One
of my contacts from LinkedIn, Gildas Guibert, technical manager of a major
French fruit production company, and very active on the networks, recently
launched a survey among members of his French-speaking network.
Published
answers made me want to know what the reactions of my network to this question
are.
My
network being more international, I decided, with his agreement, to resume this
survey but modifying the question.
Picture of my own
So
here it is:
When you buy unprocessed food
(fruits, vegetables, cereals, eggs, meat, milk, etc.), what is most important
to you?
1-The
price?
This is the consumer price.
2-The
taste?
Depending on the products, we will talk about flavors, sugar, crunchiness,
juiciness, etc.
3-The
aspect?
Depending on the products, it may be color, brightness, freshness, appearance
defects, etc.
4-The
origin?
Local, national, close import or far import.
5-The
mode of production?
Environmentally friendly production (organic farming, integrated production,
conservation agriculture), or conventional production, small farmers or large
farms, etc.
On
the other hand, as I believe your response will be influenced by your relationship to agriculture, I
would like you to indicate it in the following way:
A-Direct
relationship to agriculture
(farmer, or packer of agricultural products, agricultural worker or working in
agricultural product packing, agricultural adviser, farmer's child, etc.)
B-Indirect
relationship to agriculture
(manufacturer or seller of agricultural inputs or equipment, service provider
to agriculture, such as insurance or new technology services for example)
C-With
no relationship to agriculture.
And
finally, tell me your country of origin.
I believe that the culture of each country may have an influence on food
education.
Your
answer could be, for example:
5, 4, 3, 2, 1, B, India
Of
course, comments are optional, but welcome.
Indicate
your answers preferably as a comment directly on the blog, it will be easier
for me not to lose any answer.
I count on you. Share on your
networks,
we will have more answers. It will probably take me a while to analyze
everything, but I am sure that we will learn some very interesting lessons.
An
interesting article published in May on the Spanish blog "El ecologista
transgénico" (The transgenic ecologist) informs us about the perception of
risk by the public, and warns us against the enormous media pressure that we
suffer daily, with the sometimes mistaken perception of certain topics.
I'm very
interested in this article because agriculture, and in particular pesticides,
are among the targets most frequently affected by this problem, very often in
an unjustified way.
Mistakes in the perception of risk
are the basis of many problems in the communication of science, so I will
dedicate this article to this topic, trying to clarify concepts through several
examples. Because every day, in our daily life, we must take an infinity of
decisions which are an exercise of balance between benefits and risks, some
unconscious, others more reasoned. Unfortunately humans are not very good at
assessing these risks. It greatly complicates our ability to make consistent
decisions, from medical decisions, more or less important, to the choice of
food we bring to our mouths.
In fact the evidence is clear, we
can't avoid these mistakes. Our apparent irrationality on these points is the
result of innate processes that operate outside of our conscious control. There
have been identified a number of emotional "fear factors" that make
some potential threats more fearful than others, unrelated to the obvious:
-Risks
created by man scare us more than natural risks.
It is therefore likely that we are more frightened by transgenic crops,
radiation from nuclear power plants or chemical plants, than by
"natural" risks such as unpasteurized milk, natural medicines or
carcinogenic radiation from the sun.
-We
are more concerned about risks we can't control and we tend to underestimate
risks we can control. For example we
overestimate the risk of glyphosate (or other phytosanitary products) but we
underestimate the risk of not eating enough fruits or vegetables, or sedentary
lifestyle.
-Imposed
risks make us more afraid than those we voluntarily take.
For this reason, the perception of risk is greater in the case of radiation
from nuclear power plants than in the case of sun radiation, to which we
voluntarily expose ourselves.
-We
are bad at assessing long-term risks and benefits.
We have an innate tendency to focus on the short term. For example, when
diseases such as measles or mumps disappear, the benefits of vaccination that
helped overcome them are no longer evident and can be questioned.
-We
often forget to consider the risk of doing nothing, or the alternative.
These mental shortcuts and our
desire for simple answers about causality, risk, and benefit, lead to some
common mistakes in the way we act in our own lives.
Danger and
risk
Danger and risk are two different
but related concepts.
A danger is an agent that has the
potential to cause harm.
Risk measures the probability of
harm by a danger.
