smart thinking effort
yes and the "organic" have always treated the conventional polluters, destroyers ... and there you have it, whose fault is it?
and the ignoramus of service who adds and superimposes his bullshit and lies.
The conventional ones in question are not the farmers themselves,
casualties of the marketing of poison merchants when the only conventional one happens to be the one that has existed and been passed down from generation to generation for millennia.
when I speak of fundamentalism it is good because the foundation of "organic" is the rejection of science
what an idiot to tell such bullshit. AB is as scientific as the rest with its agricultural engineers or else agronomy is not scientific, it's up to you!
and in particular chemistry, and therefore synthetic products by ideology
Always so false, it is once again the fact of all these ignorant people who have not been "informed"
THAT by agrochemicals and its lies, by paying handsomely to spread all these lies.
and not out of awareness of dangers that were not yet known,
what a pathological fool! The use of chemicals existed long before organic farming and their questioning did not come from non-peasant intellectuals, but from farmers and breeders themselves, with no other knowledge than the observation of its effects on the flora. and wildlife, as well as on themselves.
we must not redo history,
Yet this is what you are trying to do as a hypocrite! You don't know anything about it and you do like the other bozo, just as ignorant as you, by acting as if!
we can see the limits today since in order to be able to develop "organic" specifications are lighter, Bordeaux mixture although synthetic is authorized
precisely the narrow-minded minds like you, who parachute with their grave ignorance and who pretend to know! The simplification of the specifications is not due to the will of the BS, but of the authorities to minimize the role of the BS by reducing the quality requirements, to make the official BS of second choice. better for those who got started despite everything and especially who persevered)
on the ground, we see indications arriving, "without nitrates", "without pesticides" reasoned agriculture progresses but in silence since not yet really "labeled" and yes the "organic" was a brake, but this one begins to be lifted and that's good.
and yet customers want organic, not synthetic chemicals.
Yeah by continuing to make the heyday of agrochemicals
who alone sings its praises by not completely losing her clients and she has enough cash to be able to do so.
Only farmers, as usual, find themselves stuck between anvil and a hammer. But knowing that the majority of people who supply themselves at low prices and who don't care about quality remain their target, they have a bright future ahead of them and BAC is rubbing their hands. Except that the population, it does not work in their scheme and calls for organic, not half cabbage, half goat, which themselves after their parents and grandparents had to suffer for their health!
GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:
No. You reverse the problem. And indeed, one only has to look at the quality of the water and the landscapes in certain regions to realize that intensive agriculture and animal husbandry have polluted and destroyed.
yes, but this was not yet the case at the time of the arbitration carried out by the "organic", therefore the "organic" is indeed an ideology against scientific progress, the desertification of the countryside, the abandonment of land, with few means the precursors of "organic" we do "without" by obligation or conviction, by ideology
And the imbecile who recites by heart and in loop speeches of LAC. There was no arbitration carried out by organic, because real organic refused to do so and as this term is not protected, anyone can appropriate it and recommend it.
The fool of service also ignores the fact that organic farming is well and truly taught in conventional agricultural schools in the same way as for agrochemistry and by "scientists" graduates at all levels from CAP to agronomic engineer at cutting edge agricultural knowledge. Unless for you, agricultural engineer, it is not scientific and answer it, without scrolling like el bozo!
the current "organic" is not the same thing, the conventional farmer who converts to "organic" does so for an economic model opening up better margins, on his own land, with agricultural equipment, he converts his farm , it does not create a community
and he says that with aplomb that of ignorance:
Another major imbecility! Where, when, how, does he convert? Like that with a snap of your fingers? and to whom does it sell its products if not to communities of which it is therefore entirely a part.
Otherwise it's like saying that a sporting goods merchant is not part of the sporting community; he holds a layer of it the bozo bis or ter. For the margins if the ABC paid them better, at their fair price, the margins would be the same, you guy andouille!
apply the current criteria of "organic" to that of the beginnings is what I call remaking history, we romance a little, a lot, passionately for some
If the criteria of the pioneers continued to be applied to this organic farming, less than organic, official therefore second choice, ALL, farmers and consumers would benefit in terms of health and general quality of life.
It goes the spokesperson for agrochemicals, you brought it to those who prefer to eat shit at the lowest possible price (probably few here) at the cost of your usual lies and untruths.
Say thank you to your boss!
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
