As any self respecting scientist knows, the word ‘organic’ really means ‘carbon containing’. The reason that it is interesting in science is that everything that is alive or has ever lived contains/ed carbon. By definition pure salt is inorganic and plastic is organic. However, this definition of the word has morphed to such a degree that it is entirely possible to have an argument with somebody who genuinely believes that plastic is inorganic. How did this transition occur? Who/what instigated it? What is it about the word organic that makes people wrongly think that it means ‘healthy’.
The problem comes, as in so many of these cases, because science has hijacked a word that was in common use for centuries before modern chemistry existed (Merriam-Websters cites 1517 for first use, well before chemistry was advanced enough to know that carbon was an element and found in all these substances).
Originally organic just meant pertaining to an organism, or derived form life. When scientists started studying these compounds derived form organisms they discovered that they were all carbon based. In the early days pretty much all the all carbon compounds we now call organic were in fact derived from living things so the terms organic and carbon- based were synonymous in both common and scientifically parlance.
As organic chemistry advanced it became obvious you could make these compounds in a beaker but the name Organic chemistry was already in use and the name stuck.
However the most common definition has always been ‘pertaining to life’ and only scientists and science students use any other definition. So those peopole who wish to argue that plastic is inorganic are in fact quite right. Syntheic polymers do not:
relate to, or arise in a bodily organ,
affect the structure of the organism (usually),
relate to, or derive from living organisms,
relate to, yield, or involve the use of food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides
Hence by the most common definitions plastic is in fact inorganic. Similarly table salt is inorganic and I’ve never heard anyone suggest otherwise. However if the salt was obtained by scraping it off a horses skin then I would be quite justified in saying that it was organic (and disgusting) in dinner table converstaion. If you’re having a conversation in everday life and you try to argue that plastic is organic then you are being a smart-arse IMHO. Normal people use the standard, non-scientific, conversational form of English and are not obliged to use scientific definitions any more than you are required to use legal definitions.
The word has indeed morphed, but it is the use of organic as ‘pertaining to carbon’ that is the newcomer, not the standard definition.
As for what it is about the word organic that makes people associate it with health, that’s a debate in itself. Basically I believe it comes from a distrust of technology bred from stuff-ups like thalidomide, asbestos and DDT. We didn’t have problems like that when our food was all grown with fertilisers derived from batshit so therefore anything that isn’t organic must be safe. Sound enough logic in a fairly limited way.
The American Heritage Dictionary has the following definitions inter alia:
Note that your primary “scientific” meaning is their 7th definition (of 7). “Organic” meaning “containing carbon compounds” is a no more logical extension of the original meaning than are the meanings I have quoted above.
No dates of first attestation unfortunately. But see: J. I. Rodale et al., ed., *The Encyclopedia of Organic Gardening *(1959, repr. 1971)
Interestingly, in French the word “biologique” is used for “organic”, when referring to food, which you would find even more annoying. The Swedish word is “ekologisk”, which makes slightly more sense.
So to answer your third question, viz “What is it about the word organic that makes people wrongly think that it means ‘healthy’?”, the answer is that they are not wrong, at least according to the dictionary.
So diamonds are organic?
I’d just like to clarify, bmerton, in the scientific sense, ‘organic’ means a hydrocarbon, in other words a substance containing carbon AND hydrogen. Organic molecules may contain other elements, but they MUST contain Carbon and Hydrogen.
As for the word ‘morphing’, it is entirely possible to have words that mean several things, depending on context. For instance your use of the word ‘salt’ in your post is innacurate if we follow the reasoning in your post. In chemistry, the word ‘salt’ describes many different compounds. Chemists use the words ‘common table salt’ to describe Sodium chloride, yet potassium chloride is also a salt.
