A friend recently remarked that he had not "frighten" the "public."
Scaring the public? Barn
do we the public, when we denounce the present naturalistic mode, which requires free products ... chemicals? I have argued elsewhere (The Wisdom of chemist, Editions L'oeil nine) that "chemicals" existed not but recognize here that the public thinks of the synthetic compounds (pesticides, additives, processing aids ...). He forgets, ignores or chooses to ignore the sugar, salt, are "embellished" processing aids, purified by various operations. He forgets to believe that many additives are not "synthetic", but only extracts of natural products (think jelly extracted from seaweed, for example). He forgets, ignores or chooses to ignore that "traditional" products are much worse than new products.
Barn Does it public when he said that he would be naive to believe that we can eat natural products? Do not forget or ignore as fruits, vegetables, meat, eggs ... have been extensively reworked by generations of agronomists.
Is not it rather well in explaining what we eat that the public can make decisions and individual citizens?
He must bear the unbearable, that science does not now the answer to simple questions, nutrition, toxicology, let alone cooking.
Scaring the public? Poor public: do not be afraid, however, to enlighten the public debate by explaining what is really a GMO, pesticide, fertilizer, showing the production figures and consumption, showing the challenges of maintenance decisions in terms of employment, household wealth, the environment ...
But it is perhaps subserve? Cheers
knowledge!
0 comments:
Post a Comment