Risks of pesticides

[izentrop]

The deafening silence of the associations facing an organic synthetic pesticide, whereas if it was used in conventional, the product would have been demonized for a long time. https://www.agriculture-environnement.f ... a-sellette

A sacred invisible lobby in the eyes of people http://alerte-environnement.fr/2013/09/ ... e-biocoop/

[Janic]

The deafening silence of the associations facing an organic synthetic pesticide, whereas if it was used in conventional, the product would have been demonized for a long time. https://www.agriculture-environnement.f ... a-harness

Agriculture environment is an offshoot of agrochemical lobbies, which (theoretically) would send back two sources back to back.
That said, the use of copper is indeed a problem in organic agriculture, not " More than organic As Did say!
Everything has a history, a history, which explains the choices gradually made in agrobiology as in agrochemistry elsewhere. So already, there is more than 60 years, debates separated the pro-bio concerning the use of the copper or not and as usual it is the least saying which finally prevailed, for the same reasons as the glyphosate: cheap, easy to use, effects badly or not really measured and especially preservation of crops.
However, the agricultural mode adopted since the formalization of the AB, less demanding than the pioneers asked (eg 3 years instead of 5 years for example, to distribute in the organic sector) to facilitate "conversions" to the bio. For example, in the documentary about glyphosate, the farmer who turned to the organic, plows with molds in his field, which is an aberration in "real bio" as would still say Did or Bourguignon! But between agrochemicals and agro bio, (even contestable) the second is less worse!
From where, to return to the copper (and that one can compare with the cultivation of the cereals) agrobio passed from plants selected for their yield, their faculty of transformation in picrate with its own organoleptic qualities (which are not systematic, depending on the variety grown, as is the case for cereals) and as yield, quality and resistance do not go hand in hand, winemakers have found themselves in organic plants unsuitable for this use and then requiring methods and means from agrochemistry.
In rare cases, unfortunately, cereal agriculture is verifying that the return to older, more rustic varieties no longer requires these recourse to synthetic products (as has been the case for millennia) and the cultivation of grapes and vines. in general of all that requires the use of copper, will have to do the same, but it is less easy than for cereals obviously.

A sacred invisible lobby in the eyes of people http://alerte-environnement.fr/2013/09/ ... e-biocoop /

Take the organization chart of your site "trash" and it will be worse!

[Did67]

This example perfectly illustrates the limits of "reasoning" where each one, in parallel, pours out truncated truths, where "club" arguments are used ...

That the followers of pesticides, by dint of studies - of which a certain number are "oriented", others truncated -, with great lobbying, "show" us that pesticides are safe, and they lie.

Let the "greenies" make glyphosate an emblem, and they are wrong - it is by far not the most dangerous molecule. I even wonder if it doesn't help the proponents of conventional agriculture that they focus on it: so they continue to use much more dangerous products, with cosmonaut suits!

That copper is a poison for the soil has been known for a very long time. That it remains there is obvious: copper is one of the rare metallic elements which are found in nature in the "native" state (with gold, silver, ... Silver, whose colloidal form is used) like ... antibiotic!). The other metals, we must extract them from minerals which are generally, since our old earth is rusty, oxides (bauxite, minette ...).

I have written it many times: the "bios" focused in an "against" reasoning! And it played a nasty trick on them. You can find excuses for them - but then you must not find them for everyone. Basically, unbeknownst to their own accord, everyone is wrong. But for some, it does not matter. Their intentions are noble. The others are "sold" to the "system". The "organic" is becoming a "system". Carrefour sells its convenience stores and relies on "organic" products to make dividends!

They have defined themselves as being against what is synthetic. They ignored a reflection consisting in saying "let's start from a blank sheet and build the best - or the least bad - system possible; let's list products, their interests, their faults, their risks; for whoever has it. uses, for the one who consumes the food that comes from it, for the nearby environment (including cultivated soil), for the more distant environment, ponds and rivers ...). sustainability: the product is available and in what quantity? is it mined? does it renew itself?

