Who visits my blog frequently, I know this so my difficulties with the Better Business Bureau have Foodwatch. The wanted to make us the Capri Sun worm, the limits for radioactive contamination of natural mineral water were set too high. The Deutsche Bahn accused of just such sweeping has the gourmet food in the restaurants were pre-produced ICE with flavor enhancers have been. And, and, and ...
What bugs me in this whole story is: Who's on the Food Watch-sites, see very soon that the organization does not rely on donations or sponsorship - but promoters, a kind of permanent donors. And this time donor weren kept with sustainability in a good mood. Namely the presence of food sustainability Watch in the media. Furthermore, two other things bother me:
1) Food Watch is looking for easy targets out. For example, Capri Sun instead of Coca Cola, or the German Railways, in which each first nods once, when the meal in the board alleges, it would be with Flavor enhancers have been made.
2) Food Watch is only too happy to sell them on the topics tackled in progress as their own success. I do not want to offend Innocence in Danger, but the principle seems to be the same. Mainly in the media, the main thing, the supporters stick with it.
Honestly, I do not like Food Watch. We have enough clowns in public life. Ask the FDP.
Foodwatch is now jumped on the dioxin-train. Because the child is born but already fallen into the well, the consumer protection organization demanded an audience attention startling thesis: According to their sources is the high-dioxide pollution from pesticides, as Stern.de , Bild.de , or Abendblatt.de . Food Watch a sample is available from the feed operation, just confirmed this exposure to residues of plant protection products:
The tenor of the message is the following.
Okay, sometimes a step back. Without talking about the scandal nice to do, and without the unscrupulous money tailors, who have played with all our health, to build a bridge: What is it about? Dioxins are combustion products, which can occur when something is roasted or burned. Therefore, official bodies would now expect that remnants from biodiesel production to the load Are to blame. Food Watch, however, is very sure now that the residues of pesticides are to blame.
Okay, Dioxins are chlorine-containing hydrocarbons, and many plant protection products are built on oil-based (ie, hydrocarbons). Unless it sounds like there is there really a connection. But one question remains, of course: Why should any one manufacturer in Germany or in Europe just the poorly degradable dioxins, some of which have been shown to cause sub-groups chloracne, cancer or diabetes, insert into a plant protection product? Or why should arise in the use of plant protection products dioxin? I know first hand that plant protection products not be heated or cooked, or even injected preroasted. So where is the point? Or put another way: Although I am no expert on this subject, but I can not with the best will explain why the manufacturer should process of plant protection products dioxin - in food production. So stupid to not have been. Let
times say something briefly Wikipedia. Well, well, some think Wikipedia is a disinformation site where Datenhijacker can sell any nonsense at face value. But I know Wikipedia if not as detailed, at least as good research site, and in small things, I trust Wiki, and the strong sides. This time I I called up the page to dioxin , and found the following sentence, which may explain well many things:.. ", dioxins, except for research and analysis, not manufactured specifically to arise as by-products in a variety of thermal processes there are no technical use of dioxins. "
So, if not actually a plant protection products are cooked or roasted before being used before it is applied, I actually have no idea how dioxin is to get as clean. Produced in a big way, according to the Wiki in any case will not. So why
says Food Watch, it would be "very likely residues from pesticides Guilt "? To the dioxin exposure in animal feed
1) Because there was no one else has behautet
2) Because in its approach fits and the bogeyman." To call for pesticides. "- Many will believe this actually
3) Because it by a lay person can not be refuted. Even I can only guess, and so on the basis of circumstantial evidence. contrary I can, but I can not deny clear.
4) Because Food Watch has once again chosen an easy target.
Conclusion :.. Do not get me wrong, dioxin is not something we should have in eating the other hand, we can avoid the dioxin any more than the natural radioactivity of our environment And in addition, that the EU has screwed with the limits for dioxin before not too long ago to one-tenth down. Nevertheless, one must proceed criminally against these rip-seize, and especially the illegal profits and invest perhaps in research projects that explore, for example, how dioxins get them to be quickly degraded by the body again - once in the human body, it does so only very reluctantly. For example. But what has made
Foodwatch there, fit into the usual scheme of action of this organization. It has been a thesis in the room. It has the sample and say it can, and the Ministry of Health is silent for now. Because it will examine the facts, not because Foodwatch is automatically right. And the Better Business Bureau suggests three birds with one stone: It is back on the agenda, she has something new is introduced into the discussion and you can bet against pesticides.
exactly is why I do not like. This is not a consumer protection to be headlines in the delusion STUPID style. And I would absolutely not be surprised if it turns out that the "pesticides are to blame" thesis collapses into itself like a house of cards. Unfortunately, many citizens will then cover up, concealment and graft do not believe that it had Foodwatch wrong. A crazy world.
Love Food Watch when dioxins are not produced, for example used for industrial are how are they supposed to go in plant protection products? If you can explain me this question conclusively, I think your theory. But I fear that you can indeed make this claim, but do not prove it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment