Janic wrote:
But, and there I join Obamot,
not often these times .... ahahah ....
You know well that even with common points, we have differences and for the moment that relates mainly to the differences.
Janic wrote:
since the organicization of organic products, this has opened the door to growers who are more interested in selling at higher prices than in the actual final quality of the product. You don't have to put everyone in the same basket
Ok, but I didn't say that, I said that the organoleptic qualities of "conventional" products are better (even good to very good since REACH) they are more careful ...
It's like asking a rapist to respect his victim, it doesn't work with the drug industry (or other industries for that matter). We cannot be judge and judge at the same time!REACH places industry in charge of assessing and managing the risks posed by chemicals and providing adequate safety information to their users
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ ... dex_fr.htm
I agree that there is an effort made by the agricultural and food industry, if only because growers are caught in the throat by phytosanitary costs and the decline in their profits. So they reduce the usual “junk”, also because of the illnesses linked to the treatments that come to the fore and denounced by their users “who did not know that…! »Sic
Janic wrote:
like Demeter quoted and others who were at the base of the development of organic precisely.
Yes, that ... Demeter, glad that it suits everyone ...
But not widespread, given that it is the result of a philosophical approach, anthroposophy, which does not suit everyone.
Janic wrote:
Now, it is currently no longer the choice of the best but the least bad because pollution has invaded the entire surface of the globe.
Definitely, you like to scare us ... Well no, not the whole planet, because poor farmers, they do not have the means to buy these products, so they do "otherwise" ... And because the others are more careful and put less, because it kills the flavor.
It is not a view of the mind! DDT today prohibits that we still found in significant quantities in the milk of Eskimos decades later. There is a Canadian documentary which shows this poisoning, plus other products including endocrine disruptors on these populations supposedly preserved from these pollutions. Example:
http://www.humanite.fr/node/379989
etc ...
Breast milk in sight
A World Wide Fund for Nature report reignites the debate on the presence of toxic substances in breast milk.
Residues of perfume or sun oil, dioxin or pesticides; breast milk is a real time bomb. More than 350 toxic substances have been identified in the milk of mothers of the whole world by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Evidence that humans are exposed to their environment and find themselves exposed to pollution he ignores. Breast milk is an excellent indicator of the quantities of toxic products present in the human body. It is also easy to collect.
The study, led by Prof. Gwynne Lyons and made public earlier this week, was commissioned by WWF. It aims to alert governments to the dangers of newborns breastfed by their mothers depending on the environment in which they live. Indeed, some of the substances discovered in the milk samples studied, such as dioxin or DDT, a super-powerful pesticide, may have extremely worrying consequences on the development of breastfed children: cancers, immune system or hormonal activity failure, since these toxic substances, accumulated throughout their lives by mothers, are transmitted to their babies during breastfeeding.
This study therefore confirms what many scientists and pediatricians already feared: breast milk is undergoing more and more dangerously pollution of the planet. This clearly means that the planet is more and more polluted.
The level of contamination of mothers, however, varies greatly from region to region. The most exposed people live in large industrial cities or regularly eat contaminated food. Professor Lyons has thus observed that the breast milk of English women, but also that of all women living in industrialized countries, has a level of dioxin significantly higher than the maximum level recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) (at know one picogram per kilogram of body weight). Two-month-old British babies reportedly ingest 42 times the dose limit of dioxin. They are not the worst off, however. Indeed, babies of Eskimo mothers living in northern Canada are particularly exposed to the risk of contamination by toxic products, since this population feeds mainly on food from the sea, often contaminated.
While this study makes it possible to draw up an inventory of the presence of toxic substances in breast milk, it does not allow its evolution to be traced. "Unfortunately, we can only observe a small part of reality," notes Professor Lyons. “Previous studies have focused on certain substances, most of which have been missing for several years.” It is therefore difficult to make comparisons between the current situation and that of the previous decade. For a long time, scientists were content to study life in utero. They have only recently been looking at the first weeks of infants' life and their risk of contamination.
Regarding the presence of dioxin in breast milk, the UFC-Que Choisir already sounded the alarm in 1998. A test carried out on fifteen samples of breast milk revealed that babies were ingesting an amount of dioxin 120 times higher than the accepted daily dose. Today, it is the Institute for Public Health Surveillance's turn to address the issue. A major survey is underway in France, the results of which should be known by the end of the year.
YB
Water and air spread these volatile or water-soluble products everywhere. We find sands washed up in the air and falling only a few years later during a heavy rain, radioactive isotopes have no border either. Do not confuse scare and face reality, the ostrich policy carried out to date has led to deny economic and human realities and we cry out when the fire barely becomes, or not , manageable.
Janic wrote:
Quote:
It is notable that it is better to have a non-organic fresh product than a not very fresh but organic product (as is often the case ...)
Not really, a fresh product bursting with synthetic products like endocrine disruptors but richer in vitamins, diastases, etc ... will always be more damaging than an organic product having lost a significant part of its nutrients.
Throat? Really? Tssss, there you go no dead hand! What does "gorged" mean? Do you at least know the authorized prescriptions and standards?
An authorized standard? What does that mean ? The standards follow the degree of pollution and not the reverse. There is a limitation of pesticides in water, but no limitation in wine up to 1000 times higher (regional news). Plus the effect of small doses alone or in synergy which worry scientists who believed only in the toxicity of large doses
Janic wrote:
In addition, some fresh products passed through cooking are hardly "fresh" anymore,
That, I would like you to explain to us why? What does cooking do in there?
It is the difficulty of using the same word for different purposes. A product coming out of the freezer is also a “fresh” product.
A cooked food is not fresher than a food arriving at the blet stage, the flocculation is similar. As for the meat, it is, necessarily, not fresh since it is not consumable in the state, except by real predators.
