The energy challenge

[Did67]

There are not two "bios"!

There is an "organic" label, corresponding to a logo (AB in France, green leaf in Europe; or both in France). Behind, there is, for each product, a specification (rules if you want). This book is subject to verification by a certification body, the reference of which is given on the product. It is a private body (a "company", in general), approved by the State.

And that's all.

Then, as I do in my garden, producers do "pseudo-organic" (I say "pseudo" because not certified), that consumers trust them on the basis of a long-standing relationship, or to the pif, is something else. No one can legally call it "organic" anyway. People who come to eat at my place trust me. Find it very good. I am not selling anything.

I said it, and I say it again to the readers: I'm only talking about certified "organic", with the label. The one that the average consumer finds in stores or markets. And which is only "worth" that. No more. No less.

And a very important part of "organic" is just that. 80? 90%? 95% ...

So I don't think it's relevant to introduce confusion when talking about two bios. One of which would be "ideal". Even if what I say about certified "organic" upsets you.

I think you are launching yourself into pirouettes like "the bicycle is a kind of small car with two wheels and without engine" and therefore "there are cars that do not pollute" since there are two kinds of cars!

[Did67]

Now it is the origin that is authentic, not what it has become over time.

The consumer is dealing with "what it may have become over time".

And it is this reality that interests me.

I am not in a philosophy lesson on "what was the idea of ​​the founders"!

That said, we could talk about them too, they were far from being as "perfect", even if we cannot deny the fact that they were militant, courageous, stubborn, disparaged ... All these qualities do not prove it, in itself.

[Janic]

I said it, and I say it again to the readers: I speak only of the certified "organic", with the label. The one that the average consumer finds in stores or markets. And which is only "worth" that. No more. No less.

This is what basically differentiates us since I am only talking about the one that has not been certified and therefore lessened by legislators wanting to spare the goat and the cabbage. Do not displease too demanding agrobios and agrochemicals who were waiting for that.
Then the customers of serious independent stores and supermarkets which only do business, because "organic" is on the rise, are not the same.

The consumer is dealing with "what it may have become over time".
And it is this reality that interests me.

Not me ! This gives two different types of consumers, demanding and consumers who are satisfied with a label! As the renowned cancer researcher Pr Belpomme and his no less known colleague Prof. Joyeux say, they do not stock up on major organic supermarkets, supposed, only, to correspond to the certified specifications (this is the specifications which seems certified not the product !!!)
Always by theological comparison the consumer " who cares what it has become over time "Then think that religion" pure and spotless As the founding text says, it is the Catholic Inquisition! No wonder atheism developed from such a discourse.
However, I'm not saying that everything that is under certified is bad, but why do better (at the same sale price) when less is considered sufficient and therefore this use of products that have nothing organic.

[Pierre Yves]

pierre Yves hello

even if Janic accused me, from the outset at the start of the discussion, of being "sponsored by the manufacturers of chemical inputs".

//

However, Janic's turnaround is interesting to observe.

If you had the patience to read my 3264 interventions, to this day, you could see that I defend my shop with consistency

I did not explain myself well. I did not doubt for a moment that you defended your shop with consistency.
When I said that "Janic's turnaround is interesting to watch", I was talking about this turnaround:
- At first, you felt that if I had such and such a position, it was because I was "sponsored by the manufacturers of chemical inputs."
- Secondly, you admitted that one could have such or such a position, by conviction, without a "sponsor".
====
I take this message to add my grain of salt, or pepper, to the current discussion on expertise (Janic - Did67 - Ahmed)
I totally agree with Did67, it's a real subject, "monumental".
However, let's not exaggerate.
First of all, it is necessary to define as much as possible what we are talking about.
- there are experts who know their field as well as possible, who know and synthesize the different studies in their field.
These people, we know little about them, they work in their office. I do not agree with Did67, It is not necessary to be on the ground to know it. You can also learn about it by knowing how to read what those who go to the field report.
Just as one can write about the murder of Caesar without having participated in it, and do geography in the room.
I believe that there are experts of values ​​there, whose opinions are not only subjective or chapel opinions.
- There are also "political" experts. those who attend international conferences, Did67 met them, and / or those we see every day in the media. On those, I completely share the doubts that I have seen expressed here. I dare to ask: Nicolas Hulot, José Bové, Corinne Lepage, are they experts? Are they independent of any ideological prejudice?

