more expensive, because there isn't a good substitute.

In some places, no nitrogen needs to be added for agriculture; but those locations are not where produce is grown. Produce should be grown in those locations. The reason why it isn't is round-about. During the nineteenth century, agriculture was challenging; so produce was grown in the least challenging areas, such as California, where the ground is sandy making it easy to plow and irrigate but almost sterile requiring fertilizers to be added.

Of course, some things need to be grown in the wintertime requiring California weather; but with freezing and canning of food, a lot of produce could be grown anywhere.

Where no nitrogen needs to be added for agriculture is where the ground is hard clay and freezing occurs during winters. The combination of hard clay and freezing temperatures builds up nitrogen in the soil. Nitrate comes down from the sky due to lightning; and bacteria convert the nitrate into nitrogen-based biological molecules. But nitrate is low in energy and slow at being used; so it should not be added in large quantities which tends to result in it entering streams. Ammonia does not enter streams due to its rapid absorption by microbes.

Freezing recycles the nitrogen making it available to plants as the ground thaws. First microbes break down cell debris as soil thaws in the spring. Those microbes have a symbiotic relationship to plants. So they release the nitrogen to plants as amino acids and nucleosides, as the microbes autolyze, which promote ideal growth. So plants grow much faster and produce higher quality food under those conditions.

Nitrogen is not the only attack upon human rationality with organic food. Another frontal assault eliminates organic meat by requiring parental animals to be organic and loved to pieces. It's nice to love animals, but doing so has nothing to do with quality of food. Parental animals are too far removed from relevance to place any requirements upon them for organic food.

But such absurdities are the ticket to success for the incompetent power mongers who need to reduce human existence to rubble, before they can dominate rational persons. So the whole concept of organic food gets taken over by know-nothings who want to use organic food for cultural purposes instead of improving human health.

The way it works is to start with a perverse label. In chemistry, organic means carbon based, while inorganic means mineral based. So label quality food as organic, and there goes the only realistic form of nitrogen, because such nitrogen is said to be inorganic in chemistry. There is no other logic for excluding the primary source of agricultural fertilizer than the fake label of organic. And there is no other reason for using the label organic, when all biology is organic, than subverting the process.

There needs to be a new food standard to replace organic, since there are several things wrong with the concept of organic that know-nothings have produced.

Phosphorus is used and applied in inorganic or mineral form for growing organic food. If phosphorus can be used in mineral form, why not nitrogen? When growers try to make this argument, fakes jump up and demand organic nitrogen. They also demand a psychology of building up the soil as a fake concern for nature. They are subverting the food system, just as they subvert environmentalism as greens.

Building up soil is a concern of know-nothings who took over the subject of producing organic food. Agricultural soil does not need to be built up, unless it is highly inadequate, such as the sandy soil of California. And when the soil needs to be built up, it isn't going to happen. Building up soil is nothing but an absurd pipe dream by incompetents. They marvel at the wonderous change that can be produced in generating organic matter in soil. But in doing so, they have nothing of practical agricultural significance. No farmers who produce food in a competitive manner have time for such nonsense.

There are better and worse agricultural practices; but they have to be efficient and effective, not the nonsense that know-nothings promote.

The fakes won't be stopped by fixing the concept of organic food; so an alternative needs to be constructed for the purpose. The alternative should be called something like "superior" food rather than organic food. Calling it superior shows that there is something wrong with the direction "organic" went.

The rationalizers describe organic food in cultural terms of loving the ground and being close to nature rather than nutritional and agricultural terms. Nutrition and agriculture are decimated in that process. For that reason, an alternative is needed which has the purpose of producing quality food with practical agriculture.

But the problem isn't the wrong concept of what organic food should be; it's the same old corruption standard that produces greenhouse gases and renewable energy. Know-nothings mangle the science to rationalize bad agriculture and nutrition. In doing that, they pretend that they represent the real science.

Promoting such causes is a multi-front attack designed to break down the communication process and degrade opponents for the purpose of prevailing. With that standard, improvements are prevented. That's how fascism overwhelmed society. Incompetents monger power through fraud, because rationality exposes them as the incompetent corrupters that they are.

It's the same bunch that created green as the rationalization for fake science and technology. Why was green forced onto all of liberalism, while green is ultra-conservative in imposing expensive frauds onto the lower classes? It's because incompetent corrupters overwhelmed the social order with frauds which they exploit for power.