At the end of this Excel table "What to choose", copper would have been, already with the knowledge of the 70s, in very very bad position.

We preferred a dogmatic judgment. A "religious thought". What is natural is admitted. What is synthetic is rejected. While obviously, there are very harmful natural products and synthetic products which are not. Of course, the former, generally (but this is not true for phosphates, for potash), are renewable. The second no ... A dogma cannot be demonstrated. He does not argue. We are "organic" or we are not.

In short, at the end of the Excel table, there would have been more or less "+++" or more or less "---"

And it was enough to set a threshold below which one would not go.

Of course, that would have evolved based on the findings. As the list of authorized synthetic products evolves ... In the 70s, it was not known that rotenones promote Parkinson's diseases (themselves largely unknown). So the ranking might have been good at the time (although it was already a broad spectrum "killer", very toxic to amphibians - so we had to discuss!). It was later discovered that it was harmful and it was banned. It was authorized but little used. So no problem ...

One might have wondered about the need to plow and mill. To treat the soils thermally ... We already knew a lot - I remember that the discovery of the rhizosphere dates from 1904. Even if we were far from knowing the importance it has, all the roles it can play .... We could have philosophically played the game of life!

Fifty years later, there is still an opposition between "pro" and "contra", where there is only a continuum of "more or less": more durable, more renewable, more toxic for humans , more toxic to soil organisms. Or less...

When I first used the phrase "more than organic" some people chuckled. Others have severely questioned me. I even believe that there are those who took me for a bewildered person or someone who does not know anything about it ...

[Gébé]

I think that on the contrary you master the subject very well, that's what I evoke partially on the neighboring thread:

gardening / the-Monsanto-Roundup-deadly-to-the-man-glyphosate-t7275-160.html

I fear that one day these inconsistencies, today unknown to the general public, become notorious and that the return of pendulum is done to the detriment of our health and the preservation of the environment
But I hope to be wrong !!!

[Janic]

We preferred a dogmatic judgment. A "religious thought". What is natural is admitted. What is synthetic is rejected. While obviously, there are very harmful natural products and synthetic products that are not. Of course, the first ones, generally (but it's not true for phosphates, for potash), are renewable. The second no ... A dogma can not be demonstrated. It is not discussed. We are "organic" or we are not[*].

It's not that easy! What does it mean organic or natural already? Proponents of the chemical whole, a few years ago, argued that their products from nature (oil is a "natural" product too), we could then consume after many chemical manipulations of course.
I do not know how many of these preachers drank this crude oil like champagne ... raw too.
For the anecdote, in the film erin brockovich, she offers the water company lawyer, poisoners, to drink water and then tells him that this water, "harmless" comes from its waters in question; She sits down without knowing that this is her selfish little health and that she does not want to take any chances.
That's human nature and its contradictions!
Now who could demonstrate only one synthetic product is able to maintain the living, human or otherwise, without destructive counterpart? And the reason is simple because probio are stuffed with chemical drugs without asking questions about the contradiction that this represents, but they feel stuck by the unique system that is proposed to them (with a few exceptions by the alternative medicines that are what the bio is in relation to the chemical, to the products of synthesis)

When I first used the phrase "more than organic" some people chuckled. Others have severely challenged me. I even think that there are some who took me for a bewildered or someone who knows nothing ...

Me, among others can be!? I said that there was no more bio than bio, no more than whitest than white: where it is, or it is not! The pioneers of organic were by philosophical choice and health, not to earn money and without their ideology "extremist" (which means nothing moreover) the least organic today would be even worse, but always, despite everything, better than the disorganizing agrochemistry of the living.
that said, I fully share your cultivation way by thick soil cover and "professional" explanations that you give!
[*] There is a fundamental difference between being organic and being really.