- And there are the researchers. Their work is the basis of everything else.

For my part, I am mainly interested in the results of researchers. And there, contrary to what is asserted here, there are not all the contradictions which are said here, and which the public imagines.
What is happening on many subjects is that there is an almost general consensus in the scientific world.
But a minority does not agree with this consensus, for more or less good reasons, which may not be scientific. It is a minority, but it is almost always noisy and restless, very active on the Internet and in the media (the media like strong heads who speak loudly, it sells).
Their noise hides that in reality there is a quasi consensus.
For example, there is an almost general consensus in the scientific community to consider that there is global warming of anthropogenic origin (The study "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" measured that 97,1% of scientific articles expressing an opinion on the origin of climate change consider that human activities are responsible for it. See as well : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change )
But the few climatosceptics make more noise than all the others put together, and the public believes that there is a real doubt.
This phenomenon is true for many other subjects: a quasi consensus on the one hand, a handful of noisy protesters on the other.

- There is almost a consensus that organic does not bring any health benefits. (Dangourt AD, Dodds SKI, Hayek A, et al. Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review. Amr J Clin tr. 2009 July 29 - Towards high performance agriculture - How to make French organic agriculture more productive and more competitive? - INRA September 2013) etc.

- There is almost a consensus that overall, farmers have fewer cancers and live longer than the general population. (''' Agricultural Health Study" / study Farmer (AGRIculture and CANcer), etc.

- There is almost a consensus that Bt GMOs allow a reduction in the use of pesticides. ((Analysis of the opinion on the dissemination of MON810 on French territory by the prefiguration committee of a high authority on genetically modified organisms - Jean-Baptiste Bergé, Honorary INRA Research Director and Agnès Ricroch, Associate Professor AgroParisTech - 2008 / Modern food biotechnology, health and development: study from concrete examples - World Health Organization 2005 / Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States - United States Department of Agriculture / The cultivation of Bt cotton promotes an ecosystem service, biological regulation - INRA - 2012 / Site of the Association Générations Futures, http://www.generations-futures.fr/sinformer/ogm/environnement/), Etc.
I stop there, I could be accused of being sponsored. (Please note, I did not speak of organic or GMOs in all their aspects, I spoke of two specific points - without formulating a general conclusion.)
Pierre Yves

[Ahmed]

For a long time (far too much), there was almost unanimity on the harmlessness of asbestos, today it concerns other substances which are almost unanimous as long as the harmful effects are considered "acceptable" with regard to the economic damage ...

There is also, and even more important, almost unanimity on the conjunction of parliamentary democracy and market economy, and this, from the right to the left (the difference being that the left is polarized, with variable conviction, on the question of distribution), that is to say the combination of growth and employment. This obviously also concerns experts (primarily economists *) who endorse what feeds them (which does not necessarily exclude sincerity).

However, even a modest reflection shows that this is an absurdity ...

* Which proves you, Chatelot, that the figures (however so useful in physics) are not a guarantee of objectivity, since it is free to manipulate them at will.

[Janic]

pierre Yves hello

I did not explain myself well. I did not doubt for a moment that you defended your shop with consistency.
When I said that "Janic's turnaround is interesting to watch", I was talking about this turnaround:
- At first, you felt that if I had such and such a position, it was because I was "sponsored by the manufacturers of chemical inputs."
- Secondly, you admitted that one could have such or such a position, by conviction, without a "sponsor".

Probably only!
It is not a reversal, it is simply admitting that the two can coexist and even oppose in certain aspects. When Did underlines that the expertises are only glances directed towards the goal to demonstrate, he does not say that it is false, but that it is directed and therefore each expert makes his expertise according to the result which he wants to obtain , which (in everyone) leads him to ignore certain points that would not go in his direction. It's part of the mind game. So expert opinions are only a glance (among others) on certain aspects of a subject.
If you are interested in Colombo detective films, experts and Maigret (this is only cinema of course but based on a certain realism except the time they shorten for the needs of the films), expertise are based on scientifically analyzable facts, but that does not determine who is guilty and certain elements against them are in fact only misinterpreted indications, which the lawyer for an alleged guilty will be duty bound to demonstrate (it's a conflict of experts, each in his specialty there too!)

