Setting aside that the Economist is not actually a US publication, are you of the view that it's good for Cuba that at the same time that they're rationing food, so much of the country's farmland is in low productivity state-run farms?

There is no difference. Maybe the difference is that's how you grow your vegies when you have very little resources.

FTA:

> Without artificial fertilizers, hydroponic equipment from the Soviet Union was no longer usable. Instead, this was converted for the use of organic gardening. The original hydroponic units, long cement planting troughs and raised metal containers, were filled with composted sugar waste, thus turning hydroponicos ("hydroponics") into organopónicos.

So it seems the name might come from the composted sugar waste that was used as an organic substrate for the plants to grow on (as opposed to the prior water-based hydroponics systems).

Therefore it seems the name might not be related to "organic farming" etc. as we tend to see in the West.

"Organic" is just a word, and like many words has multiple meanings depending on context. In the context of farming / food production it means primarily not using inorganic NPK fertilizer, so it makes perfect sense that way; organic fertilizer (compost, manure) as opposed to inorganic fertilizer (for example Urea, Phosphoros Pentoxide, Potassium Chloride). So, sure, all food is made of organic matter, but not all of it is grown with exclusively organic fertilizer.

On the other hand, meeting the legal requirements to call your crops "organic" doesn't guarantee that they are of higher quality or that the farming methods are much more sustainable.

The one thing I like about it is that it is generally a decent proxy for “we didn’t spray this with questionable pesticides”.

I’m grateful to have that option but otherwise I agree.

The other part that drives me nuts is the hate for GMOs.