ORGANIC a market like any other

[izentrop]

In fact, nothing proves that organic is better for your health

In fact, you continue your inept crusade and pretend not to understand anything.

Organic is a crusade since it follows ideological precepts, does not reverse the roles my good Guitou.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

But where did you get your mind-boggling ability to say practically nothing but bullshit?
Humanity is more than 11000 years of natural (organic) agriculture and the other sucker still dares its enormities while its model has created social, economic and ecological disasters on almost the entire planet! This guy is nightmarish ...

[izentrop]

Humanity is more than 11000 years of natural (organic) agriculture

Why this (organic) associated with "natural agriculture"?
In the Neolithic period, animals were not treated with homeopathy and aromatherapy (pseudo-medicines).

Numerous reviews of the literature have been carried out [1-5]. Plant products
organic have a higher dry matter, at equal maturity, so that comparisons
must be done by adjusting to this parameter. In general, cereals are characterized
by a higher phosphorus and lower nitrogen content. The composition in
vitamin C in leafy vegetables and potatoes is somewhat more important, while
that variable levels of carotenoids are observed in fruits and vegetables.
However, most studies note the higher presence of polyphenols in
apples, broccoli and cauliflower; and glucosinolates in broccoli. Despite this,
neither the antioxidant capacity of foods, nor the plasma antioxidant status, nor the
antigenotoxic and immunological effects after ingestion of tomatoes, carrots or
organic apples are no different. The variety and the climatic conditions seem to play a
much more important role.

Nutrition and health, the place of organic

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Who talks about homeopathy and aromatherapy? You. Off topic, silly, narrow-minded, plagued by whims, obsessions and sometimes, when you read you, you have to believe in hallucinations.

[izentrop]

Who talks about homeopathy and aromatherapy?

Must read the articles I post

It's all fresh:

Studies comparing the nutritional composition of fruits and vegetables from organic farming and conventional farming show little difference overall.
Considering the modest differences observed and the fact that the stages of preservation, processing and preparation further reduce these differences, the influence of the differences observed on the nutritional intakes of populations and, even more, on the health of individuals have not been established.

https://www.aprifel.com/fr/actualites/2 ... sanitaire/

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

This feeling of being in front of a lobbyist black hole ... Aprifel ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Below is the perfect illustration of Izy's way of thinking, fasten your seat belts, it's heavy:

[Janic]

Moindreffordereflexion» 05/12/21, 21:05
I was surprised that he did not start his usual discourse of discrimination again by telling nonsense, like all ignorant people, a few examples of which on this site have fizzled out.

organic food for all, it is a very laudable wish, to achieve it 2 possible ways

NOT ! BIO never had the ambition to be for everyone, but only for the farmers themselves , who become aware of the dangerous agrochemical system for themselves and their families and animals first and foremost.
That this same awareness then spread to consumers sharing the same concerns is only a happy consequence, but not compulsory!

we have overestimated the demand for organic, by dint of saying that ALL French people want organic

completely wrong as usual. All the French have never asked for organic, far from it, and quite the contrary since all the media (pushed by BP) attacked organic which was beginning to be marketed in specialized circuits.

because they became aware, we thought we had to increase organic production to be ready for this revolution in mentalities

Same thing ! Mentalities have never changed except from the so-called ecological awareness of the increasingly important pollution of our industrial societies, little concerned with their pollution and the real health of populations, despite the efforts of industrialists and policies to minimize what is coming to light now and who pretend to go green with their cop 21 scandal and those that will follow.

solution 1) which takes time and which could have followed the Revolution in demand was therefore deemed incapable of providing we therefore turned to solution 2) the error was just the overestimation of the demand in " organic"

always false and in your usual fantasies due to your profound ignorance of the phenomenon. The pseudo revolution never took place in the populations subjected to the diktas of newspapers and magazines dependent on the advertisements of the industrialists of the chemistry, which you represent moreover as a good polluting chemist, and therefore of agrochemistry.
It is only the progressive awareness of the populations to have been deceived by these industrialists and therefore in search - (not only concerning food) of cleaner, healthier products and therefore, in part, turning to an organic than these populations knew little or nothing. Hence the niches that have taken hold of industrialists feeling the tide and therefore the supermarkets getting started gradually, very slowly moreover with stalls little supplied with fresh products (in plastic packaging from foreign countries) or dying. for lack of buyers, suspicious or not interested. Stop telling bullshit that does not correspond to the reality on the ground.

the urban population very fond of "organic" is unfortunately not representative of the French but once again it is they who imposed the political choices, exactly as for cars ...

