monndreffeortdeflexion
except that conventional agriculture, [*] very attacked on the subject of pesticides, does not base its communication on the absence of pesticides,
oh the funny one in action! Organic has a century of existence and a whole
History which accompanies it and not a late speech like yours. If in addition your so-called conventional agriculture pretended not to use it, it would really be the height of the roof.
[*] the only conventional agriculture is that which has been practiced for millennia, not the industry which usurped this name.
"organic" immediately positioned itself on the absence of pesticides and any synthetic products, this is the basis,
complete ignorance as usual. AB is a reaction to a so-called chemical agriculture (hence the precision of synthesis then) poisoning first the farmer, his family, his animals and therefore other consumers.
except that he also immediately failed to specify that he was using natural pesticides and natural phyto products, a small lie by omission
another ignorance! Natural pesticides are first of all those produced by the plants concerned themselves, but the selection of productive varieties to replace more rustic varieties, less fragile, which did not require (for millions of years according to the theory of evolution ) external pesticides.
The return to agriculture that is more respectful of living organisms serves precisely to avoid all these poisons invented by productivism, not by biological necessity.
but you who are more knowledgeable than me in religion, it seems to me that lying and lying by omission are on the same level of command
Absolutely not. It is a distorting and distorted vision to satisfy legislators in the face of the crimes committed.
A lie is to erroneously state a fact. Keeping quiet, omitting information can in no way be qualified as a lie and it has nothing to do with any religion.
lie
masculine noun
Assertion knowingly contrary the truth.
Tell a lie.
Synonyms:
untruth
deception
The lie
the act of lying; the fake ones assertions.after an "organic" product can also be without pesticide residues whether natural or synthetic
you're stupid, just that you don't understand because you don't want to understand,
but just to be insulting, the argument out of breath, an "organic" product can be with natural pesticide residues and without natural pesticide residues, and unfortunately an "organic" product can be with residues from nearby pollution, the land being what it is the price of land, even agricultural land sometimes requires installation in places that can be polluted regardless of the will of the operator
which shows once again that you do not know anything about ORGANIC!
The farmer or breeder cannot guarantee that
SES own actions, not those of its environment, whether of neighboring agricultural origin or coming from the sky or from the water
we are therefore in a communication which here exploits the fear of pesticides.
. which opposes fierce communication that has exploited people's gullibility about the safety of multiple synthetic chemicals crammed into all that is necessary for life. This is the shepherd's response to the shepherdess!
once again it's a false trial, you confuse again and again, scientific advancement and hindsight, currently, we talk a lot about the hindsight time to know the long-term effects, manufacturers are not there to put willingly endangering the lives of their customers, as Didier often explains, in the vegetable garden The predators have no interest in eliminating all their prey, and therefore what is a basic basis is applicable to the industry, if you want to sell a product it must bring more profit than harm
This is the beautiful intellectual theory of a manufacturer of products harmful to the health of living beings in general! Natural predators don't do financial business! Do not compare things that are not comparable!
Everyone now knows the sick and dead due to alcohol, tobacco, drugs of all kinds and this does not and has never prevented manufacturers from producing them, considering that they are only responding to a request quite simply. Except that there can be no request if it has not been caused previously and deliberately.
The industry has no conscience, if not that of its wallet (especially large, very large bills) the rest is none of its business. So if natural predators had not been eliminated by cutting down hedges, for example, by poisoning plants with synthetic pesticides, the manufacturers of these toxic products would be unemployed, as during the thousands, millions of previous years.
So if they do not have a direct interest in endangering the life of others, they still profit from it through the profits they make at the expense of their clients / victims. And that does not stop with the farmers because the patients of these products, become good customers for other professions, medical, who otherwise would also be unemployed without the same synthetic chemicals that represent the vast majority of products. prescribed by official medics and so on.
NOTE: in the news, a breeder who treats his cows with algae and essential oils, notices that his animals have not been sick since (not good for the business of the disease, either!)
with hindsight, we know that certain products have turned out to be harmful, and the industry has reacted, often it is the politicians who have delayed, and therefore we must not get the wrong target, and redo history for that go your way it's also quite easy
You want to laugh! It is a set where politicians react only if manufacturers are questioned and even condemned before banning widely used products, even when they are banned in other countries. Specific case glyphosate or neonicotinoids as were other poisons of the same kind such as DDT.
you are a believer of "organic", so I know that my arguments are, vis-à-vis you, nothing but nonsense,
It is much more serious than nonsense because everyone can say about it, the two of us included. No, it is intentional to protect a deadly industry from its origins and, denouncing it, it has lasted from the beginning too and it has nothing to do with a belief, but with the facts, the observations made on the ground and in the lives of the people concerned and in particular the victims of such poisonings, whether human, animal or plant.
I don't just answer you, on the other hand, I find that you are more and more in the gratuitous and systematic insult, there is less and less interest in reacting suddenly
Very well continue not to
ME answer, the others forumTheir is enough to see your addiction to your cherished chemicals responsible for so much suffering and death!
"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
