the one, original, the militants, purists, etc ... which would be "white"
- the other labeled, at a discount, because the consensus between producers, circuits, consumers, European regulations ... We then lowered the standards.
Unless I was misunderstood, I did not use the term perfect but demanding, perfection is not of this world.
Basically, I agree with the lowering of standards, resulting from a consensus ...
It's already that !
Just as believers will believe that God is ideal, it is when it has become a religion that it is 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".
This is a popular point of view, not theological, there are many who believe in Father Noel, in love, in the future, in evolution and lots of other "invisible" things, but we would get out of the current subject, for another that fascinates me (one more)! Just a clarification religions are not the manifestation of the divine existing on this earth, it is just a human claim not devoid of intention, this is also why there are so many and as contradictory as in politics , in economics and everything that is of human origin.
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 ...
and me a few years earlier!
- I speak from memory, but the members did use "natural products", including rotenone, before it was 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 Nature et Progrès members"]:
You do well to raise the subject and I mentioned it previously. AB, like any “novelty” has groped (and is still groping) to find what protects the producer as well as the consumer and therefore gave rise to sometimes heated debates on what it was “good” to use or not as copper sulfate. Then everyone acted according to their conscience including rotenone, pyrethrum and all that could replace the chemicals in use in official culture, but with some bans accepted by the majority of them (as in politics more than 50% ) with his dissatisfied on one side as on the other. It's human!
- I note of course the "reserves", but the consumer could not exclude the presence of residues of rotenone
Absolutely ! The important thing was and must still be that the consumer is entitled, and the farmer in duty to inform and to be informed, then to consume or not!
- similarly, you will find traces in these Nature and Progress specifications for copper derivatives: http://www.natureetprogres.org/servicepro/sp87.pdf
It should be the same but from the 70s.
But for example
4) CONVERSION MUST BE TOTAL within 5 years
All farms or businesses under Nature and Progress undertake to direct all their activities towards bio-ecology to reach 100% of their activity in five years maximum.
5) Nature and Progress DENOUNCE THE TREATMENT OBLIGATIONS of certain diseases or parasites, made compulsory by the competent authority (prefectural authority,…). Example: varron for cattle. Nature et Progrès is positioning itself for a preliminary research of treatment methods compatible with bio
Stresses that the role of this rule is to achieve the best possible, not to be perfect or white than white.
[/ I]
another difference between us! This point also seems to me to be fundamental because it is based on observations which give rise to this hypothesis. Have you read all of Kervran's literature and its agronomic measures? but it's part of the usual skepticism. This also links to biodynamics (using the principles of homeopathy which is also under doubt) but its results cannot be disputed.- 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)...
Of course, but here again, we have to put ourselves in context: between chemical fertilizers and fertilizers of “natural” origin, the choice could only weigh the scales on one side, even imperfect, insufficient, sometimes excessive .
Phew!Conclusion:
- these labels are better than the "organic simply labeled", no doubt about it
Phew again!- in my language, they are "more than organic", since their specifications include multiple more restrictive mentions
Re RE Phew!- 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.
I understand this disagreement, but do not share it so far since no agrobio has ever claimed perfection, but the least harm in its context which, remember, was under close surveillance to go down in flame if the least chemical had been detected. If you followed the media of the time with UNANIMITE to consider that the bio it was a scam, thieves, sects, hippies and other jokes, rotenone or lithotamne escaped this witch hunt.
It turns out that I sold organic products at the time of this discredit (generally unproven, but backbiting does not need proof) and I think that, in my city, no food trade has ever been as visited by the fraud prevention service, which left the tail between the legs until the next close passage.
As I do not have language in the pocket (it reads, right?) I also lectured on these subjects and our fraud friends were in the front row (at the back of the room of course) pressing beforehand so that I don't do it, pressuring the media not to get the news. But these officials were only doing their job, without too much zeal, moreover, but effectively, because he had received the order from above (in plain language, the medical profession first, because calling into question their system pseudo health, and the merchants of chemical poisons) It was silly by the way since I posed no risk, me little mosquito of nothing at all in front of the mammoth.
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]
The Janic in question did not pretend to be whiter than white, nor to perfect, I repeat and I emphasized this from the start.
I said and repeat it (but we agree at least in part on these points) we have not been for almost half a century in a period of perfection, but of lesser harm (survival said the founder of La Vie Claire). For comparison, it's like ecology, it's good to try to reduce, to limit our negative impact on the planet, but we do it too late, which should not discourage all actions going in this direction. The Vg of which I am a follower being a part of these means but without illusions however. Inertia, habits are stronger than goodwill.
d) to laugh a little, I pretend to do better (but in an amateur, non-commercial form, therefore without risks!) in my "lazy garden", as "meditative" (this allows me to think, in terms of " global systems ", to the different" agricultures "with an" s "] ...
Mulching is not new and is one of the means used in organic farming, although it is easier on small spaces.
I think it's "whiter", but not "100% sparkling white!"
You should know that white is only a sham in fact it takes blue for the brain to interpret it as white, whiter than white. One more illusion!
,