can as always.
The urban population of large cities, unlike small ones, does not have a garden for organic farming or not and she gets her supplies at the local market (or at the supermarket, seen above ) and therefore unrelated to organic or less than organic and more rarely with more than organic. However, the new organic market gardeners have gradually established themselves by the quality of their products, by taste comparison with other market garden products. This is the real progression of organic farming and its progressive demand or demand and supply go hand in hand and balance each other out.

and once again as Guy says
The organic pioneers had imagined these specifications with the concern of not reproducing the errors of the conventional. and yet they did so by wanting to believe too much in their ideo and ignoring the realities of the field

one more bullshit. The pioneers of true organic did not participate in these official specifications devaluing the very meaning of organic and its reasons - (for example the important and necessary period of conversion from 5 years to 2 years and being able to be distributed organically. with just the mention in conversion) and therefore inadmissible because misleading on the real healthy quality of the product sold and therefore the beginning of a moral “swindle” to deceive consumers, wanted by the legislator ... and big agrochemicals.

yes it is the consumer who is the loser, but this time to whom should we throw the stone? Was there not a sin of pride on the part of the "organic"?

and here you are, Pretending to the pride of organic as a matter of course, even when it is the rulers, under pressure from the agrochemical lobbies destined to devalue (since they could no longer do it directly in the advertising systematic denigration.) this bio to maintain their monopoly as in chemical medicine.
You are an ignorant corny with a head full of fake news from big agrochemicals, your friends and employers

ah when we believe !!! besides, an ad demonstrates it, an ad for a classic soup that ends with "and for organic enthusiasts" we also have an "organic" range.

Typical example of a double aspect of awareness and then of the recovery of industrial processing companies who take advantage of a new marketing space. And it's not just the soup vendors, others (like Lactel who claims that they've been doing organic for X years, when they were only taking the milk in conversion to organic, so Without organic designation and everything to match. However, your agrochemical buddies poisoning all the time soils, plants and animals, there you do it indirectly, by hypocrisy, the promotion. Eat polluted, very polluted, it is good for the health ... of agrochemicals and its billions of profits.
What a beautiful duo you are doing with the other imbecile of bouzo bis, a great master in support of agrochemicals and who is trying to start his stupid denigration campaigns again.

[Janic]

izMentrop »06/12/21, 01:20
GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:

Humanity is more than 11000 years of natural (organic) agriculture

izmentoujourstrop and more and more:

Why this (organic) associated with "natural agriculture"?

Because, big bastard, synthetic agrochemistry did not exist and therefore natural and organic had the same meaning.

In the Neolithic period, animals were not treated with homeopathy and aromatherapy (pseudo-medicines).

In the Neolithic, animals were not treated with petrochemicals (pseudo-medicine). And the pharmacy was mainly herbalist. However, aromatherapy is only the concentration of active ingredients from plants and from which the pharmaceutical industry has also benefited well, for example penicillin. Likewise homeopathy draws its main principles of action from herbalism because infusions are only “weakly homeopathic” dilutions. The entire multi-thousand-year-old pharmacy treated and saved lives long before this pseudo synthetic chemical medicine.

NB: no matter how hard you try to put your absurdities back on the table, you will continue to find the truth in the face of your delusions!

[Rajqawee]

In any case, the interest of organic farming lies in various places. The production method, more respectful of its environment AND its producers. Its greater resilience, durability and stability (less dependence on petrochemical products. Less dependence on various changes in legislation on pesticides). To compare only the presence of nutrient, it is not terrible.

Then, organic is a label. In reality, people don't care if it's organic / not organic / nature and progress / tintouin and whatnot. Well I think ! What I want are fruits and vegetables that haven't broken the ground, which haven't given agriculture cancer, which haven't traveled thousands of km, which haven't not heated with gas in a greenhouse, etc. And to do this, well today, organic meets its conditions rather well. Hence its purchase for me. And if that allows the farmer to have a better salary, but I have to pay 20% more for my fruit, I sign! I do it every week by the way.
I also buy local fruits at the market, but not organic, but direct from the producer. They are also good, probably also rich in nutrients. And I can chat with the producer to find out more about how it's produced. Not everyone is so lucky!

Finally, if we really wanted to do things well, we would especially have to compare "typical" productions of conventional ones: large monocultivated production, sold up to 5000km, and an ancestral "typical" production, small production on various surfaces, sold on the local market. And there will be no picture ...
Because yes, to say that we compare "organic and not organic", if we ultimately compare what is sold at the local Super U, it doesn't surprise me that there is no difference: they are all both not good.