THE BLUFF CONSPIRACY
I am open questioning for quite some time about the real reasons of virulent attacks against agriculture in recent years. I try to understand where does this relentlessness totally unjustified, and generally no medical or scientific basis worthy of the name.
For, whatever some people say, the overall quality of food has improved enormously in recent decades.
One quality criterion declined so almost unanimously recognized, the taste. Nevertheless, in recent years, thanks to the variety selection, we observe the arrival on the shelves of modern varieties to always better taste, such as beef heart or Crimea black tomatoes.
You’ll tell me, why modern varieties? Old varieties are therefore worthless? Yes and no. I'll probably devote an entire article, because I think it's worth it. But to be brief today, I will only say that modern varieties respond to concerns that consumers sometimes don't grasp, such as productivity, extending the period of production, handling strength, conservation ability, ability to reduce food waste at all levels of the chain, from the fields to consumption, adaptation to a wide variety of climates, resistance to certain diseases or certain parasites, etc. It should also be noted that the marketing system for food has dramatically changed in the last 40 years, with domination, ever increasing, of mass distribution. The requirements of this type of marketing has forced growers to adjust to not disappear, to standards that had not, until there is very little time, the eating quality as a priority.
Another public concern is pesticide residues. Actually this problem has existed since the first copper sprayings. Except that at that time nobody was interested in it, because of the ignorance of risk, and there was no means to control. Yet the products were infinitely more dangerous, and regulations almost non-existent. But today, we are able to measure, so a lot of residues appear in extremely low levels and without risk, but are detected. It's not that there is more residue than before, quite the contrary, but we are able to measure ever lower rates, so we detect residues we were unable to detect there are few, while they were probably present.
The rest is nothing but good. Diversity, elongated periods of production and consumption, improvement of quality, improvement of cooling circuits, improvement of production methods, hygiene, improvement of productivity, reduction of environmental impact, recycling, social integration, everything has been done to that agricultural production is clearly better in every way.
Another finding clearly demonstrates all these advances: the reduction of hunger in the world. We are far from the intended objectives? Yes and no, because at the same time that hunger is declining, the world population increases, so the percentage of people without access to adequate food goes down much faster.
Looking at the above two curves, from the FAO figures, we see that since the 90s, hunger in developing countries has fallen from 1 billion to 800 million people affected. If these figures are taken in percentage of the total population, hunger has fallen from 23.3% to 12.9%, that represents a reduction of 45%. That's good, but obviously it remains insufficient. It is difficult to accept that one person in nine, globally, can suffer from hunger in the XXIst century.
To this, must be added that diet plays a major role in the increase in life expectancy, the significant lengthening of life expectancy in good health, better aging conditions. Its role is associated with access to safe water, hygiene and access to medicine.
Yet the image of the food quality is declining, and the image of farmers with it.
One is entitled to ask serious questions. What do we owe such disenchantment, such criticisms, even a frontal rejection in certain cases? Why is the public so inclined to believe the sensational statements and unwarranted of some manipulators, rather than the more numerous and serious scientific studies, and the simple observation of the obvious facts?
Some time ago, I came across an article in Spanish appeared on Libertaddigital.com "el ecofascismo resumido 10 citas famosas" (the ecofascism summarized by 10 famous quotes) http://www.libertaddigital.com/ciencia/el-ecofascismo-resumido-en-10-citas-celebres-276390915/ and brought me some reflection elements. Actually, I did not know at first what to do with it.
I'm not focused on gossip and rumours. Yet all this sticks so well to the situation, to facts, to reality ...
