Comparto la opinion del Dr Luis De Stefano ,cuando dice que todo esta en la dosis,efectivamente existe una cantidad X cuando un producto se hace toxico
Lo que quiero aclarar es que cuando hablamos de agroquimicos no devemos meter a todos estos productos en un mismi costal,tenemos que diferenciar lo que son pesticidas y los que son fertilizantes sinteticos
Los primeros son fabricados para matar plagas y son mucho mas peligrosos si no manejamos dosis
En cambio los segundos (fertilizantes ) son frabricados para nutrir a las plantas estos pueden llegar a ser toxicos Tambien si no menejamos dosis
En conclucion hay muchos estudios de investigacion donde se demuestran estas valores  
Todo puede llegar a ser toxico si no conocemos y manejamos  las dosis
Saludos
Ing Eduardo Pineda Guerra 

---

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:28:06 -0700
From: lwdb1208@yahoo.com

Subject: Re: [GA] RE: La Fabula Organica

To: jl_sl1@yahoo.es; ljpazs@terra.com.pe; agronegociosenperu@googlegroups.com
CC: alexander.grobman@gmail.com; jfavre@redondos.com.pe

Solo una atingencia. No es cierto que los pesticidas naturales NO sean tóxicos. El Dr. Bruce Ames de USA ha demostrado que 60% de los compuestos llamados metabolitos secundarios producidos por las plantas (la mayoria de ellos como defensa natural contra plagas) son mutágenicos y cancerígenos. Todo esta en la dosis. Lo mismo sucede con los pesticidas quimicos.

 

Luis De Stefano Beltrán, Ph.D.
Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia
Av Honorio Delgado 430
Lima 31, Perú
E-mail: luis.destefano@upch.pe
Skype: ludes1982
Twitter: @LuisDeStefano

---

From: jose sosa <jl_sl1@yahoo.es>
To: Luis Paz <ljpazs@terra.com.pe>; "lwdb1208@yahoo.com" <lwdb1208@yahoo.com>; 'Agronegocios Google Groups' <agronegociosenperu@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 'Alexander Grobman' <alexander.grobman@gmail.com>; 'Julio Favre Carranza' <jfavre@redondos.com.pe>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [GA] RE: La Fabula Organica

 

Suplico a los foristas, que por favor, no metan a DIOS en estos temas absolutamente de la ciencia y el mercado.

Los productos agricolas orgánicos, solo se diferencian de los tradicionales (actuales), en cuanto al uso de pesticidas naturales vs pesticidas químicos (tóxicos).

Solo les hago recordar que en la Cultura Incaica, como actualmente en muchas comunidades serranas y selváticas peruanas, se utilizó solo pesticidas naturales, porque la ciencia todavía no habia descubierto los pesticidas quimicos (artificiales y sintéticos).

Es necesario acotar que la guerra de los mercados por imponer a rajatabla los trasgénicos, ya está trastocando los lpimites éticos y morales de la ciencia.

Saludos

José Sosa

De: Luis Paz <ljpazs@terra.com.pe>
Para: lwdb1208@yahoo.com; 'Agronegocios Google Groups' <agronegociosenperu@googlegroups.com>
CC: 'Alexander Grobman' <alexander.grobman@gmail.com>; 'Julio Favre Carranza' <jfavre@redondos.com.pe>
Enviado: Lunes 10 de septiembre de 2012 22:16
Asunto: [GA] RE: La Fabula Organica

Crees en Dios? Por qué crees en Dios? No crees en Dios, por qué no crees en Dios? ¿Quién tiene la razón? Acaso se trata de tener la razón? En una sociedad en la que nadie le cree ni a los gobiernos, ni a las grandes empresas debido a que han engañado y siguen engañando a la población, me parece normal que se desconfíe, durante corto o largo tiempo, sobre lo que ofrece la ciencia y que la desconfianza sea mayor cuando tampoco se confía en los organismos certificadores, tal como es el caso de los estudios de impacto ambiental, o lo fallos de los tribunales de justicia, o las prioridades en la cobranza de impuestos por la SUNAT, o en  las repetidas decisiones sobre el control de los químicos utilizados por las drogas, o en el control de los signos de riqueza, etc., o en la ironías comerciales  como "fumar puede ser dañino para su salud". Esta discusión se ha vuelto inútil, tanto como ponerse a discutir si existe o no existe Dios! Se ha llegado a un punto de la discusión en que crees o no crees y los argumentos en pro o en contra ya no contribuyen a cambiar el modo de pensar de la gente. Qué pena!

 

Lucho Paz

 

De: lwdb1208@yahoo.com [mailto:lwdb1208@yahoo.com]
Enviado el: lunes, 10 de septiembre de 2012 12:18 p.m.
Para: Agronegocios Google Groups
CC: Alexander Grobman; Julio Favre Carranza; Luis Paz
Asunto: La Fabula Organica

 

Estimados:

 

Un articulo que no veran escrito en ningun periodico de Lima. Lo organico se ha convertido en una moda elitista pero ningun periodista tiene las agallas para hacer las preguntas correctas. El que ose hacerlas se queda sin trabajo.

 

Saludos

 

Luis

 

The Organic Fable

Cristóbal Schmal

By ROGER COHEN

Published: September 6, 2012

LONDON — At some point — perhaps it was gazing at a Le Pain Quotidien menu offering an "organic baker's basket served with organic butter, organic jam and organic spread" as well as seasonally organic orange juice — I found I just could not stomach the "O" word or what it stood for any longer.

