USA News and Poland - part 14

I think he forgot to proofread his AI assisted/generated argument..

You are into chickens?

I notice you conveniently ignored the second half of what I wrote - the potential to lose up to 80% of your crop through not using pesticides.

Just as for hormones, there are MRLs for pesticides.

99% of the American crops tested, are deemed to contain safe levels. 40-50% had no detectable pesticide residue at all.

Finally - a pesticide is not itself toxic just because it is a pesticide.

If you insist that your farmers don't use pesticides it means you hate your farmers, and value their labor for nothing.

But non GMO farming still use pesticides, plenty of them.

You are helping me argue my point.

Or that I eat apples in my families garden that uses ZERO pesticide and don't care if bugs eat some or not cause of the overpopulation of birds in my area that takes care of the problem.

With too few birds, too large crops you set yourself up for failure. I ain't interested in bailing out greedy poisoners. No matter what they brand themselves as.

I have sympathy for farmers, not for idiots.

LOL

Bobko, I've watched a French documentary about the stuff produced by humans that affect hormonal balance and cause infertility. Pesticides contain stuff that can make you infertile (among other things). Pesticides are also washed away with rain and go into the soil and into the water, they are being breathed in with the wind by people living near crops. There were women tested by scientists in that documentary that had traces of pesticides inside the structures of their hair, nails, etc.

Btw, according to that documentary a hairstylist is a high-risk profession for fertility related problems due to the chemicals you come into contact with, for example.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4871926/


How? American crops, on top of using pesticides anyway, they're also more genetically modified.

crossbreeding wheat strains which is what happened during the green revolution in the 60s is totally different from genetically modifying a plant to be able to survive 10x more poison, whats next doing the same thing to chickens?

As opposed to 'losing 80 percent of ones crop', the wheat yield only increases by 10 to 20 percent in GMO farming, whilst absorbing up to 10 times more pesticides.

neverm

Shows how much you understand about business.

10-20% can be the difference between life and death.

What do you know about the life of a farmer?

Farming is based on razor thin margins. Usually single digit percent.

You have to worry about:

1) Financing costs - farmers usually borrow for the season ahead

2) Land leases - the landlords increase rents regardless of what happens in the markets

3) Tractor leasing

4) Seed and fertilizer

5) Labor

6) Fuel

7) Crop insurance

One bad harvest - can bankrupt a family operation that had endured for generations.

10-20% is life and death.

You seem to have some genetic memories of this. Did your grandparents starve in the great Soviet Famine? Or did they miss their quota by 10-20 percent and executed?

In Europe there is Common Agricultural Policy and subsidies so our farmers are o.k, that they don't have to spray patented poisons on their mutant frankenstein crops.

Yes.

Otherwise they are killed in an instant.

I can understand this.


This is the crux of the issue.

You claim to have read Bobko's post #603. I wonder what is wrong with your ability to understand. Is it well-written, full of facts, and an intelligent and logical post?
I have no time or desire to get entangled in prolonged discussion that leads to nowhere. Besides, many of us read long posts. Bobko said, what needs to be known,
nothing to add or subtract.

@Bobko
It always amazes me that its not understood how agriculture works. Without chemicals it becomes very labour intensive at best and disastrous at worst. Of course all spraying should be kept to a minimum but GMO encourages the use of chemicals.

Organic food production is only possible at a very local level.

There is an additional problem in the developing world where traditional mode of land holding is disrupted by huge multinationals who have convinced governments to abandon these non western traditions. The result is a concentration of land in fewer hands with all the negatives that go with it. Growing for export is good for tax and large corporations and bad for local people.

I did and I even commented on it.


Nothing, but you seem to fail (or pretend to fail) to understand what I asked you.

All of what Bobko listed in his post #603 apply not only to American products, but all the products sold in the EU by any country, any company, including EU companies. So you are complaining that American products have to comply to the same regulations that also EU products have to comply to? o_O


It only leads to "nowhere", because you failed to answer my question.

Your standards are weapons against imports.

The US should refuse to accept A5 calls from any country that does not have the First and the Second Amendments.

These are our standards. Don't like them? Take care of your own shlt.

What?


No, they aren't. The US' standards are currently "5% of GDP spent on defence", according to your president. And you could say those are unfair/double standards because the US doesn't spend 5% of its GDP on defence - they spend 3.4%.