Then I came, these days, on the last blog post by Daniel Sauvaitre "Le monde selon Greenpeace" (The World According to Greenpeace, deformation of the famous Greenpeace report "The World According to Monsanto") http://www.daniel-sauvaitre.com/2015/10/le-monde-selon-greenpeace-ou-quand-le-debat-est-frenetiquement-modifie.html
Daniel Sauvaitre, president of the ANPP, (French National Apples Pears Association) and President of WAPA, World Apple and Pear Association, explains how Greenpeace, sued by the ANPP following the publication of a report whose title is unjustified but very provocative "poisoned apples", did prohibit his participation in an international symposium shortly organized in Brussels "Feeding Europe by Reducing pesticide dependency". It is strong, when you think that precisely the apple is the fruit accused of being the bearer of pesticide residues. It would have been appropriate that the current main representative of this sector is able to express himself.
It seems clear that Greenpeace, not very sure of its own speech, fears an argued presentation of the profession that it doesn't stop attacking, in an international forum whose repercussions will necessarily be important. The public demonstration of the lie that it organizes and mounts, could make it lose credibility.
Yet, credibility = funding and power.
Greenpeace nevertheless officially great defender of freedom of expression, reveals its darker side, the frontal rejection of what is opposed to its ideas, everything that could make it lose power, ie the profound rejection of freedom of expression, for reasons hardly mentionable to its usual supports.
And in recent days, Greenpeace again, comes back for another shot. You can read the Forum Phyto review article (in French) http://www.forumphyto.fr/2015/10/14/les-pesticides-une-drogue-addictive-de-lagriculture-europeenne/ or the full report (in English) http://www.greenpeace.org/switzerland/Global/switzerland/fr/publications/agriculture/2015_Agriculture_Rapport_EuropePesticides.pdf . This is actually one more argument, obviously prepared for the famous symposium cited just before, which doesn't bring new data, but that dares provocation to the point of suspecting the farmers to be addicted to pesticides. A farce!!!
In addition, Greenpeace publishes the results of its investigations in all European countries, such as in Spain http://www.freshplaza.es/article/92633/Greenpeace-denuncia-el-uso-de-plaguicidas-en-las-manzanas-espa%C3%B1olas
Fortunately, as crying wolf too much, everyone gets tired as can be seen with the clunker of recent actions
In fact, unwittingly, Greenpeace demonstrates, with the key figures, that the European apple is safer than ever. No luck, the ecologist organisation just wanted to show the opposite!!!
So we wonder. Why is Europe the favourite target, particularly France and the Anglo-Saxon countries? If Europe has the highest rules in the world, and if the Anglo-Saxon countries and France, in Europe, are the countries where European rules are more controlled, the better enforced, and even hardened.
The reason exists, and is entirely political, and social. It's because this is where the public is most sensitive to nonsenses said, repeated and kept repeating by manipulators. The more the thread is big, the more we believe in it.
This is also where awareness of environmental problems has been the most intense, and that's where the public has responded better to this awareness. This is also where the critics against the institutions are the most common. This is also where the industrial revolution and wars have done the most damage, especially because of the relatively small geographical area compared to the population. So the field is well prepared, fertile. The facts are established, so it is easy to launch a voluntary drift.
We live in a strange and explosive mixture of gullibility, paranoia, mental sadomasochism, sensationalism, taste of criticism, urge to go against the institutions, ignorance, fear of everything and saturation of unverifiable information. And at the head of it all, a spineless, weak and corrupt political class, which has only one fear, the reaction of its electorate. Whatever the decision, provided that the polls remain positive.
We have already known that, in the history of humanity, in other forms, different only by the available technology in every era. This is how the great civilizations that have disappeared in history as the Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire, for example.
We call it decadence.
The decline of the European Empire?
The best part about it, is that if the manipulators get their way in Europe, the rest of the world will follow sooner or later. This is one of the major export markets worldwide. If Europe toughens rules, the world will have to do the same to continue to export its products there. Double benefit.
And I realized then that I had to this article in Spanish.
You will understand. The article provides interesting quotes, between which I selected the 7 concerning my subject, I have chosen to classify into two groups. Other citations are about energy.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill”. (Club of Rome).
The Club of Rome is a group of thought, created in 1968, the forerunner of the ideas of ecological footprint and sustainable development, and initiator of political ecology.
