The misinformation is the part where you’re pushing a false narrative that using the term organic in any way other than being organism-derived (or however you prefer to define it) is inherently misleading and wrong. Unless you want to argue that a word can’t have two meanings, in which case good luck arguing that point. Unlike the word “literally” it’s pretty easy for a layperson to tell which definition is being used based on context. “There is organic material in this sample” is clearly referring to the only definition you’ll accept. Saying “this tomato I bought is organic” is pretty easy to understand that the tomato in question is more similar to a naturally occurring tomato than one that has undergone alterations, even if the person saying that doesn’t know the specifics. Why not that word? If the term the USDA used was “natural” you’d be telling me right now that if it wasn’t natural it wouldn’t be food.

I do think the term “organic” should be split into at least four different terms to cover all the major qualifications (GMO-free, synthetic pesticide free, sustainable, free range for animals but actually defined) to be called organic, but that’s different than saying that it’s inherently misleading as a term or that it would be misleading on purpose. What purpose? To make more money? It’s more expensive to grow produce that meets the requirements to be called organic. If there was legitimately no difference between organic-labeled and non-organic-labeled food you might have a point, but there is.