Eat 5 pesticides and fungicides a day!

[Did67]

Since "organic" agriculture is mentioned - quite logically:

a) in "60 million consumers" of January 2013, a file, with some analyzes ...

b) it is generally much better, but traces of pesticides remain

c) so yes, consumers today have a wide choice between eating products with pesticides ("conventional" products) and products containing little ("organic" products); a wide range of ebase products is available on one side in specialized smarket, on the other side in the local supermarket!

The quality of products in the supermarket equals that of specialized stores - see the dossier cited in a)

So yes, if we have to denounce a "system" for it to change, we must also reflect on our own actions and choices. Waiting for "things to change" by government action seems "childish" to me (behaving like a dirty kid) even if the rules have to change ... The basis of an intelligent life ("I think therefore I am ; or am I therefore I think? "), responsible is to take one's own actions. And their consequences.

d) Finally, being close to the profession, I can guarantee you that in 10 years, the paradigm has changed a lot. The edst "device" in place: specialized "organic" advisers, training, sectors ...

e) But converting a farm is simply not easy!

Producing "organic" is sometimes scary (this cold and wet spring), without "products", it was necessary to tighten the buttocks on certain productions.

Converting (cultivating in, "organic moe" but without selling "certified organic") is expensive ... Often, production costs double ...

I recall what I wrote above on agricultural prices (less than 25 cents per liter of milk leaving the farm), I add the terrible debt (on average) of farmers ... It is not me who "play" experiments in my garden. Guys are sometimes "life or death" (exploitation - when it's not suicide) ...

We are considering pulling up the only "organic" hop crop in France, after conversion and 2 years of certified production (therefore 5 years of adventure): the production is there, but it cannot find its "niche market" . A "hole" of around 100 euros that we can no longer carry ...

But, to be honest, we must also say that there are "jackpots": production (without treatment!) Of "organic" sauerkraut cabbages ...

Without going much further, just this testimony so to say: it is not so simple!

[Christophe]

Obviously we have problems .... And probably much more serious than those encountered in the various planning attempts.

What we did not say or little said in the West was that at the fall of communism in the USSR, a large part of the population was nostalgic for this system!

But I'm not throwing stones at speculative financial villains, their power is only the one we all want to give them ... by running the system (staying in the safety of the herd as a shepherd friend would say).

Some sharks are very gifted ... to take this power without asking anyone (or almost) ...

[Did67]

A new "East / West" debate, in short "managed-planned economy / regulated capitalism" deserves more serious consideration.

At extinction, each system generates its "nostalgics". Don't forget that there are "neo-Nazis". Can this serve as an argument to "support" the idea that Nazism was a good system? I answer immediately before someone calls me I don't know what: obviously not! It may just support the hypothesis that there will always be assholes, simple-minded or "other crushers at heart" or "troublemakers" ...

Either we make the debate seriously (but there are plenty of traps!). Either we talk about pesticides, bio, etc ... by "admitting" the system as it is ...

This is just an opinion.

[chatelot16]

why when we talk about planning we always think of the ussr?

In France too, there has been planning, which has had its effectiveness in reviving the economy after the war!

agriculture is really an area where pure and hard liberalism is bad

for a good security it is necessary to produce too much in normal year, to have enough when there are climatic hazards!

in a pure liberal system when we produce too much the prices drop and we do not earn enough, it is better to produce less to earn almost as much, and tanpis if it is a disaster for the community in the event of climatic hazard ... there also the shortage profitte has certain

to organize things well you have to plan a little, for example to organize both energy and food crops, which can go from one side to the other according to the need

liberalism is bad when there is the big trade which can buy the perishable product in the 4 corner of the world, and the producer who have no possible choice

the motivated and not too broke consumer can directly support small producers, but it's small ... for a more important evolution, collective decision is needed, and it's politics!

[Janic]

did67

b) it is generally much better, but traces of pesticides remain

Unfortunately, this is inevitable! The organic farmer agrees not to use it, not to guarantee that his environment is free. But, all things considered, it is better to have traces than to consume a product that is saturated with them.
As for the farmer who wants to go organic, it is really an obstacle course and he must believe in it to persevere.
when in supermarkets (and unfortunately also sometimes in certain so-called specialized stores) quality is not the main criterion, they sell it because it is a market in demand and demand must be satisfied (this is also why there are rarely fresh products); it is business, not an ecological or health approach and even less philosophical.

[Did67]

Yes Yes. This is not a criticism - I indicated how I participated in the conversion of a hop plant and other projects, it is that I am not against; Personally, I am a "non-dogmatic" consumer (therefore non-exclusive) ...

This is an element of debate: turning to "organic" agriculture is not "escaping" pesticides ...

