Extra Long Sidelight Panels

PESTICIDES IN A GLASS OF WINE

When it comes to wine, many mistake him for a drink any, for those who do not know the Bacchus is assumed to be Asian. The Vitis Vinifera grapes or "European", was first cultivated 8000 years ago in Asia, in the lands between the Baltic, Black, Caspian and northern Iran. There are also two species of American origin, the hidden screws and bolts lambrusca, the first was discovered by the Vikings and cultivated by British settlers in the nineteenth century, and still is the most cultivated overseas. In this concept I keep wondering what are the drug companies who sponsor wine-making chemicals in order to make a drink called VI-NO? Emi still wonder why drinking wine made from the drugs ?

Why do I need to poison both the therapeutic and the plant ourselves to get a wine that is made from eight million years?

now shows you how much chemistry there might be at a glass of wine.

Pesticide residues in wines, CO2, and various poisons.

few days ago Nicolas Joly who sent me this article in full you carry on a study done to detect the presence of pesticides in wine. The results are truly shocking: he arrived to find the threshold of 5800 times the maximum pesticide residues allowed in drinking water!

Sunday evening April 13 to transmit the report said CO2 produced by plowing one hectare of land produces more CO2 that chemical fertilizers in 1000 trucks a day on a motorway ... .. always in the same show they talked about a study done by FAO, saying, that if cultivated by the method of organic farming around the world there would be a 10% drop in production in industrialized nations and an increase of at least 30% in countries poor and non-chemical fertilizers (and poisoning) falls comfortably within the parameters of CO2. And then we have to change cars for the Euro 4 5 ... ol'Euro

And then tell us that food is missing or is too expensive, when England only had a difference of 50% on fruits and vegetables that is sold.

Pesticide residues in wine

associations Pesticides Action Network Europe (Pan-Europe), including MDRGF have published the results of analysis carried out on a campaign of wines from Europe and other countries around the world and denounce the widespread contamination of pesticide residues from these wines.

The study was coordinated and supported by the Pan-Europe MDRGF for France, Austria for the Global 2000 and Greenpeace in Germany.

were analyzed 40 bottles of red wine from France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, South Africa, Australia and Chile of these bottles, 34 were from intensive agriculture (chemistry) and 6 from organic farming.

Results: 100% of conventional wines tested are contaminated. Each sample analyzed contains an average of more than four pesticides: the most contaminated contain up to 10 different pesticides!

levels of contamination

the level of contamination was found at 5800-fold higher than that allowed in drinking water! The levels of contamination in this study are variable and do not exceed the maximum permitted limits (MRL) for the raw material. It is known fact that there are no MRLs for wine, but that you are referring to the limits established for grapes, which are very high limits. The levels of contamination observed in the wine are considerably higher than the permissible levels for pesticides in water, some of the wines analyzed were found to amount 5800 times higher than the maximum allowable concentrations (MAC) approved for pesticides in tap water!

health risks.

These multiple residues show a massive use of pesticides in viticulture. Among these compounds have been found several molecules potentially carcinogenic and teratogenic, neurotoxic, endocrine imbalance and agents of development.

organic wines.

organic wines tested showed no traces of pesticide residues with the exception of a sample of Bourgogne in which they have found traces of a pesticide. This is explained by the presence of trace, just because of the amount so modest ones, the drift of sprays coming from neighboring lots conducted by the conventional method. This contamination of organic products, although rare and trace, is absolutely not acceptable to the control system, although drift.

The study for Pan-Europe and MDRGF shows that very intensive use of pesticides in viticulture (20% of pesticides has consumed at least 3% of the agricultural area that wine) will result in the systematic presence of several residues in wines.

"The time has come, in accordance with decisions of the Round Table, that viticulture reduce its consumption of pesticides to minimize exposure of consumers to health risks, focusing on the techniques of cultivation alternatives to synthetic pesticides. These are alternative systems that MDRGF promoted at the 3rd edition of "pesticide-free week" that took place March 20 to 30.

F. Veillerette States, the President of MDRGF and director of the Pan-Europe network. "In addition, representatives the French government will absolutely do everything to eliminate the European legislation on pesticides pesticides most dangerous and enhance systems that greatly reduce or completely do without, these poisons

If you are interested in more detailed information on the study "Pesticide residues in wine can go on the following sites:

TELECHARGEZ In the French ' étude complète et des informations complémentaires

Download the communiqué de presse faisant état des résultats

In English

Download the full results and more informations

Download the press release

Buy Microsoft Windows Xp Tablet Pc

GMOs, pesticides and food sovereignty .... in response to article published in The Other, (1 Aug 2009)

