Eat 5 pesticides and fungicides a day!

Agriculture and soil. Pollution control, soil remediation, humus and new agricultural techniques.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79122
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Eat 5 pesticides and fungicides a day!




by Christophe » 20/07/13, 12:31

Fruits and vegetables most and least contaminated by pesticides:

Image
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 20/07/13, 12:59

Eat 5 pesticides and fungicides a day!


: Mrgreen: The best title of forum !

The other day on ARTE, we screened the documentary on the chemistry which attacks us on our plates / environment, insecticides, fungicides, drugs, aspartame and other glutamates etc ... and showed us the existence of special cancer cocktails so that the same individual products are much less dangerous.

Large areas have very precise and restrictive specifications. It would suffice that they force their vegetable suppliers, for example, to use only a limited number of insecticides, those whose cross-effects are deemed harmless by real independent laboratories. They could thus sell the same product without the death that goes with putting forward their humanist side. : Mrgreen:
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 20/07/13, 15:16

Flytox wrote:Large areas have very precise and restrictive specifications. It would suffice that they force their vegetable suppliers, for example, to use only a limited number of insecticides, those whose cross-effects are deemed harmless by real independent laboratories.


I would nuance enormously:

a) supermarkets have the art of drawing up specifications with high-sounding titles making us believe in "guaranteed quality". When you scratch, it's often little more than the regulations!

“Mountain milk” is not the milk of cows raised in the open air in mountain pastures. It is the milk of factories located in mountain areas.

"Selected producers": as soon as a group retains cooperative A and not cooperative B, it is not lying in saying that its producers are selected ...

So I especially see an anthology of euphemism aimed at making us take bladders for lanterns ...

[I'm not talking about the "organic" and other "red label" ranges, which indeed have their specifications, but which are not the responsibility of the distributor. But which can be combined with a "range" from the distributor - an "organic" brand from Leclerc or Auchan, or even ... Norma!]

b) If they wanted to make quality, distributors would have to give up putting enormous pressure on producer prices. For this, they need to be able to blackmail the lowest bidder. So not to be locked into a policy of "co, ntrcatual quality", which would necessarily go with a policy of "conventional prices": no network of farmers, no cooperative will commit to a specification without having a guaranteed outlet at a price guaranteed by contract.

This is exactly what distributors do not want!

[To fully understand the "system", never forget that at production, a liter of milk from the farm is worth less than 25 cents - compared to the price of a liter of spring water in bottle!]
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 20/07/13, 15:46

Did67 wrote:I would nuance enormously:

a) supermarkets have the art of drawing up specifications with high-sounding titles making us believe in "guaranteed quality". When you scratch, it's often little more than the regulations!

“Mountain milk” is not the milk of cows raised in the open air in mountain pastures. It is the milk of factories located in mountain areas.

"Selected producers": as soon as a group retains cooperative A and not cooperative B, it is not lying in saying that its producers are selected ...

So I especially see an anthology of euphemism aimed at making us take bladders for lanterns ...
.....
b) If they wanted to make quality, distributors would have to give up putting enormous pressure on producer prices. For this, they need to be able to blackmail the lowest bidder. So not to be locked into a policy of "co, ntrcatual quality", which would necessarily go with a policy of "conventional prices": no network of farmers, no cooperative will commit to a specification without having a guaranteed outlet at a price guaranteed by contract.

This is exactly what distributors do not want!


+1 for the copied side of the regulations, and pretend, with a lot of debilitating slogans, that there is a preoccupation with quality. What I wanted to say is that as long as they do not take the producers by the necks to impose the price, the monopoly of the outlet (with them), the mechanism of non-competition etc ... Something.
The idea is to use this very "directive" aspect of their way of acting to impose real progress in quality which AMHA should not cost more for supermarkets (and bring them a lot in terms of image) but benefit to consumers (for once : Mrgreen: ).
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.

