And if the BIO was a LURE ..... euuuuuh!

[Janic]

You could not even counter one of my arguments

To counter the arguments of what you indicate, we should already have a neutral point of view. But neither the probio nor the anti-bio are and can not be neutral, it's obvious; so you!!!!.
You made your choices, or packaging, from the agrochemicals and if you find yourself good, good for you. Similarly for probio and it is also good for them.

I will be careful not to take a position!

your speech underlines that you have already taken position but you probably do not realize it, it happens often!
For this part:

Of course, the LOBBIES exist, but opposite, we also have either small comedians like the Prof Joyeux

You see that you took part.
Merry, must we say it and repeat it again is FOR vaccines, but separated and not just any at any age. Like you did not even bother to read it or listen to it, but that's how the conservative extremists act. (right, left or nothing at all!)

or those anti-vaccines that have not done any studies,

Another extremist speech of dr ... or nothing! Already there are no anti-vaccines, like what, again, you do not even give yourself the trouble, or the leisure, to inform you seriously (which leaves to think about the validity of your argumentation)
Then, if you really inquired, it is not about level of education (but which one?) But of common sense and communication of these articles which you seem to recommend to you and which contradict the official speech behind which you caches

but know everything or from time to time a teacher who BELIEVES having found a fault and tries to get into it without thinking too much!

On the reflection side, you are rather badly placed. This teacher (but who can it be from elsewhere?) If he is a teacher at necessarily a level of study consecrated by an official diploma, or its equivalent, which recognizes it as such. Besides, what is your own level in biology, medicine or other comparable?
By cons like Izentrop will not have the c ... to answer the questions asked previously, you will be able to do it easily: no!?

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

BIO is a bad answer to a REAL problem!

Let's be simple and start at the beginning

What is your definition of "BIO"?

[Moindreffor]

BIO is a bad answer to a REAL problem!

Let's be simple and start at the beginning
What is your definition of "BIO"?

for me it is a label to sell more expensive something less bad than the conventional
a colleague launched in market gardening was forced to apply for the label, to sell her quirky products that nobody wanted because they were ugly and not organic, since she went organic, she easily sells products that are no longer ugly but " authentic "and" real "but above all organic, although it imposes much more drastic restrictions than organic

Anyone who thinks it's anything other than a commercial label would be better off looking in the short circuit, going to see the organic producer or not and chatting with him,
before we talked with his butcher, now it's harder to do it with a tray

[Janic]

for me it's a label to sell more expensive something less bad that the conventional

You give in the cliché that is unfortunately the most widespread, but already recognize a less bad, it would justify, at least in part, a surcharge at least related to surplus labor.

a colleague launched in market gardening was forced to apply for the label, to sell her quirky products that nobody wanted because they were ugly and not organic, since she went organic, she easily sells products that are no longer ugly but " authentic "and" real "but above all organic,

Re confusion! Did put the title " garden more than bio ... What looks like ads on laundry washing that is whiter than white. Or it's white or it's not!

although it imposes much more drastic restrictions than bio

More drastic than what organic? We explained it with Did precisely. More bio than the label? Obviously this one is a minimal compromise to favor the transition from the conventional to the bio, but also and especially to devalue this bio by reducing the first requirements and which must correspond to what you quote.

all those who believe that it is something other than a commercial label would do better to seek in the short circuit, to go to see the organic producer or not and discuss with him,

So yes, the label is like labels of all kinds designed to enhance a sector of production that imposes its own criteria, more or less demanding according to individuals and all can cheat, it is obvious. But at the same time it is wanting to put in the same basket healthy fruits and spoiled fruits, but it is not just about mixing everything.
And the side "or not"maintains this confusion. It is as if Did had written:" to garden more than organic, or not! "thus putting an equivalence between the two, which does not seem to be the meaning of his speech.

before we talked with his butcher, now it's harder to do it with a tray

Barquette or traditional butcher, if the meat comes from industrial breeding stuffed with antibiotics, drugs and vaccines, the plastic or not will not change much!

[Moindreffor]

before we talked with his butcher, now it's harder to do it with a tray

Barquette or traditional butcher, if the meat comes from industrial breeding stuffed with antibiotics, drugs and vaccines, the plastic or not will not change much!

