The benefits of organic food, questioned

[pb2487]

Bucheron, according to the title, guessing and if I am not mistaken this report speaks well of pollution by nitrates of intensive conventional agriculture (in particular pig breeding): http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/sciences/enviro ... ages-.html
But the Breton green algae, apart from the Breton people from the coasts concerned: who is interested?
Besides, I bet we could make it into biofuels

Thank you Christophe for going a little in my direction.
So to continue:
But of course!! that the media mainly tell us about the harms of conventional and the benefits of organic. Just follow the news a bit (all media combined).

And I'm interested in Breton algae and I'm not the only one.
Bucheron does not read my arguments, he rejects them all and hits me (oh !!! the ugly whining man as he would say ...), that's it. free to him but who distorts the words of the other ...?

in any case, here are the facts as he claims them and if he takes the trouble to be interested in them:

The media are largely in favor of "organic" and why not after all.
It took me 5 min to check it out. I can go further in the analysis if you want.
I do not know anyone who is insensitive and uninformed of the damage of conventional and the benefits of organic.
Even the government publishes polls (see post Gébé) which proves it, unless it shoots itself in the foot.
There is no need, in my opinion, for an outcry or fuss over an article that is "supposedly" against organic or else it is disinformation. This is not an exception that would change this rule established for a long time as Gébé says.
Why should I think otherwise?

[Gébé]

Now 2 questions:
- isn't this type of aid also granted to conventional farming?
- do the documents mentioned allow us to say that "organic is more subsidized than the rest ..."since it is from this sentence that I intervened, on this precise point of subsidization?

The aids that I mentioned are reserved for organic farming and they combine with those granted to conventional farming (PAC).
Organic is therefore + subsidized and that's good.

[...] You are right do not waste time to verify what I say, it is surely false.

If you classify me your links and you find some which, in a prime-time TV newspaper, clearly says, scientific studies in support, the harmful effects of conventional agriculture compared to organic in one of the fields that I quoted (see above), then yes I would go to see ...

What the hell do you care about me swing 15 links next to the plate (that is to say that I just mentioned in plain text just above)!

uh .... there Bucheron you would not have let yourself go to a little bit, little bit of bad faith?

[Woodcutter]

Bucheron, according to the title, guessing and if I am not mistaken this report speaks well of pollution by nitrates of intensive conventional agriculture (in particular pig breeding): http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/sciences/enviro ... ages-.html

But the Breton green algae, apart from the Breton people from the coasts concerned: who is interested?

Besides, I bet we could make it into biofuels

Even you Chris, don't you understand?

Does this report (which I haven't watched) compare at some point with what could be done in organic?


I never said:
- that TV did not speak well of organic farming,
- that TV did not speak badly of conventional agriculture ...


But on the other hand, scientific studies like that which is the basis of this post (which has become controversial in the meantime) which show the COMPARED advantages of organic / conventional, there are not many and / or they are not really publicized ...

[Woodcutter]

[...]
But of course!! that the media mainly tell us about the harms of conventional and the benefits of organic. Just follow the news a bit (all media combined). [...]

Did I say the opposite? NO !

[...] Bucheron does not read my arguments, he rejects them as a whole and hits me (oh !!! the ugly whining man as he would say ...), that's all. free to him but who distorts the words of the other ...?

Stop complaining !!!
I did not "reject" your arguments, because they are not!
This is a list of video reports that do not respond to my point, which I took up in my post above.

[...] if he takes the trouble to be interested in it:

I would be interested when it is interesting!

[...] It took me 5 min to check it. I can go further in the analysis if you want.

Go further in the analysis in the sense that I already asked you before, taken up in the post above ...

[Woodcutter]

[...]
The aids that I mentioned are reserved for organic farming and they combine with those granted to conventional farming (PAC).
Organic is therefore + subsidized and that's good.

It's perfect and I'm very happy!

[...] uh .... there Bucheron you you would not have let yourself go to a whole little, little bit of bad faith?

No.
I have been very clear on this from the start, see my post above ...

[Christophe]

Even you Chris, don't you understand?

Hey i don't have knowledge infused! I have the right to make mistakes too

Does this report (which I haven't watched) compare at some point with what could be done in organic?

I didn't watch it either but I imagine, I hope, that this doc says that it is because of TOO intensive agriculture that we arrive at this overproduction of green algae ... and therefore indirectly said that the less intensive would be better ...

But on the other hand, scientific studies like that which is the basis of this post (which has become controversial in the meantime) which show the COMPARED advantages of organic / conventional, there are not many and / or they are not really publicized ...

Advantages in what sense?

[Woodcutter]

[...]
Advantages in what sense?

[...]
What we demand food that is:
- it feeds us (normal, right? )
- that it is good (+ 1 for the bio)
- It does not poison us (+ 1 for bio)
- It does not destroy the soil (+ 1 for bio)
- It does not pollute the water (+ 1 for bio)
- that it does not destroy the environment of the places of cultures (+1 for bio) [...]

[Christophe]

Well the doc on algae concerns at least:

- It does not destroy the soil (+ 1 for bio)
- It does not pollute the water (+ 1 for bio)

and probably

- that it does not destroy the environment of the places of cultures (+1 for bio) [...]

Now maybe you should watch it, don't you think?

[Woodcutter]

[...] Now maybe you should watch it don't you think?

It is done.

Some thoughts:
- how did it go on TV? I just READ a news dispatch, whereas we used to talk about TV passage of the results of a scientific study ...
- no comparison with organic farming,
- a single reference to agriculture: "...linked to water pollution by intensive farming."

Conclusion: I wasted my time reading this doc!

So I start again (but I'm really fed up !!! ) my text explanation from the start ...

The 06 Aug 06 at 11:36:01

But it's true, bio has no better nutritional values ​​than the rest, there is not a study that proves otherwise outside exception.

But what we have to in b ... ler that organic is better in the intensive nutrition?

What we demand food that is:
- it feeds us (normal, right? )
- that it is good (+ 1 for the bio)
- It does not poison us (+ 1 for bio)
- It does not destroy the soil (+ 1 for bio)
- It does not pollute the water (+ 1 for bio)
- It does not destroy the environment places crops (+ 1 for bio)

The 08 Aug at 20:23:26

[...]
Now, if you took the trouble to read the words of your interlocutors instead of pretending that they did not exist, you would have understood for a long time that no one here questions the data of the article in question, but simply the hype that is made around and the very interest of its subject ...

IIt would have been exceedingly more interesting to have made an article comparing organic and conventional in the fields of:
- pesticide residues in production,
- soil quality (microbial life, microfauna life, soil structure, composition, content of complex organic acids, content of crop input residues - various biocides -, etc.),
- taste quality of productions,
- biodiversity in the surroundings and in the plots,
- ...

But there, there would be such a difference in favor of organic that this type of study cannot go to the 20 p.m. journal ...

As the late Coluche said: "You can't tell the truth on TV: there are too many people watching it ..."

The 10 Aug at 12:59:14

[...] You are right do not waste time to verify what I say, it is surely false.

If you file your links for me and you find some that, in a prime-time TV news program, clearly says, Supporting scientific studies, the harms of conventional agriculture compared to organic in one of the areas I mentioned (see above), then yes I would go to see ... [...]

So to summarize, do you have in your various databases, links to videos that meet these three criteria:
- data from comparative organic / conventional scientific studies,
- subject = one of the areas mentioned above,
- switch to a newspaper at 20 p.m.

If yes, I am a taker, thank you in advance!

Otherwise, go your way ...

[Christophe]

I do not have!

I don't want to try your work tools!