Dangers become risks only if there
is an exposition to it. Example: solar radiation is a danger. But if I never
expose myself (or protect myself) to radiation, I will not face the risk of
burns or melanomas, although the danger exists. Despite this difference, we
tend to consider all dangers as risks, regardless of our level of exposure.
This phenomenon is very evident in
the classification of IARC carcinogens (IARC http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/).
Danger identification is the first step
of the risk assessment, but it is not, in itself, a risk assessment, yet we
constantly see hazard identification studies presented as evidence of real
risks. These classifications are based on the strength of evidence and not on
the degree of risk. Two risk factors could be included in the same category,
although one increases the risk of cancer threefold and the other only
increases it by a small fraction. A good example could be tobacco and processed
meat, both included in category 1. According to Cancer Research UK (http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you
-need-to-know /), smoking causes 19% of all cancers. On the contrary, it is
estimated that "only" 3% of all cancers are caused by processed meat
and red meats combined. As a result, evidence that processed meat causes cancer
is as strong as that of tobacco, but the risk of tobacco is much higher.
All dangers
are not equal
As we have seen, not all dangers
are equal, they can affect a distinct number of people and be more or less
damaging. By observing the graph, we divide hazards into four categories based
on the number of people affected and the severity of the damage. The nature of
the product (natural or synthetic) has nothing to do with its dangerousness.
However, we sometimes tend to
consider that all dangers we pay attention to are as damaging as each other.
The development of the anti-vaccination movement shows this tendency to see all
risks as equal (considering the dangers of vaccination and the dangers of
diseases as equivalents in both gravity and risk of problem). The diseases that
are prevented by vaccination belong to the upper right-hand panel of the graph.
Vaccinations move the danger of these diseases to the left upper cadre by
significantly reducing the number of people affected by these diseases. On the
other hand, the vaccines themselves possess a generally low danger on a limited
segment of the population, which places them in the lower left-hand frame. Yet,
in many people's minds, the extremely rare risks (real or imagined) associated
with vaccines have become equal to or greater than the (real) risks of catching
the disease. The problem is the same for food additives.
Conclusion
We are permanently exposed to a
large number of dangers, some of which may pose a risk to our health if we
expose ourselves to them, if they are in excessive concentration or if they are
too frequent. Errors in the perception of risk are the basis of many problems
in the social communication of science. These errors are partly due to our poor
ability to correctly assess these risks (they can also be intentional). To
avoid them, we must evaluate each hazard separately, analyzing its damage
potential and level of exposure, as well as possible alternatives or the
consequences of avoiding it, to find out if something really represents a risk.
The confusion created around the
difference between danger and risk is carefully maintained, with a desired
objective, usually hidden, intended to favor sales or to provoke a change of
opinion or behavior.
This is
undoubtedly what has been happening for several years against conventional
agriculture, to promote the consumption of organic products. Those who
communicate in this way are capitalist companies that distribute organic food,
or environmental NGOs that try to attract new members, or to increase their
power.
This market
is very lucrative, and the means used to develop it don't hesitate to denigrate
everything that stands in its way.
Attracting the consumer by playing
on his fears is the only thing that matters.
And the collateral damage caused,
which is sometimes serious, does not matter.
This
is probably one of the least important factors for the consumer, but it's
fundamental for the entire chain that will drive the food from the farm to his
table.
Among
the agricultural products, the most affected by this point are fruits and
vegetables.
Packaging
actually has many roles, all important for someone, all binding for the farmer.
This
is the first challenge that the food must undergo when it leaves the field. It
is sorted according to several criteria which are in general its size (one
speaks of calibration, often standardized), its color (according to criteria
established for each product, sometimes variable according to the destination),
its visual quality (aspect, esthetics, respect of standards) and its state of
maturity (insufficient, timely, too advanced) or freshness.
Personal
video: nectarine packing
These
criteria will decide the classification of the product in first choice (or
extra, for those who still practice it), second choice, sometimes third choice,
industry (transformation into juice, concentrate, puree, or cutting for
different uses in the food industry and the preparation of cooked dishes), or
trash.
This
work is carried out in the packing house, in an increasingly industrialized way
in order to reduce costs and centralize ever larger volumes.
Each
packing station has its own working capacity, adapted to the group of farmers
who bring its production, and to the different products concerned (it's obvious
that we won't prepare melon like cherry or lettuce like carrot).