Related News

·         Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce (September 4, 2012)

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

Damon Winter/The New York Times

Roger Cohen

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

·         Read All Comments (235) »

Organic has long since become an ideology, the romantic back-to-nature obsession of an upper middle class able to afford it and oblivious, in their affluent narcissism, to the challenge of feeding a planet whose population will surge to 9 billion before the middle of the century and whose poor will get a lot more nutrients from the two regular carrots they can buy for the price of one organic carrot.

An effective form of premium branding rather than a science, a slogan rather than better nutrition, "organic" has oozed over the menus, markets and malls of the world's upscale neighborhood at a remarkable pace. In 2010, according to the Organic Trade Association, organic food and drink sales totaled $26.7 billion in the United States, or about 4 percent of the overall market, having grown steadily since 2000. The British organic market is also large; menus like to mention that bacon comes from pampered pigs at the Happy Hog farm down the road.

In the midst of the fad few questions have been asked. But the fact is that buying organic baby food, a growing sector, is like paying to send your child to private school: It is a class-driven decision that demonstrates how much you love your offspring but whose overall impact on society is debatable.

So I cheered this week when Stanford University concluded, after examining four decades of research, that fruits and vegetables labeled organic are, on average, no more nutritious than their cheaper conventional counterparts. The study also found that organic meats offered no obvious health advantages. And it found that organic food was not less likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria like E.coli.

The takeaway from the study could be summed up in two words: Organic, schmorganic. That's been my feeling for a while.

Now let me say three nice things about the organic phenomenon. The first is that it reflects a growing awareness about diet that has spurred quality, small-scale local farming that had been at risk of disappearance.

The second is that even if it's not better for you, organic farming is probably better for the environment because less soil, flora and fauna are contaminated by chemicals (although of course, without fertilizers, you have to use more land to grow the same amount of produce or feed the same amount of livestock.) So this is food that is better ecologically even if it is not better nutritionally.

The third is that the word organic — unlike other feel-good descriptions of food like "natural" — actually means something. Certification procedures in both the United States and Britain are strict. In the United States, organic food must meet standards ensuring that genetic engineering, synthetic fertilizers, sewage and irradiation were not used in the food's production. It must also be produced using methods that, according to the Department of Agriculture, "foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance and conserve biodiversity."

Still, the organic ideology is an elitist, pseudoscientific indulgence shot through with hype. There is a niche for it, if you can afford to shop at Whole Foods, but the future is nonorganic.

To feed a planet of 9 billion people, we are going to need high yields not low yields; we are going to need genetically modified crops; we are going to need pesticides and fertilizers and other elements of the industrialized food processes that have led mankind to be better fed and live longer than at any time in history.

Logically, the organic movement should favor genetically modified produce. If you cannot use pesticides or fertilizers, you might at least want to modify your crops so they are more resilient and plentiful. But that would go against the ideology and romance of a movement that says: We are for nature, everyone else is against nature.

I'd rather be against nature and have more people better fed. I'd rather be serious about the world's needs. And I trust the monitoring agencies that ensure pesticides are used at safe levels — a trust the Stanford study found to be justified.

Martin Orbach, the co-founder and program director of the Abergavenny Food Festival in Britain, owns a company called Shepherds that produces a superb sheep's milk ice-cream sold at a store in Hay-on-Wye. It has a cult following at the Hay literary festival and beyond. Journalists, Orbach told me, regularly report that they have eaten an "organic sheep's milk ice cream."

The only catch is this is not true. "We have never said it's organic because it would be illegal for us to do so," Orbach said. "But it fits with the story of a small sheep's milk ice-cream maker."

Organic is a fable of the pampered parts of the planet — romantic and comforting. Now, thanks to Stanford researchers, we know just how replete with myth the "O" fable is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Luis De Stefano Beltrán, Ph.D.

Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia
Av Honorio Delgado 430
Lima 31, Perú
E-mail: luis.destefano@upch.pe
Skype: ludes1982
Twitter: @LuisDeStefano

--
-----------------------------
Grupo Agronegocios [GA] Más de 5,300 personas suscritas.
 
Para enviar un email a todo el grupo:
agronegociosenperu@googlegroups.com
 
Para suscribirse, enviar un email vacío a:
agronegociosenperu+subscribe@googlegroups.com
con el asunto SUSCRIBIR, le llegará un mensaje de confirmación.
 
Para anular la suscripción a este grupo, envía un email a
agronegociosenperu+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
 
Quieres una cuenta gratuita de email ...@agronegocios.pe
Solicitala a: minombre@agronegocios.pe
 
Búscanos en facebook o www.agronegocios.pe
--------------------
 
 

--
-----------------------------
Grupo Agronegocios [GA] Más de 5,300 personas suscritas.
 
Para enviar un email a todo el grupo:
agronegociosenperu@googlegroups.com
 
Para suscribirse, enviar un email vacío a:
agronegociosenperu+subscribe@googlegroups.com
con el asunto SUSCRIBIR, le llegará un mensaje de confirmación.
 
Para anular la suscripción a este grupo, envía un email a
agronegociosenperu+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
 
Quieres una cuenta gratuita de email ...@agronegocios.pe
Solicitala a: minombre@agronegocios.pe
 
Búscanos en facebook o www.agronegocios.pe
--------------------