[Eugène Ionesco]

http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 20/07/13, 18:08

flytox hello
Large areas have very precise and restrictive specifications. It would be enough if they forced their vegetable suppliers, for example, to use only a limited number of insecticides, those whose cross-effects are deemed harmless by real independent laboratories. They could thus sell the same product without the death that goes with putting forward their humanist side.
to judge the harmlessness of cross-effect products this would require long and costly studies on, sometimes, several generations (certain products produce their negative effects only in the second (or more) generation); what indeed, the labs do not want to initiate given the astronomical cost that it would represent
The simplifying solution is to assume that each product considered to be non or little toxic alone added to other non or little toxic products would also prove to be non toxic or with reduced effects. It is therefore only wishful thinking impossible to demonstrate. The ideal being to produce and consume its own products (knowing what is added to it) or to supply itself with organic products whose channels are "safe" if only by their seniority on the market or by inquiring on the philosophical approach of the producer (s).
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 20/07/13, 19:05

the question is not to prove the danger of questionable products

what should above all be done is not to oblige to use them with bad economic rules!

if those who cultivate could earn a living with reasonable production without heavy chemistry they would do it with pleasure!

it is by lowering the prices paid to producers that they are forced to produce more to survive

It is not in hypermarkets to teach farmers how to cultivate! when we see the devastation it has already caused at the industrial level by favoring Chinese products over French products

it is not up to the supermarket to govern! it is up to the government to do it!

alas as long as the government is not able to govern and let the supermarkets do anything we get anything
0 x
User avatar
highfly-addict
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 757
Registration: 05/03/08, 12:07
Location: Pyrenees, 43 years
x 7




by highfly-addict » 20/07/13, 22:25

chatelot16 wrote:...

it is not up to the supermarket to govern! it is up to the government to do it!
...


There are some who have tried (planned economy) .... They had problems!
0 x
"God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which they cherish the causes" BOSSUET
"We see what we believes"Dennis MEADOWS
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79122
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 21/07/13, 01:45

highflyaddict wrote:There are some who have tried (planned economy) .... They had problems!


Certainly ... but do you think we don't have any problems with this in our slightly too liberal system?

Obviously people prefer the star ac and the baby of kate than to open their eyes to the real problem of crazy finance (but we do everything to put them to sleep) ... precisely from the liberalization of this one !!

Latest info: https://www.econologie.com/forums/post260372.html#260372
: Evil: :|
0 x
User avatar
highfly-addict
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 757
Registration: 05/03/08, 12:07
Location: Pyrenees, 43 years
x 7




by highfly-addict » 21/07/13, 02:46

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

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

Herd which also grows well and will grow further, as long as there is grass and no sufficiently effective predators.
0 x
"God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which they cherish the causes" BOSSUET

"We see what we believes"Dennis MEADOWS
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 21/07/13, 07:32

Chatelot hello
the question is not to prove the danger of questionable products

If we do not try to prove that these products are dubious, it is to admit that they are not, it is the snake that bites its tail! Dixit asbestos!
what should above all be done is not to oblige to use them with bad economic rules!
Organic farming shows and demonstrates that it is possible to reverse this system. So there is not really an obligation, only a strong pressure to which the farmers are subjected since the end of the war.
if those who cultivate could earn a living with reasonable production without heavy chemistry they would do it with pleasure!
It is not as obvious as that because it is not only an economic question, but it is also an awareness of the endangerment of oneself and others.
it is by lowering the prices paid to producers that they are forced to produce more to survive
Again this problem is only a pernicious effect of the system put in place. Each layer of the population wanted (or rather they were made to believe) that it was necessary to increase their standard of living and therefore consumption. At the beginning of the 20th century, 80% of a household's budget was spent on food, currently it has been reversed and the food budget is below 20%. That is to say that the current consumer prefers to spend his money on cars, computers, laptop, clothes, jewelry, etc ... than to pay at the fairest price for his food. If only 50% of the budget was again spent on food, all farmers would no longer need to overproduce with the help of fertilizers and toxic and expensive treatments; the population would be in better health, the SS budget would no longer be in deficit, etc.
But, as a colleague said to me: even eat shit, pay as much as possible ! »Moreover, the consolidation was a disaster ecological industrial printing process and economic which only the biggest have benefited from.
it is not up to the supermarket to govern! it is up to the government to do it!
But it's also up to the consumer to make the right choice by getting informed! Governments (subject to pressure from various lobbies, of course) cannot replace "the will of the people" since they are supposed to represent them or they have been badly chosen by the voters: it is up to them to choose better ones !
0 x

Back to "Agriculture: problems and pollution, new techniques and solutions"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 376 guests