Just because chemistry utilizes words and defines them with specific criteria it doesn’t mean these words can not be used in other contexts with different meanings (e.g. vinyl)
Oh and you probably know, but diamond, graphite, CO2 and all sorts of carbonates are excluded from being organic.
And you are right. They need to have orbital hybridisation. SP{,2,3}.
And in other meaning as produced by organism nearly all food is organic too. Some stuff like sugars should be possible to make without organisms(but you know it better than me), but too expensive compared to produced by organisms.
Sorry for awkward sentences, English is not my native language.
EDIT: there are apparently more meanings
When people use the word “organic” for food, they’re specifically referring to particular certifications, like the National Organic Program in the USA, and foods that are “organically farmed”. I agree that the naming isn’t ideal, but the word “organic” is very commonly used for this, and therefore it’s a legitimate definition of “organic”. That’s just how language works :)
Don’t be sorry, you’re communicating quite clearly.
And, just for the record, I do agree that the term “organic” is daft when referring to food. The term is entirely arbitrary and I wish we had a food certificate that was actually based on scientific factors (like impact on environment etc.)…
They need to have orbital hybridization
This one is often cited as a factor (because it excludes carbides like e.g. WC, TiC, TaC) but afaik it’s not true. Carbon in graphite is sp2 hybridised, in diamond it’s sp3 hybridised, both are explicitly excluded from the definition of organic.
Side note: I am unsure whether graphene falls under the definition of organic. Depending on how you look at it, it’s just a huge aromatic molecule. Don’t get me started on nanoribbons which are synthesized from organic precursors…
But I know people doing research on graphene, and I don’t think they would care about that definition. It simply doesn’t matter.
Side note^2: While CO_2 is also explicitly excluded from being organic, it can be used as an educt in organic reactions (e.g. Preparing Phenylacetic Acid from Benzyl chloride and CO_2)
MSc in chemistry here
Just because chemistry utilizes words and defines them with specific criteria it doesn’t mean these words can not be used in other contexts with different meanings (e.g. vinyl)
Oh and you probably know, but diamond, graphite, CO2 and all sorts of carbonates are excluded from being organic.
And you are right. They need to have orbital hybridisation. SP{,2,3}.
And in other meaning as produced by organism nearly all food is organic too. Some stuff like sugars should be possible to make without organisms(but you know it better than me), but too expensive compared to produced by organisms.
Sorry for awkward sentences, English is not my native language.
EDIT: there are apparently more meanings
Don’t be sorry, you’re communicating quite clearly.
And, just for the record, I do agree that the term “organic” is daft when referring to food. The term is entirely arbitrary and I wish we had a food certificate that was actually based on scientific factors (like impact on environment etc.)…
This one is often cited as a factor (because it excludes carbides like e.g. WC, TiC, TaC) but afaik it’s not true. Carbon in graphite is sp2 hybridised, in diamond it’s sp3 hybridised, both are explicitly excluded from the definition of organic.
Side note: I am unsure whether graphene falls under the definition of organic. Depending on how you look at it, it’s just a huge aromatic molecule. Don’t get me started on nanoribbons which are synthesized from organic precursors…
But I know people doing research on graphene, and I don’t think they would care about that definition. It simply doesn’t matter.
Side note^2: While CO_2 is also explicitly excluded from being organic, it can be used as an educt in organic reactions (e.g. Preparing Phenylacetic Acid from Benzyl chloride and CO_2)
Didn’t expect this.