Eating ORGANIC: no guarantee of food safety

[Exnihiloest]

... the FAO says so, beware!

"Among the advantages of organic farming
1) increased socio-economic viability and sustainability for smallholder farmers, linked to multifunctional land management programs;
2) environmental benefits such as soil quality and biodiversity;
3) better treatment and care of farm animals. "

Consumers appreciate these alternative methods [...].
As far as food safety is concerned, it is important to stress that "organic" labels are based on rules which prohibit or limit the use of synthetic fertilizers and agrochemicals, which is an attractive element for consumers.
Pesticides that are produced physiologically by plants are still used in organic farming, and in high doses they can still have negative effects on human health.
The main difference is in the type of pesticides used.
In any case, the organic label is not a guarantee of food safety.. The term "organic" refers only to a product that has been manufactured in accordance with certain standards throughout the stages of production, handling, processing and marketing; he does not refer to the characteristics and properties of the finished product.
http://www.fao.org/3/cb2870en/cb2870en.pdf

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

And a provo proselytizing topic developed by the sick head of our chemistry, petroleum and nuclear crossover, one more.

The rapprochement between the FAO and the pesticide lobby worries scientists and NGOs

The UN agency signed a “letter of intent” formalizing a strategic alliance with CropLife, the association which represents the main manufacturers of pesticides in the world.

The announcement in October of the signing of a joint letter between the United Nations Food and Agriculture Agency (FAO) and CropLife International (CLI), the main association representing the interests of pesticide manufacturers (Bayer Crop Science, Corteva, Syngenta, BASF), elicits cascading reactions. On Thursday 19 November, two letters were delivered to the FAO - one signed by nearly 300 scientists and academics, the other by 350 civil society organizations - asking the UN agency to stop approaching CropLife . Both letters are addressed to FAO Director General Qu Dongyu, elected in June 2019 as head of the organization.

https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/ ... _3244.html

[Exnihiloest]

It is quite reasonable not to limit lobbies to green cartels.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Do you have any other idiots like that? What do the "green lobbies" (sic) weigh against the chemical, agro-food and GMO lobbies? NOTHING.

[Janic]

Exnihiloest »18/05/21, 19:43

It is quite reasonable not to limit lobbies to green cartels.

the petrochemicals lobbies have no other reasons than to collect as much money as possible and therefore not to lose their customers tempted by genuine health agriculture.

[Exnihiloest]

The lobbies of the green cartels have two reasons:
for venal environmentalists
- cash in as much money as possible thanks to the stupid enthusiasm of consumers and the squandering of public money in environmentalism
for religious environmentalists
- roll out the red carpet to bring their ideology to power, namely to favor the regulatory, legislative and legal field

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

(Completely down to earth ... it can be healed but at his age, there is little hope ...)

[Janic]

Exnihiloest »19/05/21, 12:57

The petrochemical cartel lobbies have two reasons:
for venal petrochemicals
- cash in as much money as possible thanks to the stupid enthusiasm of consumers and the squandering of public money in petrochemicals
for religious petrochemists
- roll out the red carpet to bring their ideology to power, namely to favor the regulatory, legislative and legal terrain to their sole advantage

It also works and even better!

[Exnihiloest]

"religious petrochemists"?

It is not enough to plagiarize, it should be done intelligently.
Petrochemicals are interested in techno and money since it is an industry, I have never seen one outside this niche. They can easily switch to green industry for the same reasons, not religious ecologists because we hardly ever change religion, we die with our blind faith in urban legends that have become dogmas ("glyphosate is not good" , "the climate, it will be the apocalypse", "the natural is better than the artificial" ...).

[Janic]

by Exnihiloest »20/05/21, 21:56 PM

"religious petrochemists"?

It is not enough to plagiarize, it should be done intelligently.

Which is not likely to happen to you then since intelligence is precisely not your strong point!

Petrochemicals are interested in techno and money since it is an industry, I have never seen one outside this niche.

All this to the detriment of the life and health of populations! But that doesn't matter to them as long as it cash in as much as possible.

They can perfectly go to the green industry for the same reasons,

What is not sufficiently profitable now! The so-called green industry only worsens already fragile situations (such as “bio” (sic) fuels or even solar panels and other wind turbines which only started to interest industrialists when small companies which suffered the consequences. plasters and were then ruined by the recovery made of it by the big, the very big industries. Total hypocrisy. claiming to be green is not enough to be green (besides, green does not mean anything in itself)

not religious ecologists because we hardly ever change religion, we die with our blind faith in urban legends that have become dogmas ("glyphosate is not good", "the climate is going to be the apocalypse", " the natural is better than the artificial "...).

It is then to oppose a faith of hope, while your faith in despair and the illusion of doing better than nature, demonstrates the degree of perversion of your spirit.
You are all the more funny at home funny that you believe, that you have the faith, that since time immemorial, thanks to this nature which you criticize, the humans would have arrived at a level of "perfection" as they are. believe superior to centuries of evolution (sic). At least tune your violins!
It is enough that this nature farts a little strong for all your technocracy to be reduced to nothing and your culture the same.