The benefits of organic food, questioned

[C moa]

Christine is not serious, I had not tried to be unpleasant but if that's how you take it, I'm sorry. We only discuss so there is actually nothing personal. I just found surprising that you compare organic and intensive whereas with Woodcutter we had said previously that we compared products that seemed equivalent quality (small producers or bio and red label for example). But OK...

For 1) and 2) as my joke has not had the desired effect, I will clarify, I do not like you, actually I only like me, soft et MOI and just my wife and children to form.
Well it's humor (this time I specify, you never know).

Alternatively, for 3 points) and 4), I understand that you were not blind consumers and my idea is not to convince anyone that I'm the best and I'm right at all costs simply I argue my ideas.

To repeat the words of others is what we all do on this forum to be clearer and that's not why it's about targeting people in particular. In any case that's how I see things even when I'm quoted.

If you look closely, I did not take back the words by saying "I'm right and you're wrong" (it's not a debate) but each time (as Lumberjack also did), I provided new arguments (some documented) in order to move the debate forward.

Christophe may be right, it certainly is a professional deformation .... The intellectual confrontation is probably one of our genes

Now, if my arguments are not suited to you and make you aggressive, what can I do ??

Finally, be assured that I respect the opinions and actions of everyone but respect does not necessarily mean agreeing.

Can I still wish you a good day ??

[C moa]

For information
http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2009/08/31/la-filiere-bio-commence-a-etre-victime-de-son-succes_1233778_3234.html

[Did67]

Oh, and I also am an engineer ... and then ????? What is this bullshit ! Being an engineer is to be con? Or have I misunderstood ???

After this uninteresting preliminary remark, just to bring my strawberry back, let us recall that the debate (originally on the benefits of organic - in the sense of health and not money) has drifted on a comparison between "organic" chicken / "label chicken red"...

The "red label" is not all the same intensive "all comers" or "'classic", let's not lose sight of it!

I find the connection made here very interesting. No doubt the additional costs of organic products are not ALWAYS justified. They are ALSO a market logic, therefore a supply and demand logic. Organic is fashionable, the sector is in deficit (in production), so we pay more. The red label is "has been", therefore depreciated.

Believe otherwise (that is to say that organic price is strictly related to production costs), that would believe in a perfect economy, where the majority of organic producers would be perfectly altruistic selfless, having subtracted once and for all to the notion of profit ...

There are organic militants, who are not far from that. They were even originally, the vast majority (I speak of time than younger have not known - there 30 years). There's less and less of these altruistic militants ...

That's my opinion and I share it!

[Christophe]

Info on econo already posted but I have not found the subject ...

http://www.terraeco.net/On-peut-nourrir ... 47024.html

Interview - Resolving the issue of food globally, by dispensing with conventional agriculture? It looks like a utopia, but it is the reality of tomorrow, according to some. Among them, the agronomist Jacques Caplat. Interview.

Jacques Caplat is agronomist and geographer.
The idea that organic yields are lower than conventional recurs ...
If we consider that organic agriculture is doing the same thing as in conventional less chemistry, then yes, that's for sure. But that's not it at all!
What to look for, then?
The conventional system is built on the idea that we can increase yields by selecting seeds. Are isolated and we look at how we can produce the maximum in an artificial context. We then obtain very high yields, but they no longer have any relationship with the biological reality. And in reality, these varieties should be continuously supported by pesticides and chemical fertilizers. They become very fragile. Parasites rush it. Multiply inputs. It's a vicious circle. Organic farming is another concept. It is the linking of three major components of the agriculture: an ecosystem (soil, water points, hedges), an agro-ecosystem (several plants, animals) and autonomous human, experiencing make decisions and not have them imposed by seed or policies.
This concept works best with a mixture of crops on the same parcel. Pulses, because they are capable of fixing atmospheric nitrogen. Trees, because they will find potassium in depth and restore the surface. There is more competition between plants, but complementary. This allows for much better returns. In Europe, one hectare of conventional wheat product 10 tonnes. On the same surface dedicated to diversified market gardening, with 20 30 to different species, is reached between 20 and 70 tons. The vegetables contain more water than wheat, we can reduce those between 15 and 25 tonnes of dry matter. The yield is twice the size!
You argue that organic farming is the only viable system in tropical countries ...
The conventional system works only in temperate environments. He needs a stable climate. In tropical countries, excessive rain or drought can wipe out a year of production in monoculture. Agriculture is associated more suitable. Can be sown species resistant to drought, others wetter conditions. The performance of each is not guaranteed, but the overall performance is. And if there are trees, they stabilize soil and reduce erosion. Now these random conditions reach temperate environments. With global warming, climate incidents are more frequent. And our system is more fragile than the soils are depleted.
What do the scientific studies on this issue?
The English University of Essex carried out in 2006 a synthesis on 57 countries and 37 million hectares. She concludes that yields are 79% higher in organic farming in tropical areas. The United Nations Environment Program evaluated in 2008 that switching to organic in Africa would double yields. Olivier de Schutter, United Nations rapporteur for the right to food, wrote in 2010: “To feed the world, agroecology surpasses large-scale industrial agriculture. A downside, however: in 2006, the American University of Michigan showed that the complete conversion of North America and Europe to organic would reduce their yields by 5% to 10%. Because it would be, in this case, to make conventional without chemicals, monoculture. But in the long term, if we spread the associated cultivation techniques, we can think that there will be an improvement. And then, as in tropical countries, yields will increase enormously, on a planetary scale, everything will be fine! We can feed 10 billion people without clearing an additional hectare. From an agronomic point of view, this is undeniable.
Is this transition possible?
In 1960 years, we gave a goal, that of an industrial agricultural revolution, and we succeeded. Why not today ?
What to expect from the reform of the CAP, the Common Agricultural Policy, in 2013?
It is not going to be a game-changer. But at the national level, we can explain to farmers that organic farming is the future. For 90% of them, it's outdated. While technically it's very modern. Much recent progress has resulted from this. We can then provide support. And tax reform. Organic farming requires more labor. Today, however, it is cheaper to buy a machine than to hire.
What do you think of the current government's policy?
I am skeptical and disappointed. The Grenelle objective of reaching 20% ​​organic in 2020 was not bad. Signed by all parties, it helped to change things. But at the Environmental Conference last September, the target was set at 7% in 2017. There is no political ambition. 20% of research and support resources should now be devoted to organic farming. However, at INRA, only 2% to 3% of researchers are on it. And these are individual wills!
And internationally?
It's very complex. Take the region of Atakora, Benin. Associations have proved capable of feeding the entire country with agroecological methods. But farmers can not sell their millet in Cotonou, the capital, for the corn, French or American, it is sold cheaper. A compensation mechanism, taking into account the environmental costs (groundwater pollution, health impacts) would make it fairer competition. -

[BobFuck]

There is one word missing:

But farmers can not sell millet in Cotonou, the capital, because wheat subsidizedFrench or American, it is sold cheaper.

[Woodcutter]

Christophe unearthing nice, thank you!