Bionext's statements are unfounded

If I look at this case that way, Bionext falls through the ice here. Bionext has been proclaiming for years that organic products are better/healthier and less harmful to the environment than regular products on all fronts. The environmental code committee has now ruled that their claim is unfounded and based on suggestion and half-truths.

Tribute to Michiel van Andel. He was the one who had the audacity to bring this case. He made of docile, docile!

Narcos, there is a difference between bionext's statement "that organically produced food has no hidden costs", which is therefore rejected, and your "that organic products are better/healthier and less harmful to the environment than regular products on all fronts". The latter might just be true. And, unnecessarily, farmers allow themselves to be played off against each other again. Everyone knows that there is a (small) market for organic, and conventional food, produced with fertilizers and plant protection products, will continue to exist (the industry will take care of that).

Michael, thanks for the addition. What is regular? imagine. I would say What is organic? Both looking at coffee grounds, especially through our ultra-liberal, open borders, your control I accept, your norm I allow, politically. Organic tomatoes from Spain, admittedly from the open ground and full of sunlight, but with several pesticides that are biologically prohibited here, compared to Dutch tomatoes from the greenhouse, (almost) clean in terms of poison, but grown with natural gas not on the open ground, and both in our stores as real organic tomatoes.
That world of research into plant protection products and GMOs, mainly used and funded by the industry itself. So independent? Why, among others, India and Russia do not want GMO products? Still independent state investigations there that show otherwise, but of which we never hear?

If I knew why they don't want a GMO, I'd write it down here, too bad for your blog. I put a question mark after the sentence, so I don't know what they're basing themselves on either. What I do know is that they do not allow themselves to be put in the hands of the multinationals as much as we do, and that their knowledge is much greater than we know.

just came from a study club meeting and there it was THE talking point of the evening. everyone was also positive about van andel's daring and tenacity. What I did notice is that there was also a kind of discomfort among my colleagues. everyone feels the same about the superior behavior of bionext and love that it radiates on the NON-organic farmers. a bit under the category Ajax vs Willem 2. they have nothing against the bioneighbour, but they do talk about demonizing regular agriculture. eventually this will also create tension between neighbors. we understand that bionext has a goal with that, but that my bio neighbor who is a member of it agrees to give that feels strange. therefore a deep bow to van andel, but he will never get the recognition he deserves from his colleagues because it feels a bit like handing over your neighbor to the resistance because he works for the germans

Michael, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6S6cKARnmY , http://rustyjames.canalblog.com/archives/2012/07/07/24633140.html

An evening of googling..... With people like you we were still injecting DDT, and we all lived happily ever after. Good luck with your blog, I hope it's not just a Bayer-Monsanto promotion.

Michiel, I do not know you, but your reaction to me was not an open view of things, and putting people away these days as a conscientious believer says more about you than you think. Like I said, I don't know why large parts of the Earth don't want OGM, but it's a fact. And that we are not as healthy as we think/say is also clear with our increasing expenditure on health care in a world where everything is possible, except keeping people healthy. Our food-pharma complex certainly has a major influence on this. The Casteleynsweg is just that far for me, by the way.

@Hans. Separating cause and effect remains important Hans. The higher costs for our health care are due to the same good health care.
Thanks to good health care, people are allowed to stay longer here on earth with all their limited defects or ailments, which are often age-related. It is not so strange that the costs for this increase (apart from inflation) and in my view it has little to do with the food pharma complex or it should be about being able to provide more people on this planet with food partly through the same food pharma complex !
And further Hans to come back to your earlier response regarding DDT;
In the time when we were still using this product, we still had plenty of insects, meadow birds, rabbits, hares, partridges, etc. So we may have made less progress with the new technologies than we thought. But you don't have to agree with me, but I do want to share with you what I see through my simple peasant glasses.