The
sorting is generally done by a machine, more or less sophisticated, with
assistance by people to refine the quality selection, according to criteria set
for each batch, particularly with regard to the sorting of visual defects.
More
and more seldom in rich countries, and still frequently in developing
countries, selection can be done entirely by hand, but generally following the
same quality criteria.
The
farmer must do everything possible to maximize the classification in first
choice, which will be much better paid for him than the lower categories. The
industry and the bin don't usually cover even the cost of harvest.
The container
Once
selected, the food will be placed in a container, a packaging, which
corresponds to the requirements of the client. The diversity of formats is a
real headache for the packing house.
There
are boxes of different sizes in cardboard, compacted cardboard, wood, reusable
or disposable plastic, trays (different sizes, different colors, with or
without cover, with or without film, with or without net, with or without
handle), the cells (paper, cardboard, plastic, in all sizes), etc.
For each client, requirements may be different, with their own brands,
or the brands of the producer. In addition, the same customer can change its
formats from one year to another, making the remaining stock of the previous
year obsolete and unusable.
But the station has to manage an extremely complex stock, and expensive,
because the orders are generally carried out day by day, forcing it to
permanently have a volume of each type of packaging allowing it to respond
immediately.
For us here in Seville, if a client from Frankfort places an order for
us on a truck on Monday, we have time to prepare it and send it to him. But if
we don't have the necessary packaging in stock, we don't have enough time to
order them, and we lose the sale. Because the truck must arrive on Monday as
planned. No delay is acceptable. And we must also count with the French ban on
truck traffic on Sundays and public holidays.
The container obviously has a great marketing importance, but it's also,
depending on the case, a protection or a constraint.
Personal photo
A box with its cell protects the product, prevents it from moving and
being manhandled during transport, and helps maintain the quality of the
product until sale.
On the other hand the tray, according to the products which it contains,
can become a negative constraint for the quality. This is true for large
products, not for small products, such as cherry tomatoes, raspberries,
blueberries, cherries, etc. In the case of peaches and nectarines, the tray
requires to put a very firm fruit, even hard. It's the opposite of quality.
Personal photo
But some clients, or some markets (more and more numerous) only want
this format, much more convenient for the sale to the consumer (no
manipulation, no weighing, the price is pre-established). The fruit is then
transformed into a totally industrial product, and the satisfaction of the end
customer no longer matters.
The type of packaging is of extreme importance for the marketing
channel. Yet, in many cases, after a difficult, delicate and expensive
packaging work, products are then presented to the consumer in bulk, out of
their expensive packaging!
It may seem trivial, but it is essential. The label contains all the
necessary legal information (country of origin, packing company, product
characteristics, quality, size). Some customers require that their own brand
appear, and even that is printed bar code that will be used in stores.
These labels are printed in the packing station itself. A room will be
empowered for this, with the necessary printers and all the stock of the
different formats of labels, sticks and other added items.
No printing defects are tolerable.
Once, it happened to us to see a large batch refused in destination for
a defect of the printer, barely detectable with the naked eye: the bar code was
not readable for the machines. All the work was perfect, but the label was not
usable in store. For the client, this is a real problem, since he has
eliminated the need to label himself, so he is not equipped to make up for a
labeling error.
Personal photo
For
the packing station, an error of this type can be extremely expensive. It has
little choice. In fact, we had to modify our control protocols as a result of
this incident.
Either
it sends someone on the spot with the corrected labels, but it does not have
the option to meet deadlines any more. The product is not suitable to be sold
within the agreed time.
Either
it tries to sell it to someone else, but it's difficult with packaging and
labeling intended for a concrete client. Ultimately, it will be solved anyway,
usually by a significant discount on the selling price to the station (then
usually passed on to the farmer), which will probably not be applied to the
consumer.
In
short, labeling is an important point that does not support approximation, let
alone error.
And the quality in all this?
In
fact, we only talk about that.
But
the product itself hardly counts. As long as it meets the minimum requirements
(size, appearance, sugar, juiciness, color, firmness, freshness, etc.),
packaging becomes more important.
The
quality of the packaging depends on the entire process of transport, handling,
storage and preservation that will drive the product from the field to the
shelves to be sold to the consumer.
The
food production is gradually losing its soul under the increasingly tough blows
of markets.
When
I arrived here, the clients came to visit our orchards, to taste fruits on the
tree, to appreciate in the field the quality of the realized work.