- And there are the researchers. Their work is the basis of everything else.

So indeed, there are researchers, but the subjects have become so vast and complex that it leads to specialties and even hyper specialties that compartmentalize this research. However few are able to synthesize from a multitude of often disparate elements and even with 99% of true, the remaining 1% little make the other 99 obsolete. Example in mathematics, if a comma is incorrectly placed on the final result, this result becomes false even on correct reasoning.

For my part, I am mainly interested in the results of researchers. And there, contrary to what is asserted here, there are not all the contradictions which are said here, and which the public imagines.
What is happening on many subjects is that there is an almost general consensus in the scientific world.

This is where the bat hurts! Sen no sen is a fan of quantum physics and firmly believes that this physics is capable of being able to explain everything about the physical world from experts in the matter and therefore considers that classical physicists are obsolete. But these same quantum experts find that there is an unbridgeable gap between the micro and the macro. This does not mean that these two worlds are contradictory but only that they can coexist like yin with yang without mixing.
Now, in the great story, what was at one time a minority may find itself becoming the majority because the world changes and the experts and specialists of an instant are replaced by others who do not rely on the same elements and conclusions as their predecessors.

But a minority does not agree with this consensus, for more or less good reasons, which may not be scientific.

Or on the contrary very scientific! the question of AIDS is based on a consensus of "experts" who are in the majority, but concerning a virus that no one has found (except one case, theoretically, by Professor Montagnier) there are therefore good reasons, but not scientific.

It is a minority, but it is almost always noisy and restless, very active on the Internet and in the media (the media like strong heads who speak loudly, it sells).

The media live on advertisers, not on the direct sale of their literature and therefore must not bite the hand that feeds them. They give voice to the strong heads only if it does not affect their big money. I listen from time to time to these strong heads who immediately fall into oblivion unlike the conformists who will be regularly invited to express their point of view far from any controversy. ((to overcome without danger we triumph without glory) But here too it is part of the rules of the game imposed by whoever makes them play: politics, economy, powerful lobbies of all kinds, etc.
So the minorities that you call restless are those who, over the centuries, have made things happen and we would not be in the republic (for example) if noisy minorities had not appeared.
It turns out that you have chosen your side and it is your freedom to do it like all of us, but your judgment is distorted by this fact, perhaps precisely because it reassures you psychologically too (again as all of us) to believe that we are on the right track.
Humility is to accept, to admit that we are not clones and that any point of view is respectable even if it is false (according to obscure and subjective criteria most of the time).

Their noise hides that in reality there is a quasi consensus.
But the few climatosceptics make more noise than all the others put together, and the public believes that there is a real doubt.
This phenomenon is true for many other subjects: a quasi consensus on the one hand, a handful of noisy protesters on the other.

You are too confident in what is wrongly called science by some as if it (knowledge) is limited to the (limited) knowledge of a few and therefore contemptuous of everything that is not in the majority. Plate tectonics was long disputed by the scientific community of the time and has become the current dogma. Hygiene was at one time despised by the medical profession of that time (the experts in question and their consensus) and today (thanks to noisy minorities) it has become the current dogma, Pasteur has scientifically demonstrated (in minority at that time) the impossibility of spontaneous generation which does not prevent the theory of evolution and its multiple experts with their consensus from being based on an inverse theory and the examples are numerous.

- There is almost a consensus that organic does not bring any health benefits. (Dangourt AD, Dodds SKI, Hayek A, et al. Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review. Amr J Clin tr. 2009 July 29 - Towards high-performance farming - How to make French organic farming more productive and more competitive? - INRA September 2013) etc.