But really the anti-GM groups are deployed frikkettoni,
ex-Katanga, friends of the lobbyist or lobbyist themselves? Apart from the language and labeling
belonging to a world "other" and
who persecute us from '68, perhaps things are not true.
criticism and resistance to GMOs and farming practices
free from pesticides, have a global character and see
protagonists in the first place
peasant movements and organizations of the South. Women and men who report such as GMOs and pesticides are
the advanced part of a system that
agri-business world dominated by large multinationals, which has produced
all current and dramatic distortions. A system that keeps the peasants
countries "developing" in permanent
poverty and dependence. That produces the most and least feeds,
as demonstrated by the failure of all commitments to fight hunger in the world
. That's when feeds creates obesity. A system that survives
only by very heavy public support, pace of the most enthusiastic supporters of fate
saving the free market.
in USA as in Europe, where subsidies account for more than 40% of
budget, this paradigm instead of producing work
good, good soil, good food, systematically favors the wealthy.
Large shareholders and managers of multinational companies that control
seeds, pesticides, GMOs and now, and so have the power
food on reproduction and genetic inheritance,
systematically violating the human right to food and food sovereignty
. O people, big landowners in the first place, which derive
benefit from subsidized exports to the detriment of agriculture
family members of third countries or producers of "biofuel" that subtracts
agriculture and food delivery to feed the machines.
Thus the products of this system profoundly unfair that most
costanos from the standpoint of environmental impacts and its
poor, feed the poor end to the "discount" or
are shipped to impoverished countries in the form of food aid,
and quality, which saves the commons, such as health
the Earth and people, becomes a luxury. Of course you can consider this
ricostruzioneanticapitalistica and ideological
for us is instead a critical paradigm. That is not science
to save us, is practical experience. Agriculture is full of revolutions
scientistic green, (last in order of time the plan was launched by Bill Gates and Kofi Annan
for a new green revolution in Africa - AGRA
) separating increasing food production by factors
natural, and the effects are before us.
hunger and obesity, pandemics, desertification and the greenhouse effect. Sure you can always argue that
that at least 16% of greenhouse agriculture produces
this does not come from long cycles, from the excesses
chemicals from factory farms, but from hens kept in
earth. Or you want to forget that agriculture clean, traditional, small-scale
can be an important factor
adaptation to the greenhouse effect. But there it is absurd and cruel. What are the Alevis
intensive cage everybody knows, as we all know what will
also in terms of animal suffering.

Sure you can turn a somersault with the precautionary principle,
founding of Europe and key international law
environment, where you show that the things you do not hurt
into its opposite. Or you can do everything that
has shown that it hurts, especially on private land owned
. Or trying to say, based on a British study,
that the products are organic agriculture, in terms of consumer health
, comparable to those with agricultural pesticides,
forgetting the health of people who grow, and
poison every day. What about the victims of Nemagon
in Central America, or of those lands and aquifers poisoned by deadly chemical substances
as glyphosate? Sure you can cite studies
always available as there are many who say that nuclear
is the greenhouse effect, or that the same effect
global warming is a natural factor, but the reality of the relationship between society and
modern science is what science and science
discuss and choose. A debate that goes as far
critical technologies, inherently entrenched around
interests of the powerful and who can not stand the criticism of democracy. And
struggles to appropriate technology, diffusible and controllable. For
where RU486 can be for and against GMOs, because you're with
women and farmers. So Europe has validated consensus
human responsibility the greenhouse. Reflecting the
we also propose to the other. Among discuss everything and everything is
show, there is a difference. And if it is right to criticize any experience
root of the left, maybe still trying to look
beyond their geographical boundaries, the other would find
magnificent and progressive capitalism.