Petatje, that people in the "rich west" are getting older is true, but how much older? Since the time we went from the bicycle to the Moon, still a step I think, how much older have people become? And "in the past" people were healthier until their death, otherwise they would have died earlier. You also hear more and more attending physician and people on the medicines for a long time, healing has almost disappeared. Nowadays of the 50+ generation, plus everyone below it, 80% is permanently on the drugs, with especially blood pressure, depression, rheumatism, dementia and autism as the biggest culprits. Reasons for this? Healthcare costs are skyrocketing, also in percentage terms.
It is also clear to me that with the crop protection products after the DDT we are not where we should be, but the progression is just like the world record pole vault with Sergey Boebka: 1 cm at the right time. it provides the highest return.

July 2016
It is prohibited to grow plants and breed animals whose genetic program has been modified using genetic engineering
« Il est interdit de cultiver des plants et d'élever des animaux don't le program génétique a été modifié avec l'utilisation du génie génétique http://www.lafranceagricole.fr/actualites/cultures/russie-poutine-interdit-les- ogm-1,0,1932534295.html

“Today, Russia is able to become the main exporter… of healthy, ecological and quality food that western producers have long lost!”
«Aujourd'hui, la Russie est capable de devenir le principal exportateur (…) d'aliments sains, écologiques et de haute qualité, que les producteurs occidentaux ont perdu depuis longtemps!» https://www.tdg.ch/monde/vladimir-poutine-bannit-definitivement-ogm/story/26626685

Kroon, go ahead and pat yourself on the chest, others won't do it. And a farmer who needs to get better from the industry, he still has a long way to go.

And with regard to your cotton, so not a food, also such a success.

In India, hundreds of thousands of farmers have committed suicide in recent years due to bankruptcy due to their exploitation driven by the cultivation of GMOs. http://www.levif.be/actualite/international/en-inde-les-ogm-de-monsanto-pousseraient-les-paysans-au-suicide/article-normal-396877.html

Ten years after the introduction of transgenic cotton, local seeds have all but disappeared. The market for genetically engineered seeds, which has been heavily promoted, is estimated at 280 million euros. Seed companies promise to sell varieties that are even more resilient and consume less water or fertilizer. Opponents are calling for a moratorium on transgenic cotton cultivation in India.
Dix ans après l'introduction du coton transgenique, les semences locales ont quasiment disparu. Le marché des semences transgeniques, installé à grand renfort de publicité, est estimé à 280 millions d'euros. Les semenciers promettent the commercialiser des variétés encore plus resistantes et moins consommatrices d'eau ou d'engrais. Les opponents, eux, appellent à un moratoire sur la culture du coton transgenique en Inde. http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2012/04/26/les-promesses-non-tenues-du-coton-ogm-en-inde_1691714_3244.html

It's a great video from BioNext and it also fits in well with an earlier introduction I gave to students at the VU University Amsterdam and the University of Amsterdam entitled "Organic agriculture has the best credentials for an adequate sustainable food supply". Incidentally, it also implicitly describes the hidden costs of conventional agriculture. See: http://www.sustainablefoodsupply.org/biologische-landbouw-has-de-beste-papieren/

The objection that I can imagine from conventional agriculture and horticulture in the Netherlands to the idea of ​​expressing the hidden costs of food in the consumer price is that this can lead to an unfavorable international competitive position. It is all the more important that the organic sector provides social and political insight into exactly what the hidden benefits and costs are of organic and conventional. As long as the politicians are not ready for this, this is not necessarily on the receipt, but it can - if well substantiated - be brought to the attention of retailers, consumers and politicians in advance on the packaging and in any case through the media. And er... from the Advertising Code Committee of course ;-)

A nice challenge perhaps for the non-organic sectors?

Hi Bert. Totally agree with you about identifying the hidden costs. Sounds like a good goal to me and a good tool towards greater sustainability. I do not agree with you that the conventional sector will be worse than the organic sector. Depends entirely on the product/sector. Some products or sectors will come out better in organic terms and for other products or (sub) sectors the "usual" true pricing is a good idea if, as you say, well substantiated! And that's the crux right now ;-)

In your world we go to work by car/bus, in order to eat less, I read. I'd rather go by bike, eat a sandwich more. Seems much healthier to me! And cycling has never made anyone obese. You mention the subject of soil erosion in your lecture. It is certain that agriculture is affected by this. The erosion is caused by water and wind. It is of all times. Not using fertilizers or chemicals really does not solve this problem.