Today
the client, if he comes (which is more and more rare), is more interested in
packaging, traceability and hygiene, than in the product itself.
He
verifies that specifications are respected, that hygiene and safety processes
are adequate, and that analyzes (bacteriological and residues) are in
conformity.
The
product is now defined by numbers, analyzes, test results, accreditations,
traceability.
The
product is now defined, for the satisfaction it gives, only by sales figures,
and on cooking TV programs.
Food
production is slowly pandering to the market demands, which are trying to
convert it into an industrial process like any other, in which everything is
predictable and predicted, especially with regard to quality.
Quality
is present, but in criteria often difficult to perceive and understand for the
consumer.
And
it's not the arrival of Amazon in the food market that will improve that.
The
farmer has to comply with the requirements of the markets, and only those who
can sell on short circuits have the opportunity to value a taste quality, often
associated with a level of maturity that requires almost immediate consumption.
As regards consumer, he wants to enjoy the
food, and still dreams of finding "the flavors of yesteryear", even
in supermarkets, which are less and less able to offer them.
These are two very different conceptions for the same product, which
further increase the growing incomprehension between the rural and the urban
world.
In
the late 1980s, I was a young fruit production advisor in the South-East of
France for a specialized technical group, the GRCETA of Basse Durance.
After
the group was contacted by an Australian company, I had the opportunity to
participate in the first trials to test on a large scale the protection against
oriental fruit moth (one of the most dangerous pests in this area) by
pheromones, with the technique called sexual confusion. This Australian company
was trying to test its diffuser and its pheromone under conditions of high
pressure of the pest. Logically, it wanted to do it in the region
internationally known as the most problematic one.
You
have to know that at that time, the oriental fruit moth turned into a real
nightmare for peach growers in the region. The pest populations were extremely
high. There were some problems with the loss of efficiency of the usual
insecticides, forcing farmers to do frequent pesticide interventions with
insufficient levels of efficiency, hence both technical and economic problems.
At the time, there was virtually no mention of the environmental consequences,
but from the current perspective, it is scary...
The
fact is that this Australian company came up with this innovative technique,
plunging us into an abyss of reflection, and doubt.
Imagine
thirty years ago, the proposal to solve a critical problem of insects without
insecticides. For us, advisers, in whom the farmers of the group sometimes
blindly confided to help them to solve their problems, it seemed insane. We
were very motivated by the innovation, but sincerely, given the seriousness of
the situation in some areas, we were also very suspicious.
The
experimental zone was chosen in a concrete area of Provence which was in such
a critical situation with regard to the oriental fruit moth that some farmers
began to consider a conversion of crops when faced with the impossibility of
controlling the damage.
After
a whole season of experiments, the farmers' surprise at the results was
pleasing to see. Without being wonderful, they were superior, without
insecticide, to the enhanced program that they needed to implement, and that
included more than 15 chemical sprayings.
After
two years of testing, the conclusion was that to resolve a much degraded situation,
it was necessary to go through a first phase that combines chemical protection
with sexual confusion, enough time to reduce the level of infestation (1 to 2
years). From this moment, confusion alone is enough to avoid the damage.
At
that time, as a technician participating in the tests, I always had a number of
diffusers in my car in order to be able to replace one, or to complete a dose
in a difficult place. The consequence?
I
was pursued every day, both in the car and outside, by a wild horde of oriental
fruit moth males, persuaded that I was the princess of their dreams...
Pheromones
are natural substances, emitted by living organisms to transmit information to
their conspecifics.
Their
role is well known in most animals, and in some plants.
These
are generally volatile compounds, produced by exocrine glands. Unlike hormones
designed to be used internally by the body, pheromones are produced to be
released outside the body to transmit a message or signal to individuals of the
same species. Their role in the sexual reproduction of insects is well known
and has been the subject of numerous studies.
It
is thanks to sexual pheromones that, for example, Lepidoptera (butterflies) male
are able to locate females, allowing them to mate and continuity of the
species.
Each
insect has its own "aromatic bouquet" in order to attract individuals
only from its own species.
In
addition, pheromones have different types of roles such as sexual attraction,
alarm, aggregation, territoriality, and exist in almost all animals, even in
humans. Bees use them to indicate flowering areas, ants to mark their paths,
dogs and cats to mark their territory, humans in situations of fear or sexual
desire for example.