Well, if you do not know the difference between a good meat and a bad, do not discuss, organic or not bio
I still prefer to drink a good non-organic Beaujolais organic picrate
the quality is not obtained by cheating but respecting the product, so if you buy quality you will have a good product

more than organic, this is precisely what my friend or Didier does with products that grow "without" and not organic that grows with "authorized", it is far from advertising for laundry

the Bordeaux mixture is authorized in organic, while we know its harmfulness on the mushrooms of the soil, so in bio one can destroy the soil and to say that one makes better products

a label, by nature is mostly commercial, we had the AOC, now we have the PDOs much less strict but it is still the compromise

the older the organic label the more it is light also needs to know it

[Janic]

Well, if you do not know the difference between a good meat and a bad, do not discuss, organic or not bio
I still prefer to drink a good non-organic Beaujolais organic picrate

https://www.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-no-wine-is-innocent/20130131.RUE6985/jusqu-a-47-produits-chimiques-dans-une-bouteille-de-vin.html
Bon appétit!
no problem I consume neither one nor the other.

the quality is not obtained by cheating but respecting the product, so if you buy quality you will have a good product

And on what criteria do you determine what you call quality? Our chemists are able to turn shit into a delicious chocolate with all its taste additives and you will not see any difference.

more than organic, this is precisely what my friend or Didier does with products that grow "without" and not organic that grows with "authorized", it is far from advertising for laundry.

If you knew what the "real" organic (in fact you do not know anything about it) the "authorized" in question correspond precisely to this officialization of the bio A MINIMUM. Any complaints should be addressed to governments that have established these minimalist criteria and not to farmers who fall within these allowed limits.
But these minimalist limits are not those of the true bio in question that Did defends in his own way.

the Bordeaux mixture is authorized in organic, while we know its harmfulness on the mushrooms of the soil, so in bio one can destroy the soil and to say that one makes better products

The Bordeaux porridge has been debated between advocates of a demanding organic and other more temperate wishing to preserve their crops, even to the detriment of the health of consumers. So yes, the Bordeaux mixture is not organic! (Say organic, like our neighbors, would be more judicious)

a label, by nature is mostly commercial, we had the AOC, now we have the PDOs much less strict but it is still the compromise

As usual ! For all the more the requirement is great and fewer there are candidates for the transformation which does not favor the subject. [*]

the older the organic label the more it is light also needs to know it

So it's not the bio that's aged, but it is the decrease of the initial requirements not to scare the future farmers wanting to convert (sic) to this type of agriculture. Same thing, it is the government which takes these minimum measures of requirements and as there is not a label "true bio" like Nature and progress or Demeter in biodynamics, the confusion, the mixture, of which you make you carrier , will continue.

[*] and here we find ourselves locked in a vicious circle with a population that would like cheap organic produce, without authorized products, in all canteens. Or more requirements = less amateurs to conversion = fewer products available on the market = higher prices. But if you have a miracle solution, the industry only asks to know it.

[Moindreffor]

I do not think we're talking about the same thing
for the general public the bio is the label, and for me this label is rubbish

the real natural product, I know because I buy a short circuit, in people I know and they are not chemists but small producers so chemical shit I do not eat, I do not care labeled organic or not I do not recognize any value to this label precisely by talking with small producers who know what they can do in organic but refuse

So I come back to the crux of the problem if you know by whom happened, how it's produced, you'll know what you buy, I do not know what you call it, there are no good products without good trade, and the good trade is the one that passes from the producer to the consumer without intermediaries or with the least possible

I am a chemist by training, so I know what we can do in chemistry, I have already synthesized vanillin or menthol during my studies so I know how easy it is

[Moindreffor]

I do not think we're talking about the same thing
for the general public the bio is the label, and for me this label is rubbish
and if you read my messages well I have not stopped criticizing this label and not defend it, you're a little too head on the handlebars to see who is on your side and who is against you, you oppose everyone, raise their heads

you defend a "real" organic, well start by finding a name that does not lead to confusion,

the real natural product, I know because I buy a short circuit, in people I know and they are not chemists but small producers so chemical shit I do not eat, I do not care labeled organic or not I do not recognize any value to this label precisely by talking with small producers who know what they can do in organic but refuse

after chemistry it saved my life, like many other people, some diseases are not treated with herbal teas, so everything is not to throw in the nettles