Except that the experts in question are not the experimenters of this bio in question, but office rats, whose dependence on lobbies has caused scandal because one cannot be judge and judge at the same time. But I would like to examine the argument that you cite if it exists in French.
So while quoting experiences, some time ago (the media spoke about it) school officials had decided to use exclusively organic food in the canteen for a week and teachers found that the children were much less agitated (not less active for all that) than before and that their usual agitation resumed with the return to non organic and this example is not unique.
Obviously this is not a meta-survey, but each new regular user of organic will have been able to make the same observation at home.

- There is almost a consensus that overall, farmers have fewer cancers and live longer than the general population. ('' Agricultural Health Study "/ Agrican study (AGRIculture and CANcer), etc.

Again, the situation must be analyzed with caution. In general, farmers have retained a higher level of physical activity than the rest of the population and oxygenation is one of the anti-oxidants (these anti-cancers). * These farmers who should therefore be compared to the same level of inactivity deal with these other inactive people to see if there are always fewer cancers (which I highly doubt). It is the same thing for the lifetime.

* For info, there are practically no muscle cancers except in elderly people whose activity and tissue oxygenation is deficient.

[chatelot16]

I said it, and I say it again to the readers: I speak only of the certified "organic", with the label. The one that the average consumer finds in stores or markets. And which is only "worth" that. No more. No less.

This is what basically differentiates us since I am only talking about the one that has not been certified and therefore lessened by legislators wanting to spare the goat and the cabbage. Do not displease too demanding agrobios and agrochemicals who were waiting for that.

it is impossible to argue if the words have different meanings for one and for the other

you can regret the bio which some we dreamed of and which is no longer the bio currently defined by law and standards ... we can say that the original meaning of this word has been stolen ... but theft is fact (endorsed by law) ... and it is impossible to go back: so to defend bio diferent principle of what has become you have to find a new word! define a new word and communicate with enough clarity so as not to be robbed too

the theft of the word organic also comes from the vagueness of what it originally contained

[Ahmed]

... another near unanimity on the fact that the technique will "save" the world from its contradictions and that it is the only possible way.
This statement contains a kind of half-truth: given the absence of ambient lucidity (which goes hand in hand with specialization allowing the progress of particular knowledge, to the detriment of the possibility of synthesis), only technique seems to be able to s '' impose on a public opinion with few relevant criteria; but this is only to note the operational nature of the technique which unfortunately can only go where the economy leads, ie [/ b] precisely towards what it would be imperative to avoid ...

[Janic]

Chatelot hello

it is impossible to argue if the words have different meanings for one and for the other

You are, oh how much, right!

you can regret the bio which some we dreamed of and which is no longer the bio currently defined by law and standards ... we can say that the original meaning of this word has been stolen ... but theft is fact (endorsed by law) ... and it is impossible to go back: so to defend bio diferent principle of what has become you have to find a new word! define a new word and communicate with enough clarity so as not to be robbed too.

Again, this is a reality, but reality and truth are two different things. When the organic started to use this word as defining their cultural mode that started controversies on the meaning of this word since its defenders linked it to the natural term and the chemists to emphasize that everything was natural since their products came from nature. The proposal was therefore to designate it under the term organic (as in Germany), but the partisans of the term organic did not accept it because organic does not give any precision on the objective of organic which was, above all ,… Organic, that is to say life and therefore its preservation (in opposition to the chemical which destroyed it). The formalization of the term organic was therefore ratified mainly because the use of the term was already widespread and made it difficult to backtrack. All this for the record.

the theft of the word organic also comes from the vagueness of what it originally contained

It was only vague for a general public who did not feel concerned by the subject and even currently. When I read or hear biofuels, it is linguistic nonsense; fuel of organic origin would be better and more exact as agrofuel, but biofuel it evokes life and its respect which speaks better to consumers given the new fashion to use this term for everything and anything and the harping on the , global warming, endocrine disrupters, pharmaceutical lab scandals, etc.
So there is no question of challenging a great ignorance of a poorly informed or uninformed public. But it is less excusable for those who are supposed to know the subject better.
We can compare the use of this term with that of pedophile. A literate in Greek would never have made this word in the sense currently used, but the general public does not know Greek and the meaning of their root, it remains a matter of "pro". But the organizations that deal directly with children who have been victims of sexual predators, no longer use this term commonly used by the media, first of all, and therefore they use the pedo-crime formula (which includes all attacks on children) concerning the subject and no longer pedophile. 'It's as if Monsanto recommended themselves to be organic since the DNA they make is. Organic is the same thing, this vagueness should disappear from the language of the “pro” or at the very least initiated, as the confusion has become commonplace… except to want to maintain this confusion for personal reasons, but there it is a matter of individual conscience.