They
can also be found in products designed to calm or repel dogs or cats, or even
to make you irresistible in a night club.
The
principle of the technique of sexual confusion is thus the following one.
The
pheromone contained in the diffuser is the same as that emitted by the oriental
fruit moth female so that the male is able to find it, and thus can mate. The
diffuser is made of a porous plastic which allows a progressive diffusion of
the pheromone for several weeks.
In
nature, a female emits the pheromone that is carried by the air. The male
receives this olfactory message through a specific receiver and follows the
trail until it finds the female.
The
technique of sexual confusion consists in distributing a large number of
diffusers in the cultivated plots. In this way, the points of emission are so
numerous that the male is practically unable of finding the female.
The
mating is disturbed, the reproduction does not take place, so the insect is no
longer a problem for the farmer.
Traditional protection involves
killing existing insect pests to prevent them from breeding and causing crop
damage.
Sexual confusion means preventing
insect pests from being able to reproduce. They are therefore not present in
the crop and don't cause damage.
This
is a profound change in the concept of crop protection. It is a technique of
prevention of the damage.
So
we have a technique that works well, and that avoids the application of
chemicals on the crop. It should be noted that pheromones are used in agriculture
in at least 3 different techniques:
Sexual confusion, which consists in
diffusing a very large quantity per hectare, so as to disturb the males in
their system of approximation of the females, drastically reducing the
possibilities of mating and therefore of reproduction. Pest populations decline
"naturally", and consequently, damage to crops.
Monitoring trapping, which consists of placing
a few pheromone traps on the farm, in order to capture individuals and to
monitor populations (beginning of flights, peaks of flights, time of hatching
and risks). This technique, the first historically speaking, to use pheromones,
makes possible to locate with a great accuracy the exact moment of intervention
with insecticides, synthetic or natural. That was one of the foundations of
Integrated Production.
Mass trapping, which consists of placing
traps with a large quantity of pheromones, in a reduced number per hectare, in
order to capture a large number of individuals, thus reducing the pest
population without applying pesticides. This technique is much used with food
attractants, more than with pheromones.
The
technique of sexual confusion has developed considerably and is now used to
protect crops, especially in vineyards and orchards, against mainly
lepidoptera, diptera, hymenoptera and beetles.
Obviously,
the technique was very quickly authorized in organic farming. It is logical, a
technique that allows effective protection without using pesticides, neither
synthetic nor even natural, deserves attention.
But in fact, these pheromones,
freed in large quantities and permanently, where do they come from?
No,
there are no swarms of worker pressing on the abdomen of billions of female
butterflies to draw a microdrop of pheromone each time.
It
is chemistry, pure and hard.
These
pheromones are synthetic, precise copies of natural ones, derived from
chemistry, naughty chemistry.
They
are then enclosed in plastic diffusers, also derived from the naughty
chemistry.
But
can these synthetic chemicals, released into the air from crops, reach the
food?
Without
any doubt. My personal experience of the 1980s has amply demonstrated that
these pheromones are deposited on everything around them. Otherwise, I would
not have been pursued by all these confused and excited males!
Their
effect is fleeting, it is true, but the reality is there.
So, would organic agriculture allow
large-scale use of synthetic chemicals that come into direct and permanent
contact with food?
For
azadirachtin (and you will soon see that this is not a unique case), the copy
of the natural product is refused because it is synthetic and therefore
incompatible with the ideology of the organic, despite all the technical and
environmental advantages in relation to the extraction and use of the original
natural substance.
Except
that this prohibition of principle, questionable in itself, but consistent with
organic ideology, is not always applied. There are situations where a breach of
the rules is possible.
Note
that the consumer of organic products, ultimately the engine of the system, is
not aware of these changes in the rules of the game.
The
information it receives remains the same. No chemistry in organic production.
But
what would he say, the organic consumer, convinced that there is no chemistry
in the organic production, and that he really
takes care of his health and the planet, if he learns that they lie to him
every day, that he is jobbed by those same people in whom it has placed its
confidence?
Is this a double standard?
It
must be recognized that agriculture is not easy, and that crops must be well
protected from diseases and pests, even in the case of organic products. And if
there is no organic solution, we will find one, almost organic. We should not
lose the market.
This is not sexual confusion, it is
intellectual confusion.