So I come back to the crux of the problem, if you know by whom it happened, how it's produced, you'll know what you buy, I do not know what you call it, there's no good products without good trade, and the good trade is that which passes from the producer to the consumer without intermediaries or with the least possible and with the human relation

I am a chemist by training, so I know what we can do in chemistry, I have already synthesized vanillin or menthol during my studies so I know how easy it is

[Janic]

I do not think we're talking about the same thing
for the general public the bio is the label, and for me this label is rubbish

If you read MY messages well, I'm just as critical of the official label, but not for the same reasons.
The idealization that one would like to make bio as the solution to the problems of agrochemistry is illusory.
If you were interested in the philosophy behind this method of cultivation, you would notice that it consists in reducing and if possible without all these chemicals in process and as Paris was not built in a day, the farmers in conversion could only distribute their products in organic circuit after a minimum period of 5 years, if and only if, there was more measured remanence. That's the real bio and I do not repeat the official label.
But this parallel agriculture escaped the regulations imposed on agrochemicals and the State wanted to get involved (while Agrobio did very well) by defining minimalist criteria.
At the same time, agrobio was not intended to satisfy the needs of the entire population and was, in effect, directed at a slice of consumers willing to spend differently to have better health, since that was the stated goal.
Currently, the "democratization" of organic has been at the expense of its qualitative aspect as when one industrializes any product. For all that, and despite its decline in quality level among some producers, not all, it is better to have a product not polluted with 50% than a product polluted with 100%

and if you read my messages well I have not stopped criticizing this label and not defend it, you're a little too head on the handlebars to see who is on your side and who is against you, you oppose everyone, raise their heads

It is not your criticism, justified in part, that I criticize, but your lack of realism about the change of society which, in spite of all its faults, goes in the same direction: homeopathy, naturopathy, rejection of endocrine disruptors, improvers of taste and all the plethora of food, medicinal and other chemicals. It falls into this aberration to refuse aluminum in deodorants and to admit them into injected vaccines DIRECTLY, not by osmosis, in the fragile body of our babies and everyone does not care, by conditioning.

you defend a "real" organic, well start by finding a name that does not lead to confusion,

This was done, during its time of discussions, and as the name of organic had already taken its place (before the labeling) its users continued to use it, "according to the law of the first occupant, is it a wiser law? " Fountain

the real natural product, I know because I buy a short circuit, in people I know and they are not chemists but small producers so chemical shit I do not eat, I do not care labeled organic or not I do not recognize any value to this label precisely by talking with small producers who know what they can do in organic but refuse

You put your finger on it! Bio does not consist in placing oneself under a label, but in respecting the laws that have governed nature for millennia, and if your producers do so, they are aware of their health role.
But at the same time, try to feed a metropolis like Paris, Lyon, Marseille, with small farmers in short circuit and there you will make strong. Having lived in the Paris region with whole fields of market gardening that fed this region, they disappeared in favor of excessive urbanization.

after chemistry it saved my life, [*] like many other people, some diseases are not treated with herbal teas, so everything is not to throw to the nettles

Nobody denies that chemistry has any efficiency, but it is in the long term that the impact of the latter is measured, not piecemeal, and the overall result is that these products have also made many dead
As to say certain diseases are not treated with herbal teas, it is a reductive point of view, if only because there are not only herbal teas to treat.

I am a chemist by trainingSo I know what we can do in chemistry, I've already synthesized vanillin or menthol during my studies so I know how easy it is

Nobody is perfect! Except that syntheses of molecules in chemistry, do not have the same role, nor the same effect as these same non-synthetic molecules on the living.

[*]so chemical shit I do not eat it! In other words, there is bad chemical shit in agriculture and good chemical shit in medicine ?!

[Moindreffor]

[*]so chemical shit I do not eat it! In other words, there is bad chemical shit in agriculture and good chemical shit in medicine ?!

when my life is at stake, yes, without this chemical merce I will not be there, so ok, but leave to take as much taking as little as possible, so not in my food
So your real "bio" limited to a minority and what is the selection criteria for this minority?