Hi Michiel, as you say, hidden costs can differ per product and sector. With the 'conventional' cultivation of unsprayed leguminous plants, such as field beans, the hidden costs may be negligibly low. But the cohesion within an agricultural system also plays a role, a very important one.

The use of polluting fertilizers and chemical 'plant protection products' (pesticides) and large-scale intensive production based on modern technologies causes a lot of damage to soil health, water and air quality. Moreover, the pollution in 'modern' agriculture does not care about the boundaries of the farm or market garden and also causes the accumulation of harmful persistent substances (including glyphosate) in nature reserves.

In organic farming, CO2 emissions are virtually the only form of hidden costs. But the CO2 emissions there are compensated by the large storage of carbon in the soil (construction site) and are much lower than with 'usual' because the energy-consuming production of fertilizer is not used.

I advocate a greater role for the United Nations in countering threats to soils, the environment, biodiversity, ecosystems and nature. Those who pollute are taxed and those who produce cleanly are rewarded. The Netherlands can use its knowledge to show that this is possible.

@bertus. Why is the storage of CO2 in the soil greater with organic than with non-organic.
With conventional and non-reversing, not even an eco-team, surely the same amount of CO2 is stored?!
However, do remain realistic, Mr Buizer and do not go overboard like our environmental friends in the Oostvaardersplassen do. And don't make the same mistake as the pvdd that puts animals to death there!

Michael, I'm going to look into it. Thank you.

With regard to nitrogen from fertilizers, this is only partly absorbed by the crop and pollutes the surface water. You can read more about this in a short article in Akkerwijzer of 8 May 2017:
http://www.akkerwijzer.nl/partner/25/nieuws/11181/-haal-kunstmest-van-zijn-voetstuk-

Are you back to my first reaction, an internal agricultural difference. Interesting, of course, but there are so many bigger questions to overcome for agriculture as a whole, certainly with regard to nitrogen, ammonia, phosphate, CO2, etc. in terms of production, pollution, leaching and especially with regard to the necessity of losses or production by a sector ( or society itself) in our society.

Michiel, if not in organic livestock farming. They mainly work with stable manure. The nitrogen in that manure is bound and is slowly released for the crop, resulting in a much smaller chance of runoff and leaching. A more bonding through the soil.

Hans, thank you for your comments and documents about GMOs.
Fortunately, albeit reluctantly, Dutch agriculture has now made a start to grow winter field beans to provide their own GMO-free animal feed. The German market demands it. Hopefully this continues. Earlier I uttered a heartfelt cry for this:
http://www.sustainablefoodsupply.org/cri-de-coeur-aan-de-nederlandse-melkveehouders/

If animal manure does not contain residues of GMOs and antibiotics, it can be put to an extremely useful purpose in Dutch soil and the use of artificial fertilizers in 'conventional' dairy farming and the associated pollution of soil and surface water can be significantly reduced. The quality of the grass and the silage improves and so does the income of the dairy farmer. Now the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, which says it currently needs too much time to deal with the manure fraud problem. I would like to advise the ministry on this: first make sure that the animal manure can be spread over the land again. Then the manure fraud problem may stop on its own.

Bertus, the Netherlands needs a different kind of cows that produce milk from grass-clover + some corn. All discussions about protein supplementation are then unnecessary and superfluous. Own production from own land.
Kroon, sorry, India indeed has a trial in 2 provinces with GMO cotton. When you see my reaction, you know that it is to be hoped (for the farmers there) that it will remain with one test.

