An organic strike?

From Bradshaw of the Future, a lovely example of how words change in meaning (and we usually only object to the change that happens while we're alive):

I have a friend who complains about the term organic food. Isn't all food organic, he says. My response is yes, but that's the neat thing about language - a word can have more than one meaning. Organic has been used in connection with farming without chemicals since 1861, so it's here to stay. Interestingly, the earliest use of organic in English was "designating the jugular vein", and if the meaning can change from that to "relating to organs", then to "having the characteristics of a living organism", there's no reason why it can't change further to "of, relating to, or derived from living matter" then to "of food: produced without the use of artificial fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial chemicals" (OED).

What makes this particularly lovely is that your rejoinder doesn't have to be "language changes, deal with it". No, you can agree heartily - with the premise, while professing shock that your friend thinks "organic" means anything other than "designating the jugular vein".

Do they despair, as does the Queen's English Society, that "“our language will become diluted by foreign (especially US) influences”… Ask why they don't say "our tongue will become weakened by outside (chiefly US) inflowings"?

Do they bemoan "between you and I"? Add your wails over the loss of "ye" - possibly of "between me and eowic"!

Ridiculous? Of course it is: just as ridiculous about complaining about a use that's been around for very nearly 150 years. Such complaints about changing meanings - usually about additional meanings - are rarely anything other than carping about change (which, believe, me I understand; little annoys me as much as change for change's sake) or the people who use the new meaning... the first is a forlorn hope, and the second usually doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.