Blow against bio-dynamics

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

There is no relation as a direct with health.

It is hopeless!
If there was no allergy, nowhere, it would be justified, but even on a reduced part of the population, if it exists it is because there is a direct relationship with health, even than theirs!

I think that for any product (except water), we can find at least one allergic person ...
Should we declare all products (potentially) dangerous for health

You do not know how right you are...

A work buddy that I recently had on the phone and who had left for the Grau du Roi is forced to wander in the hinterland because his kid has developed an allergy to sea water ....

Well obviously it's quickly said and maybe it was what was in the sea water, that said in the sea or in the water park in sea water it was the same ...

[Gaston]

Should we declare all products (potentially) dangerous for health

There are already a considerable number of them. The problem comes mainly from their recognition or their negation as such. It took almost a century for asbestos to be recognized as such and the rest is no better!
But as long as these are not recognized as dangerous, they will remain widespread in the world without anyone finding fault with them and not only in the field of pharmacy.

Again you divert the question.

I ask whether to consider un produced as toxic since it can kill a nobody.
If so, just about everything is toxic and should be banned (even the best organic vegetables).
If not, why cry haro over gluten which is no more or less dangerous than eggs, eggplant or white beans?

[Janic]

Again you divert the question.

Is that so! Is it the shape or the content that troubles you? What's wrong with what i used as a comparison

I ask whether a product should be considered toxic when it can kill a person.

You just have to swallow the wrong way to choke and die, organic or not, but that is not an indication of toxicity. Law and semantics precisely define what can be called toxic or not.

If so, just about everything is toxic and should be banned (even the best organic vegetables).

dixit above!

If not, why cry haro over gluten which is no more or less dangerous than eggs, eggplant or white beans?

For eggplant or green beans (not white), I have never read any toxicity for these, but I do not know everything about everything, but if you have credible info, it's welcome!
For eggs, cases of regular poisoning are worth more than speeches!
But there is an incontestable scientific means which is the analysis of the blood which indicates if there is a digestive leukocytosis or not and each food ingested then indicates the level of toxicity of the ingested product; not with speeches from labs, but in real life, so with each of us!
Finally, personally, I do not cry haro on gluten and it is even the opposite, but on the industrial selection which is made for reasons of yield and not of consumer health and Did like Ahmed brought their point of view (not a dogma!)

[Ahmed]

Rather than writing the shortened formula: "industrial selection", it would be more precise to speak of "selection for industrial purposes", that is to say according to criteria favorable to this type of production.

[Janic]

Rather than writing the shortened formula: "industrial selection", it would be more precise to speak of "selection for industrial purposes", that is to say according to criteria favorable to this type of production.

Okay!

[izentrop]

Since the nutritional quality is the same at the same ash rate, although perhaps less healthy on the side of old wheat which is less resistant to disease, we buy more expensive old wheat bread for ethical reasons.

As long as we pay more, it would be with a label guaranteeing conservation agriculture, without inputs that deplete fossil resources, without sending nitrate into the groundwater, minimizing soil erosion, so no bare earth or deep plowing, while maintaining fertility.

To control certain pests and guarantee a low level of toxins in wheat, certain pesticides with low persistence are essential, therefore stricter regulations but no systematic ban.
One of the aberrations of bio is to authorize copper treatments and to prohibit synthesis molecules, while they are based on organic matter and degraded in a few hours in living soil.

[Janic]

As the nutritional quality is identical to the same ash rate,

Did like ahmed may respond better than me, but!
The nutritional quality of a product is not only measured by the rate of ash, but by all of its constituents such as vitamins, mineral salts and their balance, diastases, etc., but also by its symbiosis with the being that goes consuming them and that will determine his health.

although perhaps less healthy on the old wheat side which is less resistant to disease, we buy more expensive old wheat bread for ethical reasons.

What makes you say that it is less healthy (less healthy than what?) And less resistant to diseases (it is still an image of Epinal more) and what comes to do ethics in addition? You wander completely!

As long as we pay more, it would be with a label guaranteeing conservation agriculture, without inputs that deplete fossil resources, without sending nitrate into the groundwater, minimizing soil erosion, so no bare earth or deep plowing, while maintaining fertility.

This is what is being put in place with sustainable agriculture which is between goat and cabbage.

To control certain pests and guarantee a low level of toxins in wheat, certain pesticides with low persistence are essential, therefore stricter regulations but no systematic ban.

To avoid certain pests you must already start by not poisoning their natural predators which nest in the hedges protecting them. How were the hedges pulled out?

One of the aberrations of bio is to authorize copper treatments and to prohibit synthesis molecules, while they are based on organic matter and degraded in a few hours in living soil.

It is a blind man who laughs at a possible one-eyed man by claiming to see better than he! Synthetic molecules are either synthetic or organic, not both.
This confusion serves the interests of petrochemicals exclusively because all chemicals disorganize organic products, but it is not the concern of agrochemicals, only the quantitative results are taken into account.
For comparison, it's like considering that an obese whose weight is high can be compared to a weightlifter of the same weight.

[izentrop]

Synthetic molecules are either synthetic or organic, not both.

Pesticides can be grouped into organic or inorganic pesticides. Organic pesticides contain carbon, while inorganics contain carbon only in the form of carbonate or cyanide. These are derivatives based on arsenic, mercury, fluorine, sulfur and copper, as well as derivatives of cyanide. http://www.mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca/pesticides/apropos.htm

The regulation of MRLs is already strict http://www.lallemandplantcare.com/regle ... cides/#LMR

[Janic]

except that the notion of MRL in agriculture, does not take into account the cumulative effects of residues in organic matter (plants, animals) and which generate pathologies for which agriculture washes their hands since the SS is there to spit in the pan , concerning the victims at the end of the food chain, and there no polluter / payer (DDT, asbestos after a century of use, radiation, green algae and the whole series of drugs which also cause scandal)

[izentrop]

I didn't invent anything

The active substances are generally organic molecules
which are degraded in the soil by physico-chemical processes and
organic. So, a soil rich in organic matter and biologically
active will more easily and naturally remove
residues of phytos products. http://uipp.org/content/download/1497/1 ... 281%29.pdf