Hello Mr Kroon, Contrary to what you claim, there is less leaching in the biological system. This is partly because there is more stability there, according to the researchers, based on data from the Vredepeel Experimental Farm of Wageningen Plant Research. Read the article in Farm of 6 February 2018 under the title "Organic yields closer to conventional" after: http://www.boerderij.nl/Akkerbouw/Nieuws/2018/2/Biologische- Revenues-dichter-bij- common-244784E/

have a look in the autumn, the organic lawns are much greener than the usual cause, the slowly released nitrogen and the clover. In addition, it quickly evaporates in manure on grassland because it is not covered under, if you want to be bad for the nitrogen you should definitely go on this tour

@It is that time again. It will blow over by itself if 10% of the agricultural land is under the solar panels and the supermarkets also put the organic growers under their guillotine!
Then the hectare balance will be all that matters and there will be no more room for imaginings in the market!

Dear Mr. Kroon, was it not a (proper) research by @WUR there in Vredepeel?

I would also like to cite a scientific study that shows a smaller yield difference between organic and conventional than often thought: https://food.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Ponisios-et-al.-PRSLDiversificationPracticespdf .pdf

Flevoland's largest organic farmer almost has more grain in his crop plan. This often serves as a gauge for a piece of ground rest.
Could that be why they didn't harvest more than 50ha last year?
Example of intensive farming with a lot of root crops.

@cultivation advisor; Those organic farmers treat their soil life so badly that they have to start plowing again to keep it workable. Apparently there is no longer a pier in it, which is not normal at NKG perennial.
The ground is then normally so loose that you forget about plowing.
Perhaps the excessive use of copper also plays a major role in this.

I do not confuse 2 things, the organic sector never has to meet ammonia requirements, which is why it is not made a point of attention, and being greener is only in the autumn, so just a larger nitrogen supply for the grass, but just as with the ammonia volatilization, nitrate leaching of biologicals will also not be harmful, or just measuring with 2 standards, is something different from mixing 2 things up

Ammonia, ad blue, problem or gift?
Nitrogen factory in Groningen to add N to Russian gas and thus make it common for our burners. Reverse world, or was there really no problem at all?

@'Just search', did you go incognito/underground yourself to 'unmask' someone else, who does report with the real first and last name?

Don't you think that's a bit cowardly?

By the way, I hope for you that you too live for a good cause!

Dear Bertus, you taught me a lot in the years that you were DLV in Friesland and I HAD GREAT RESPECT FOR YOU, but the way you are doing now is shameful.
I don't have my eyes in my pockets and can say straight out that my bio colleagues are not doing anything more sustainable.

@de Fries, unfortunately I don't see your real name. But I assume, among other things, that you know me from that period. Like you, I don't have my eyes in my pockets either.
I now work nationally and internationally. What you and I and others are doing now, I do not see as an end point but as a quest for better. It's great that our paths cross every now and then and that we can learn from each other. Please do not view my opinions and comments as criticism. Everyone has goals and responsibility based on his or her situation. That also counts for me.

Mr Kroon, I will of course respect your interests in primary conventional agriculture. Anything that deviates from that, you make fun of by twisting it. Cabaret indeed.

You screen with research from WUR. That is beautiful. But to try to undermine an extensive meta-study in which the respected Berkeley University plays a prominent role, it seems to me..., yes, how should I put it... also a bit cabaret-esque? †

Today also some good news from France. This shows that this country is now more aware of the harmful effects of pesticide use.

In the same message we read - apparently it has to do with it(!) - that the French government is making 1,1 billion euros in credit available to farmers for conversion to organic farming. The organic acreage must go from 5% to 6,5% in the next 15 years.

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2018/04/06/discorde-autour-du-rapport-de-la-mission-d-information-sur-les-pesticides_5281364_3244.html

In any case, we can take this into account when exporting seeds and seed potatoes...

Bert, I'm reading
"Cette enveloppe – financée sur fonds européens, est destinée aux aides à la conversion et non au maintien de l'activité. Les ONG regrettent que l'Etat ait mis fin à son aide au maintien de l'activité des agriculteurs ayant déjà opéré leur conversion vers l'agriculture biologique."

So, it is not the French government that makes available, but fellow farmers pay, it is European allowances money that is redistributed. And it is only for conversion indeed, 2 years extra money, after that the market has to pay you. 15% of the farmers is the goal, while previously +/- 40% of the production was for export. Conclusion: soon 25% of the French population ( 15% of 60% for domestic use) will have to pay the extra price for organic. risky??