So they can sell more fruit and veg at massively inflated prices compared to your ordinary market gardening way of making fruit and veg. Organic is defined as not using harmful practices in its production no chemical fertilisers
or hormones . Your average organic piece of fruit costs about 300% a non organic food source , its all about profits. There was similar ruckus about “fresh” being used on food packets a year or so ago in the UK where everybody put fresh on their packets when the packets could have been potentially standing on a shelf for 3-4 years .
It looks like we’re veering from the OP, so I might as well post this link to the masters column:
Is it true they allow “certified organic” produce to be sprayed with chemicals?
quoting from that article:
Interesting side note: I read in a book (possibly Ragnarök inställt, by Nils-Gösta Vannerheim) a few years ago, where they had measured vitamin content of ecologically produced vegetables. The result was more or less identical, with slighty more vitamins the conventionally produced carrots.
The actual definitions of organic have been well covered, and I have nothing to add there. But in regards to the ‘word morphing’ phenomena: Why should this even surprise anyone these days?
Words are constantly misused in the pursuit of catchy marketing. The general public does not always know the actual definition of a particular word, but associates it with some characteristic or quality. The word then gets used to refer to that characterisitic instead of it’s actual meaning.
It’s fair to say that ‘organic food’ might actually mean food processed and prepared without the use of artificial chemicals. These foods get associated with being healthy. Eventually, ‘organic’ becomes associated with being healthy and the public at large has a new (possibly incorrect!) understanding of the meaning of the word.
Another example: the word ‘turbo’. Turbo means “coupled to or incorporating a turbine” or it can be a simple shortening of the word ‘turbocharger’. Turbine means “a rotary engine actuated by the reaction or impulse or both of a current of fluid (as water, steam, or air) subject to pressure and usually made with a series of curved vanes on a central rotating spindle” (from http://www.merriam-webster.com ) As you can see, nowhere does the word turbo directly imply speed or power. A waterwheel can be considered a turbine, and so can a windmill, but neither of these are typically associated with speed. But turbocharged cars are typically more powerful than a similar car without the turbo. Therefore, the general public associates ‘turbo’ with speed and power. So now we have ‘turbo’ computers, ‘turbo’ film developing, and ‘turbo’ tax filing.
(1) Because most people understand very little about science.
(2) Because marketers can increase sales by stamping that word on packaging.
For some reason, I can’t get worked up about this. Maybe it’s because I had my ears pinned back in a GD thread because I tried to make a distinction between “organic” meaning “relating to the chemistry of carbon-bearing compounds” and “organic” meaning “arising from life.”
I’ve decided that whenever I see “organic” I’ll make no assumptions about what it means, and just figure it out from context.
I have not truck with organic agriculture or “organic=healthy” people, so I just won’t go there . . . I buy food that is tasty and of good quality–makes no difference to me if it’s labeled “organic” or not. One could make the same quibbles with the whole “natural=healthy” argument. Always wanna serve up those people a nice glass of all-natural cyanide.
SPOOFE, “organic” in chemistry usually refers to compounds, so since diamonds are an elemental form of carbon, not composed of carbon-bearing compounds, they are not considered “organic.” Disclaimer: IANAC, but a lowly astronomer, and I’m sure someone how knows better will come charging in and tell me I’m wrong. 
ditto “natural” — both old, old, old. When someone went on about the goodness of all “natural” things, I used to note sourly, “Arsenic’s natural.” But “Vermont” still gets my goat. Cripes, sometimes I think of baking Wonder-style white bread (or bottling water from my tap), and selling it as “Verdant Vermont,” with a picture of a hirsute hefty hippy clad in tie dye, batik pants, and Birkenstocks.
Gardeners are not (necessarily) scientists, scientists are not (necessarily) gardeners; why should their respective definitions of any word pertaining to their particular arena of expertise not be different?
There must be a lot of words like this, but really I think the chemists need to get off their high horses and leave language to linguists.
I’ve often wondered about the use of the word organic in adverstising, especially with things like tomatos and carrots. Every time I see that phrase I think, ‘Okaaaaaay, so what’s an INorganic tomato or carrot look like?’