Janic wrote:tell me what are these faults
False VS right? And especially for whom? (God is in paradise VS the 'devil' is in the detail ^^)
It is up to us, and to us alone that it is up to us to understand what is good for oneself (or not), then the notion of "fault" and "forgiveness ... of nature", are all notions. relative (for example with us to the Judeo-Christian culture, which often reasons in a binary way => good VS bad ... white VS black, victim VS guilty ...)
"Theoretical model" is often badly done because it introduces potentially dogmas (for politicians, it is often the one
"The people not mature enough to understand" (hence the requiem announced by Civil Society, several times ...). Two other opposing paradigms are those of industrial food but so hygienic VS ... the return to the sources of "organic" not organic but so guilt-free ... I agree with Dedelco, you should not see "the good" VS "the evil" everywhere ... But when the latter is there: it must be taken care of ... ^^
No one can rule out making mistakes, the free choice is to be able to correct them ... What I would like to say is that we should not reverse the PRIORITIES, at least as a rule (the elected officials know for that ...). And little by little, "regain its independence" to manage its food bowl itself and with pleasure. Which means "learning to know how to set priorities". If we fall ill, the "pleasure" escapes us, and then it's time to wonder about what went wrong and why we eat, did not give us enough strength to "keep control!" But nothing is simple ...
The pleasure of elected officials: it often takes a whole political career to change a light bulb
(there stops the parallel, I said everything ...)
Janic wrote:since you are invited elsewhere, how do you make sure that everything is "organic" ...?
Good question ! There is a fundamental difference between exceptionally consuming a product that does not meet its usual criteria and doing it every day. I am not sectarian (in the pejorative sense of this term), but I strive to be consistent with my choices, just as I hope others do the same.
Nothing to say. (Finally we agree that it is about the "personal will" ;-)
Janic wrote:Besides, you can not even guarantee it yourself since the labels "organic" are controlled only on their "good faith" and the presentation of their accounting / invoices ... Unless cultivating the "bio" so- even...
This is the problem inherent in everything! What guarantees that the meat you buy is hormone-free, GMO-free, or no pesticides or other quality criteria? In theory, state-certified inspection bodies and fraud control services are paid for this.
Nothing to say. (We agree that they are not doing their job => scandal!)
Janic wrote:So, if you eat everything "bio", it will not make much difference, and it's not cheap! (Although I strongly encourage doing so ... for those who can afford ...)
Another image of Epinal widely publicized. Eating organic is not a matter of means (most of the income goes into spending on equipment (computers, cars and other gadgets of our consumer society) to the detriment of basic needs.
So it's a matter of choice rather than means. In addition, organic consumers (apart from a few Parisians) are rarely well-off and are part of the popular strata.
Still agree. Yes absolutely, of choice, and more precisely of priorities ... But eating "organic" is not an absolute necessity in the hierarchy.
And who are we talking about in Europe? Where are some privileged people in Europe? If we subscribe to the average salary in Portugal or Greece. Even if I am, those who set fire to the suburbs in France, do not necessarily have to be of this opinion either ...
Janic wrote:For those who have an economical choice to make => considering the price of organic. You should know that it is better to eat non-deficient and "non-organic" than the other way around ...
Is there a misunderstanding in your sentence which would imply that "the reverse" would mean organic and therefore deficient?
No, precisely there is no sense
as Sen-no-Sen ...
1) if you eat "organic" but do not put the right priorities, you will end up with "organic carrencé" as opposed to a bolus not carrencé food but not organic. And here the "organic" label does not presage the nutritional quality of the labeled product.
2) the non-squared-not-organic is preferable to the “organic squared”, because the fact of not missing anything will give to the body, the nutrients allowing it to eliminate the toxins / toxic, possibly present in the “ non-organic ”(but for seasonal fruits and vegetables, pesticides often fall by nature => the abundance means that there would be less need => for the off season in forced cultivation it is very considerable).
3) while the one who eats "organic" to eat "organic", without a fair balance, will surely develop allergies, or even cancer, than any consumer lambda remote control by the pub ...
4) but obviously that among all those who eat "organic", there are some who know how to fix the correct priorities. It requires some humility, because there is always a way to progress ... or to regress ...
5) can also set mixed priorities of "non-organic" seasonal foods + high quality and "organic" priority foods to put the odds on their side with a small budget. For example, you never have to worry about the quality of the oils, whatever your budget: it's vital! Besides the "organic" food season, will be cheaper anyway, because of greater abundance on the market ...
It was my way of correcting the syllogism that would suggest that eating “organic” is necessarily better! => It depends on "how", "where" and "for whom" ...
Janic wrote:On the other hand, the problem would be to find non-deficient non-organic food, given the current cultivation methods.
"Considering the current cultivation methods", hum, the use of products intended to increase the yields does not compromise the nutritional qualities, nor does it increase the carrences: it causes an increase of molecules to be filtered / eliminated by the body which can in principle do it suitably from then on that it is not squared, it is not the same. Carrences or not: we are the ones who fix this by our "priorities", individual, consent!
On the other hand, someone weakened and sick, will have every interest in being very selective in his food choices, it can go to his survival! This is why we must go towards "all organic" cultivation solutions => BUT THROUGH DRASTIC HEALTH REGULATIONS AND THE BAN ON THE SALE OF HARMFUL PRODUCTS ONCE THE SOLUTIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND. The fight against soil depletion, the protection of “non-specialist” consumers with modest incomes AND IT IS THE ROLE OF HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS TO PROTECT CITIZENS ...
Here again, the laws concerning the "poisoning" of populations exist, but are rarely applied (only in extreme cases with immediately perceptible effects, but not on long-term impacts ... with sneaky and crossed effects ...)