Roberto Musacchio
Francesco Martone

What Item Will Have Immense Value In 200 Years

die for Kabul? The G8 seen

My comment on Afghanistan today posted on the site of Sel

July 28, 2009 at 20:16

Having had to do - along with many, many companies today as
I support the project of the Left and Freedom -
with the Afghan issue for seven years in Parliament and having been one of
promoters of the appeal for the withdrawal of troops
also published on this site would like to share some thoughts. The first is that
you can not leave the Afghan people in the throes of NATO bombs
intelligent, the Mangusta, or warlords, nor even
most of the Taliban. At the time we tried it through channels other,
passing through three pillars: a reworking of the concept of security.
When it comes to human security means the protection of civilians
not offensive operations. Then he suggested that Italy
release from participation in Operation Enduring Freedom and
asserted the reshaping of the international presence
with a contingent of international police under UN command and mandate.
2: supporting the processes of mediation and peace-building
through support to Afghan civil society, processes of truth and justice
crimes committed by all parties to the conflict, the
convening a negotiating table with the insurgents. A macro-
these negotiations have also involved the governments of neighboring states
Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan in the first place.
3. reversal of the proportions of financial support for the instrument
military and reconstruction support for programs of self
food, micro-enterprise, microcredit,
progressive replacement of opium crops with production to ensure food sovereignty and
access to local markets.
investment in schools, and health, and local infrastructure.
release of military activities from those of reconstruction as in the case of
Provincial Reconstruction Teams, see that of Herat.
Based on this proposal for two years we hired a
constructive confrontation with the Prodi government, to try to get a
progressive reduction of the Italian commitment in military terms (
or at least prevent an escalation in terms of personnel and equipment )
and a strengthening of the investment in terms of civil and
mediation. The rules of engagement and management
of caveats were monitored continuously at the parliamentary level, while trying to
articulate a dialogue with those pieces of the peace movement as
that we did not want to fall into the trap "withdrawal of troops from a
Aguerre imperialist" or "until death in Kabul
to the West and NATO. " We tried to put ourselves in the shoes of the actual needs of the Afghan people
beyond any rhetoric. It was not easy, nor
for our deeply held pacifist nor a clash that has created this
with friends and traveling companions is Parlaento
and outside in movements. Then when it was clear that the phase
policy center coming to an end
voted against the mission for not giving a blank check to a government
later, now with the statements of his ministers
shows a face warmonger and military clashes with those assumptions
an exit strategy for more shares also invoked in
Obama administration. Now the conditions for a strategy
reconfiguration of Italian role in Afghanistan no longer exist, nor
what should be the opposition mentions a minimum interest
proposals to revise the option of military output. And then
us no choice but to raise the call to withdraw troops
, stop the military escalation and demand that Italy
assignments to support an argument for a deep
reconfiguration of international presence in that arena.
do it while whistling bombs or bullets Mangusta (both
invoked by the head of the Defense PD)
seems to me not only impossible but also not acceptable politically and ethically.

Army Motorcycle Helmet

Ecuador

and receive public willingly Cerbino by Mauro, editor of El Telegraph ...


Las ruinas G8
Mauro Cerbino

mcerbino@telegrafo.com.ec

Acabamos de Asist a capítulo más de la "saga" of the G8. Desde 1975, el grupo restringido of the world's richest countries gather to discuss and adopt decisions that have served to cast it as the engine of a global system of governance. It began with a select G5 including Germany, France, Britain, Japan and the United States who have joined Italy, Canada and Russia recently. This group exclusive (and excluding) the country aims to establish its global legitimacy on the basis of the wealth produced and in an alleged supremacy of logic "west" on the rest of the world, knowing that Japan and Russia are clearly aligned with those logics.
However, the club has had to gradually open its membership to other countries. First because it was seen as decreasing the amount of wealth in the rest of the world, and secondly by the need to include countries that represent other geographies such as Brazil in Latin America or Egypt in Africa. The club requires new recruits to readjust to economic and politically democratic. Additives that make up the mathematical series of G5 +1 +1 +1 +7 +5 to reach G20 seems to be one of those games like Risk where what it is to add countries (and hosts) to conquer the world. Acute
analysts as Francesco Martone, a former Italian senator and expert on international relations, indicate that such practices Far from implying a willingness to set new rules more equitable global governance, indeed lead to a further weakening of multilateralism and especially the UN.
The club is taking shape and by means of "variable geometry", which remain informal and held in institutions, make the implementation of decisions and commitments that are made are subject to the "goodwill" of each member. The result is known: the commitments as fighting poverty or financial increase development cooperation always stay in folder.

would be interesting for the savvy diplomatic club can satisfy their heads of government of how to conceive non-Euclidean geometry, you know think about the asymmetries and complex topologies that mankind has.
the rubble of L'Aquila, a city devastated by the earthquake, Berlusconi has held the G8. It could have been a way to call world attention to this drama and receive support, and his cunning could have led to conceive that as the most ideal place to disable any anti-globalization protest movements, those eight years have been victims in Genoa of the brutal repression by the same government. What is certain is that never was more appropriate place than this to the media circus of a club whose concentric structure y aparentemente solid, if Parece mucho en la Fragilidad de las paredes de las casas construidas with arena y gracias a la corrupción en rampant degradation Italy.

Cute Facebook Quotes For Picniks

Help! Such as development aid?