Michiel, nice that you are also at home in the French language.

I've looked at the articles you mentioned. I read that research in the US shows that the amount of pesticide residues in food is 99% within the officially permissible limits. I think studies in the Netherlands and other countries show otherwise. Also, there is still no in-depth scientific research on the cumulative health effects of pesticide residues in food.
The second article you mentioned points to the fact that more agricultural land is needed to achieve the same production as with 'normal'. I recognize in this the story of the ecomodernists and other neoliberals, who prefer not to look too far ahead. 'Because what does that yield financially?', they seem to think. But as I have been able to determine on the basis of scientific research, this does not hold true in the long term. There are international warnings from scientists that conventionally exploited agricultural land will be completely exhausted within a maximum of 100 years. Organic farming and other forms of agro-ecological farming, on the other hand, improve soil health and quality.
I can't judge the article for fruit cultivation so quickly. I'm less into that.

Then the last thing you mentioned: journalists, activists and tunnel vision. That's why I started paying attention when I read the articles you've contributed. I found those characterizations in all those articles.

As for journalists: International Federation of Agricultural Journalists (IFAJ) conferences or courses are funded by the agrochemical industry. Marc van der Sterren, also an agricultural journalist, gives one of the examples here: http://www.marcvander Sterren.nl/2017/01/12/the-predicament-of-agricultural-journalists/

Kroon, I have no doubt that you follow the rules in the conduct of your business and try to get the best out of your business.
But also take a look behind the fence. I myself was very recently involved in research into, among other things, residues of medicines and pesticides in sewage water. A large amount of this is not removed by the water purification - via sludge incineration - but eventually ends up in the surface water. There they cause a lot of damage to aquatic life and aquatic ecosystems. Also read:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/21/assumed-safety-of-widespread-pesticide-use-is-false-says-top-government-scientist?CMP=twt_gu

And look at what can be done with chemical 'plant protection products' that are no longer allowed in the Netherlands because of (too late) danger. DDT is still used in Africa. Or take Bangladesh, where smallholder farmers use pesticides without following the rules on the label. Enforcement is scarce or lacking. The chemicals contaminate soil, groundwater and drinking water for a long time.

They are all outgrowths of the conventional farming system, year after year....

I'll leave it at that for now and wish you all a nice growing season!

-----------

Mr. Buzzer, what a story again. Referring every time to suggestive research to find your own right again.
Go through this case.
Can't help but conclude that your entire pro-bio story is based on the greed of a green group that wants to squeeze everyone's throats and fool each other.

Will our country be destroyed, soon we will all have to eat soy burger and salty vega stuff?! Stop with the nonsense and get to work.

Bertus Buizer, because you mentioned France's Macron here with his European money, it becomes clear that peasant money will increasingly disappear into war money. After American example.

"The EU, initially regarded as a foundation of peace, is preparing to vigorously and unconditionally subsidize arms dealers. The arms manufacturers, ubiquitous in Brussels, are in the process of creating a "European Defense Fund", despite the lack of a really common policy in this area.The aim: to fund their research by Europe, without control over the proliferation of weapons developed by them, such as drones or other autonomous combat systems.Back to a spiral of violence, which is increasingly deforming the European project of peace. " https://www.bastamag.net/L-Europe-s-apprete-a-deverser-des-milliards-d-argent-public-en-faveur-des

Bertus Buizer, because you mentioned France's Macron here with his European money, it becomes clear that peasant money will increasingly disappear into war money. After American example.

"The EU, initially regarded as a foundation of peace, is preparing to vigorously and unconditionally subsidize arms dealers. The arms manufacturers, ubiquitous in Brussels, are in the process of creating a "European Defense Fund", despite the lack of a really common policy in this area.The aim: to fund their research by Europe, without control over the proliferation of weapons developed by them, such as drones or other autonomous combat systems.Back to a spiral of violence, which is increasingly deforming the European project of peace. " https://www.bastamag.net/L-Europe-s-apprete-a-deverser-des-milliards-d-argent-public-en-faveur-des