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest”. (Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, author of many IPCC reports).
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…” (David Rockefeller, a member of management of the Club of Rome.)
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true”. (Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace).
You get the idea? I think I already see clearer. It’s sometimes hard to feel manipulated.
We launch all-out attacks on topics likely to scare, to manipulate public opinion, and lead people to go only to the ideas we want to impose. And the truth does not matter, only the result counts.
Do you want some agricultural illustrations? The Apple. Remember my article, my bestseller to date, about the Alar scare http://culturagriculture.blogspot.com.es/2015/02/38-alar-scare.html or this recent manipulated report on French TV, which a friend told me about recently, about the apple, one more time, easy target and with a wide audience (critical article in French) http://www.agriculture-environnement.fr/a-la-une/article/le-curieux-patriotisme-alimentaire-de-france-2?var_mode=calcul .
Daniel Sauvaitre turned into a knight defender of the apple. There is plenty to do. Fortunately, it is supported by the entire profession, but it is hard to fight against rumours, especially if they are orchestrated by groups as powerful as Greenpeace.
Agriculture became a prime target because its actors are fragile, its products are absolute necessities and of daily consumption, and its activity acts directly on the environment. Everything in a single target.
2- The place of Man.
Then comes a point that I had difficulty understanding. Why such virulence when the evidences of progress are everywhere? Hunger is declining everywhere. This is not by chance. This is largely due to agricultural progress. The evidence is there. Yet environmental organizations reject much of the past progress, only pointing the defects, and block future progress.
Let us see some interesting quotes.
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world”. (Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First!)
Earth First! is a radical environmentalist movement whose methods and direct actions were school among current movements.
"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man." (Club of Rome)
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing”. (Christopher Manes, Earth First!)
It is obvious that convinced environmentalists, and ecology supporters don't all think so radical. But when you see the amount of lies that circulate on food and agriculture, it seems obvious that these extremist thoughts have managed to infiltrate all environmental organizations and supporters, more or less deeply.
If you doubt this, just look at what is being published on your own activity. Has it ever happened to you, reading an article or seeing a show that talked about your specialty, to see an obvious lie or serious omission? I'm sure though. It occurs daily and about everything. But of course, we only detect the lie of what we know.
You could read again my post on GMOs in which I defend that the human must pass before ideology http://culturagriculture.blogspot.com.es/2015/09/53-gmo-why-not.html
And I'm not alone in thinking that the extremist environmentalism has little to envy the most violent political or religious extremism.
So obviously, you could think that it's intox to, a kind of counterattack.
But to verify that this is not the case, you should just watch the video of Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, when he explains why he left the organization (in English).
He explains that two of the points that have profoundly shocked him until to give up, are on the one hand the brutal refusal, and without any scientific basis, of chemicals in general and more particularly the chlorination of drinking water, and also the Greenpeace senseless crusade against golden rice, responsible to date, of 8 million deaths, especially children.
We feel concerned about Daesh, we help refugees from the Middle East, and we are right to do so. But why don't we do anything when Greenpeace decides to let die millions of people? We don't only do nothing, but we applaud and generously fund the greatest genocide of the XXIst century.
And the public, I mean you and me, get this avalanche of lies or rigged truths, generally without the ability to distinguish the truth from the lie. And inevitably we believe it.
By the way, remember that these methods are also those used by cults and dictatorships.
And since we are in quotes, here are two, quite interesting, especially when we know who said them:
"A lie repeated ten times remains a lie; repeated a thousand times becomes a truth. "(Adolf Hitler)
"The more a lie is big, the more people believe it. "(Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda chief)
The deviation of the truth or falsehood are frank and direct the appropriate communication methods by environmental organizations for the public to follow them blindly.
And it works!!!
Like Nazis, that came to power by the democratic way.
It's called indoctrination.
But hey, if provoked several million victims for purely ideological reasons, does it matter?Humans are too many anyway, right?