At least as long as:

a) the specifications tolerate certain "pesticides" (literally: miladia killer) as long as they are of natural origin. However, everyone knows that certain natural products are the most toxic parameters! Curare, colchicine (a violent mutagen), hemlock, nicotine, alcohol, cocaine ... The list is very long. Others are far from harmless: copper? etc ...

b) "organic" cultivation is practiced in the middle of conventional plots, with the "drifts" of the products ...

c) "organic" cultivation is practiced in the middle of a polluted environment: what about dioxins released by power plants, "organic" plots placed under the prevailing wind of such industry ... ????

The "organic", from a legal point of view, it is what is called an "obligation of means", not an "obligation of results". In other words, we do not have the right to use synthetic products, but we do not guarantee that there will not be any ...

So it's good. I don't want to imply otherwise.

But that does not completely remove the question posed by the title, as long as it is widened to "Eat crap whose impact we ignore, 5 times a day" ... Even if that reduces it, of course , significantly [I did not say that "eating organic" is kif kif! especially not !]

[Did67]

why when we talk about planning we always think of the ussr?

in France too there has been planning

Indeed !!!

This is why I speak of "managed economy"!

There was indeed in France a general planning commission. But it was an "indicative" plan, a sort of orientation ... I don't think it was of any use in the debate that concerns us!

It has been deleted.

I find this reflexion, found in Wikipedia, very interesting!

There were many oppositions: Pierre Massé said for example that "to suppress the Plan in the name of impulsive liberalism would be to deprive the power of one of his weapons against the dictatorship of the moment".

Rather than the Plan, I think we have to wonder about the slow but continuous dismantling of all the instruments of a food policy: organization of markets, "public" stocks, regulated prices ... All this has existed, worked , rather well until generated its own excesses (overproductions ... excessive stocks ...). This apparently justified its sweeping when it was the liberal forces that were at work ... (GATT agreements, later WTO ...).

It is also, previously, the slow drift of "mutualism", a historical force of our campaigns: cooperatives, insurance, supplies, solidarity banks (well before the Grameen!) ... Today, apart from some advertising arguments, which makes the difference between Crédit Mutuel or Crédit Agricole and a lambda baque, between Gorupama and Axa, between Yoplait and Danone ... Thousands of founders must turn in their graves ...

So yes, you're right.

The instruments existed. History has swept them away!

[chatelot16]

you are right to point out the problem of agricultural cooperatives who have completely stopped performing the function for which they were created!

[Did67]

If we had to "philosophize", rather than East / West, the question of knowing by what "mystery" a regression of a level of civilization could be implemented in the second half of the 20th century intrigues me!

Or how, in my opinion [it is a part of the answer that jumps out at me], at the end of the years of scarcity, the blind belief that "always more material goods" would be synonymous with always more well-being. ..

Or how a real materialist addiction took place instead of and more than one "culture", including my rural culture - even if many aspects were outmoded (the so-called "retrograde" values, the weight of convictions, the weight of religious, ...).

It seems to me that the current crisis is above all a crisis of civilization, this "model" coming to an end, with ever more inequalities, with ever more cancer, ever more pain and violence, poverty...

But as with any drug addict, considering a better world still seems very difficult to us. Quick, my dose !!! And ready for toput for that: stealing the old woman who is pale, killing the competing dealer, butchering cops ...

[Janic]

This is an element of debate: turning to "organic" agriculture is not "escaping" pesticides ...

Or rather: it is NOT to escape, CURRENTLY, from pesticides as long as the farmers are not indisputable victims and in sufficient numbers despite their precautions for use

At least as long as:
a) the specifications tolerate certain "pesticides" (literally: miladia killer) as long as they are of natural origin. However, everyone knows that certain natural products are the most toxic parameters! Curare, colchicine (a violent mutagen), hemlock, nicotine, alcohol, cocaine ...

You're natural is not synonymous with harmlessness, hence the scientific form of organic farming which does not seek to replace toxic synthetic products by toxic products (for the human) natural.
http://books.google.fr/books?id=7LdEAAA ... 9e&f=false
then you have to take into account the doses used which can be “homeopathic” and be very effective.

The list is very long. Others are far from harmless: copper? etc ...

It is a fact that copper has made and is still controversial among some ABs.

b) "organic" cultivation is practiced in the middle of conventional plots, with the "drifts" of the products ...
c) "organic" cultivation is practiced in the middle of a polluted environment: what about dioxins released by power plants, "organic" plots placed under the prevailing wind of such industry ... ????

This is still correct, hence the awareness that is all the more necessary and urgent if we want to prevent the present and especially future generations from being the victims of it, as we belatedly realized. with endocrine disruptors or asbestos.

The "organic", from a legal point of view, it is what is called an "obligation of means", not an "obligation of results". In other words, we do not have the right to use synthetic products, but we do not guarantee that there will not be any ...

It's still fair!
But it's like driving a nail! Or we keep tapping our fingers; or we take the necessary precautions despite the risks posed by the hammer.