Since the Gleneagles summit a few years ago to today, the G8 countries
should have taken their commitment to devote increasing amounts
of their gross domestic product in the fight against poverty and international cooperation
. And the budgetary constraints caused by the global economic crisis
certainly can not be invoked as an excuse to fail
a commitment to justice and ecological and social debt repayment
accumulated by the developed countries to the world's majority.
However, the country now hosts and chairs the G8 has gradually fallen
among the last in terms of commitments to fight poverty:
in the last two years of the Berlusconi government cooperation has come to
lows.
If this were not enough, the G8 could mark the beginning of a new era
in the principles and strategies for the promotion of global public goods, from
by the aid and development cooperation. In the face of repeated appeals of the world non-governmental
to increase the odds of funding
cooperation and the fight against poverty, the G8 have made
miss the opportunity to propose a new vision
of development, in terms of "country system"
("whole of country" in the jargon of the Sherpas), a term
very bipartisan fashion even in our own political circles.
enough to remember the events of the abortion debate on the reform of Italian development cooperation
last term, when
was advanced by many the idea of \u200b\u200ba Foundation
public-private cooperation of the "Italian system". This
expansion of the concept of aid, to include also - as the OECD suggests
- military missions abroad (eg
thing is already done in England) would then to support
ODA an increasing share of private sector
, businesses, international foundations. The debate under way in
G8 on aid, it is therefore mirrors the debate
"national" development aid
now reduced to a mere "geographical expression" in the state budget. The 2009 G8
could then go down in history as the "trend-setter", the performed
of "political" and "cultural" at zero financial cost.
The same is true for the reform of global governance. Other than
reform and enlargement of the G8, the real risk is that the G8, although occasionally
expanded to other countries with emerging economies, is able to
undermine the United Nations in dealing with the now irrevocable process
review of the structure of government economic and financial global
of Bretton Woods. If we add to this
the issue of climate change, and the determination of
Italian government to use the Kyoto Protocol against itself, then you
may agree that the summit in 2009 could become the first
Summit taste and inspiration "neo-con", just when Washington
Obama has relegated the advent of the neocons in the wreckage of
history.

When Does Colyte Work

From G8 to G20 without the United Nations

some time now, the G8 is considered obsolete, inappropriate and illegitimate
for proposals and solutions to global emergencies, often caused by
same choices of environmental policy, economic, industrial and commercial
countries that belong to it. However, rather than a revival of areas
political democratic, transparent and multilateral measures that are adapted to the new structure
multipolar global governance, the political agenda of the G8 Italian
threatens to deal a new blow to multilateralism. A few months ago
spoke at length, in the wake of economic and financial crises, reform of the G8
and other financial institutions. It was thought that the collapse of global financial and economic model
could lead to innovative solutions, even after the
decision of the UN General Assembly President, Miguel D'Escoto
, to convene a UN summit on global finance as a
relapse of the work of a task force convened by the same
d'Escoto, whose head was put to the Nobel prize for economics Joseph Stiglitz
. Even then opened a dispute with the hard
G20 countries and the G8 only a few hours after news of the appointment of
Stiglitz, announced the date and place where he would be taking the first
extraordinary G8 on financial crisis by extending
the invitation to other countries with emerging economies such as G20 and reconfiguring.
It is worth mentioning that in terms of "institutional" the Bretton Woods Conference
(which were established
International Monetary Fund and World Bank) was in the process of
founding of the United Nations and therefore this would necessarily
refer. Even if it was decided that
World Bank and IMF would not have been
UN specialized agencies, but rather linked to the UN system through
agreements. The main objective was to preserve the model
undemocratic decision-making still exists in World Bank
Monetary Fund and the "one dollar one vote" (in which the G8 countries
hold the majority of the votes) than the UN of "
one person, one vote" .. This tug of war between G8/G20 and
UN has had its peak in June at the UN Conference on
global finance, in fact opposed to the last
from the countries of the G20 and then scaled significantly in its scope.
on the basis of these political processes, the climate and the
on economic and financial crisis, we can infer that the summit of the Eagle
if little or nothing will be proposed in terms of financial commitments
is likely to be at to further strengthen
new trends in the underlying mechanisms of global governance. What
the practice of "multilateralism à la carte multilateralism, or select. Other
that reform of the G8, or enlargement of that consensus,
already discredited, and not entitled to decide for the rest of humanity.
Just read between the lines of the statements already made a few months ago by Silvio Berlusconi
to understand that the G8 did not touch
in its substance. Under the Italian Presidency of the G8 was
expanded to other countries, but not as an afterthought of the formula
G8. Groups of countries were invited or summoned to the second theme
or urgency of the case, whether they are the so-called Outreach 5
(O5), or MEM (countries share responsibility for the emissions of greenhouse gases), or
Least Developed Countries (LDCs) or African countries
Africa Partnership Forum . The G8 de l'Aquila thus risks reinforcing a
conformation of governance variable geometry, in which the
United Nations would be only "one among equals" and not the frame of reference
regulatory and policy for a "new economic and political governance
global