[Did67]

that said, I fully share your cultivation way by thick soil cover and "professional" explanations that you give!

Without any tillage ("not even the grelinette" - another emblem, with Bordeaux mixture, of those who claim to be "organic"), tillage which I think is much more harmful than useful, and WITHOUT NO TRACE of copper!

I therefore maintain: a way "more than organic" (in the sense labeled "organic"), because I refrain from harmful things (or rather harmful - because nothing is never all white or all black) that the notebooks allow load "bio" (or the "organic dogmas" - which are silent on the nuisance of tillage; and authorize copper, while knowing its harmfulness, by taking refuge behind the cream pie argument: "c ' is natural "!).

[Did67]

... but always, despite everything, better than the disorganizing agrochemistry of the living.

Absolutely.

If I keep saying that we can do better than "organic" - therefore "more than organic" - especially when you are in your personal garden without the constraints that weigh on a professional producer - I have never criticized the "organic". This is a huge leap forward from conventional agriculture.

I can do better, so I do it! But for that, I had to free myself from some dogmas or bad habits ...

[Janic]

Absolutely.
I can do better, so I do it! But for that, I had to free myself from some dogmas or bad habits ...

I understand you all the better as I "preach" the same thing, using Steiner's formula: "the most difficult is not to implant new habits, but to get rid of old ones"and that can take decades, heaps of decades since we are already at a few without much change.
I'm VG (it starts to be known here) and it's even more difficult, in terms of habits, to change highly conservative mores, well anchored in a recent culture elsewhere. The changes are still much slower than in terms of bio.
Same thing, when I put back (the JE referring to scientists having opened their conscience) in question vaccinations, it is even more difficult since they are based on fear of illness and death

Without any tillage ("not even the grelinette" - another emblem, with Bordeaux mixture, of those who claim to be "organic"), tillage which I think is much more harmful than useful, and WITHOUT NO TRACE of copper!

We are in agreement (in principle) on this point; but as you say further on, nothing is all black or white!
I was brought up in the "bottle" (intellectually!) Of real organic, the non-labeled, and I am embarrassed by this shortcut on the term organic used without the nuance of labeled or not, see "official organic" which is much more explicit, just as there is official medicine, which consumes a great deal of chemicals and therefore of synthesis, too. [*]
But what I find contradictory, I repeat, is to see, read, hear recommendations to be bio in terms of food and at the same time stuffing with chemical drugs with explosive effects in the form of consequent diseases. Just like injecting pus into our babies' blood, to which other synthetic chemicals are added, and even more, dangerous. And "everyone" does not care!

[*] I can hear voices from here about the fact that chemical drugs have saved lives (sic!) just as copper sprays, or any other, will have saved "organic" crops.

I therefore maintain: a way "more than organic" (in the sense labeled "organic"), because I refrain from harmful things (or rather harmful - because nothing is never all white or all black) that the notebooks allow load "bio" (or the "organic dogmas" - which are silent on the nuisance of tillage; and authorize copper, while knowing its harmfulness, by taking refuge behind the cream pie argument: "c ' is natural "!).

I understand your choice, so organic, even official, is not absolutely for tillage, its rather nebulous form in terms of methods and clear means leaves the door open to anything and everything, simply because of ignorance, or (and) under the pressure of agrochemistry that the AB endangers more and more seriously, while for years it just made her smile, avec mépris !
But again, more than bio; alone, isolated means nothing, is to imply that there may be a more bio than bio, which is not referenced official bio, but the bio first experimentalists whose main objective was that of not not harm the health of the consumer.
Hippocrates: "First do no harm"forgotten as much by intensive agriculture as by big pharma medicine, that is to say making money, more money, always money!

NB: in a way, it is like the acronym FN (whether for or against) that refers to its founder and not to the turn that was taken after his presidency and to use the formula: " there is no more FN than the FN Hence his current name change to avoid confusion between Dad and his daughter.