@Novichok, btw, I find it fascinating that despite all the whining of PF Trumpists about fat people in the US, you guys not only don't seem to mind what your food industry is doing to your own people in the US (judging by the zero reaction on this forum), but you have the nerve to complain that the EU doesn't want your unhealthy products o_O 🤦

What is wrong with you people?

If everybody was healthy and fit they would retire at 68 and die thirty years later.

Their end-of-life medical bills would be even higher or at least the same. Their retirement benefits would bankrupt the country.

That's why government statisticians like smokers. They pay cigarette taxes and die early from lung cancer.

@Novichok, so, in other words, you're OK with Americans being fatter and less healthy than Europeans??? :D You people are hopeless... *epic facepalm*

Btw, according to numerous inspections in Poland there are no GMO crops being grown:

farmer.pl/produkcja-roslinna/piorin-w-polsce-nie-prowadzi-sie-upraw-gmo-potwierdzaja-to-badania,148147.html

Yes and no...

Fat is ugly. When I am at the beach, it's hard to enjoy it with all the fat people ruining the view. That's the bad part.

The good part...I feel better about myself.

Back to bad...Fat people are unhappy. The fattest are AA women. They also happen to be the most obnoxious, loud, and aggressive with the lowest marriage rate of 20%.

This translates into rapes of white women by the black males. Black guys have standards, too.

The result... Black men raping white women: 35,000 a year.

White men raping black women: 10 a year.

Final comment...The obesity rates do not differentiate between fat and muscle. That BMI bs makes top bodybuilders fat.

A guy with 3% body fat who is 6 feet and 280 pounds of raw muscle is "obese" with the BMI of 38.

No, because looking at the world from the European perspective is a dead-end street.I will answer your question, whatever it is, as soon as you consider all the points made in Bobko's excellent post#603. So what is your question?

[quote=Paulina]You people are hopeless...

By your standards, but who cares what your standards are. For instance, Pawian was your model of manliness, fricken pencilneck; by the way, did you recover from the snake bites? But that's karma; if your standards allow sleeping with the snake, expect to be bitten. As far as healthy Europeans, I advise you to reconsider throwing stones when residing in a glass house:::))) Is there any hope for us, the hopeless?

Did you notice that this clown was never told off by any Euro?

I don't know why I sometimes forget how messed up you are, but thanks for reminding me lol


You know very well that's not the problem in the US :))))


It's not about any "perspective", it's about EU regulations. And those regulations are the same for everyone.


What more points would you like me to "consider"? Maybe this one?:


Parmesan, feta, champagne - those are traditional products that were invented/come from particular places in Europe. You could say it's a patent for food or, rather, its name. Polish "oscypek" has the same EU name protection - it has to fulfill certain requirements to be called "oscypek" - not anyone even in Poland can name it like that. So, I'm guessing you can sell your American "parmesan", "feta" or "champagne" as long as you call it in a different way:

pro.rp.pl/prawo-w-firmie/art16226831-dlaczego-oscypek-stal-sie-uscypkiem

By normal people's standards, because what normal people wouldn't want their society to be healthier? o_O


Hey, it's Americans who complain how fat your society is in comparison to Europeans and that food tastes better in Europe than in the US, so take it up with them :)))


That's a lie. And this thread isn't about pawian.

This is the level of criminality of Biden's party...

My translation of a fragment from this article:

"Local media in Lesser Poland have informed that people are selling there scypki, uscypki and similarly named cheese, which are imitations of real oscypki. The name "oscypek" is reserved for cheese produced according to a specific recipe and in a limited area. - It has to have particular physical and chemical characteristics, it's made of sheep milk or with addition of cow milk (up to 40%), it's produced seasonally by traditional methods - reminds Anna Jawoszek from Trade Inspection.
That's why the cheese being sold at traders' stalls that doesn't fulfill the requirements to be called "oscypek" is named in a similar way. This is illegal though."

So, it's not just Americans who can't sell cheese as "parmesan". Poles can't do it either. In the same way Italians can't just make some cheese and call it "oscypek", no matter how good it's going to be, because "oscypek" is reserved as a traditional product of a particular region in Poland.

Guys - the only reason I went off the deep end with chlorinated chickens is because the Europeans here were saying "what tariffs - you assh*les?".

Any Russian or Chinese or Ukrainian person - that reads the news at least once a week - will tell you that Europe can be completely successful at shutting you out of their markets, without ever having to resort to tariffs.

The biggest story now - by far - is far away from agriculture. It's tech. They're doing the "chlorinated chicken" to American and Chinese social media companies.

Rather than billions of dollars - that's a question of trillions.