▪ What is 'Artificial' Vegetation?

Continuing this post on the Diamond shoreline certification case, one of the most interesting aspect of the opinion is the court's attempt to distinguish "artificial" from "natural" vegetation:

The utilization of artificially planted vegetation in determining the certified shoreline encourages private land owners to plant and promote salt-tolerant vegetation to extend their land further makai, which is contrary to the objectives and policies of HRS chapter 205A as well as the public policy we set forth in Sotomura.  Merely because artificially planted vegetation survives more than one year does not deem it "naturally rooted and growing" such that it can be utilized to determine the shoreline.  We therefore reconfirm the public policy set forth in Sotomura and HRS chapter 205A and reject attempts by landowners to evade this policy by artificial extensions of the vegetation lines on their properties.      

Aside from the obvious issues of proof, any rule attempting to distinguish "artificiallly" planted and grown vegetation from "natural" vegetation seems nearly impossible to apply.  Will the mere touch of man anywhere in the planting or growing process be sufficient to qualify vegetation as "artificial" under the court's new rule? 

Does this mean all the veggies in my dinner salad are now "artificial?"