[Did67]

[Small shower outside, which does the greatest good to my garden after this long period of heat wave and drought ...]

You mentioned "two bios":

- one, original, activists, purists, etc ... who would be "white"

- the other labeled, at a discount, because the consensus between producers, circuits, consumers, European regulations ... We then lowered the standards.

Basically, I agree with the lowering of standards, resulting from a consensus ... Just as believers will believe that God is ideal, it is when it has become a religion that it gets tough ... Wars, unimaginable accumulation of wealth (the Vatican remains a fortune undoubtedly exceeding Monaco!), Dogmatism (marriage, homosexuality), etc ... For my part, having never met a god, I only analyze religions , as "manifestation existing on earth".

Likewise, I am only interested in "really existing organic", the one that the average consumer meets in his real life ... The one you call the second ...

But it is on the first that I would like to answer you:

- in my opinion, you are wrong when you think that the original militants had a "perfect model"; I was interested in movements such as Nature and Progrès, Lemaire-Boucher, from the years 1977/1978 ...

- I speak from memory, but the members did use "natural products", including rotenone, before it is banned

- you can find a written record of it in this document co-signed Nature et Progrès [I do not see any restrictive mention such as "except dahérents Nature et Progrès"]:

Plant insecticides tolerated in organic cultivation (rotenone ...) can be useful if they are applied with great precision, possibly with the help of advice from
specialized professional organizations which monitor the development of insect populations. Their high cost and their short duration of action however limit their interest.

in: http://www.bio-normandie.org/wp-content ... doc_12.pdf

- I note of course the "reserves", but the consumer could not exclude the presence of residues of rotenone

- similarly, you will find traces in these Nature and Progress specifications for copper derivatives: http://www.natureetprogres.org/servicepro/sp87.pdf

- for the Lemaire-Boucher method, they were adepts of the "low energy transmutation" dear to Kervran, of which, personally, I very much doubt (well, I do not believe it at all!)

- it was based on algae-based fertilization (Lithotame): if this system had developed, it would have been an ecological disaster for certain Breton coasts (not to be confused with green algae, products of excess nitrogen soluble)...

Conclusion:

- these labels are better than the "organic simply labeled", no doubt about it

- in my language, they are "more than organic", since their specifications include multiple more restrictive mentions

- they are therefore more "light gray" than the "simply labeled organic"

- they are not, however, in my opinion, "100% pure" or "100% white" - see if it is only the use of copper, always accepted, or for a long time, the use rotenones, in the name of a dogma: what is natural is good, what is chemical is bad ... Would this also be the limits of the use of fertilizers of natural origin (this therefore remains a form of mining agriculture, even if the use of organic recycling is encouraged, recommended, etc.).

To me, that explains our disagreement.

For the average reader, I summarize my point of view:

a) "labeled organic" as it is found on the market is much better than conventional, but it is far from perfect; that's why I wrote that it was not a "module breaking with the conventional", but if it was born from an opposition!

b) certain labels guarantee a production that is even more respectful of the land and the consumer, on several points: Nature and Progress, Demeter ... [Lemaire-Boucher, I lost sight of it, so I don't talk about it again, lack of updated knowledge]

c) for me, that does not exempt them from all criticism; it is not a "perfectly white system" [and that is the origin of "shifts" with janic's points of view]

d) to laugh a little, I pretend to do better (but in an amateur form, non-commercial, therefore without risk!) in my "lazy garden", as a "meditative" (it allows me to think, in terms of "global systems", to different" agriculture "with an" s "] ...

But even there, I see limits or criticisms; I formulated some in passing ...

I think it's "whiter", but not "100% sparkling white!"