Ignorance of the file or true praise of a pseudoscientific and esoteric practice? Guest of Face to face on BFMTV and RMC, on January 31, Catherine Vautrin promoted biodynamics. Remember that biodynamic agriculture is based on the writings of the Austrian occultist Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), founder of anthroposophy, who notably recommended the use of potions in homeopathic doses obtained from cow dung stored in horns. The exit caused a reaction all the more in rationalist circles as the Minister of Labor also has the Health portfolio. For Grégoire Perra, a former anthroposophist who has become the movement’s main opponent, these words from Catherine Vautrin confirm the effectiveness of anthroposophy’s communication. But he severely judges this position coming from a Minister of Health.
L’Express: To refute the image of “polluting farmers”, Minister Catherine Vautrin highlighted “biodynamic processes”. What do you think ?
Grégoire Perra: Does Catherine Vautrin really know about biodynamic practices? In any case, she knows the word, and thinks well of it. This shows the effectiveness of anthroposophists’ communication, which means that people have a good opinion of biodynamics or the Steiner schools, even though they do not necessarily know their foundations. We could understand this from ordinary citizens who are not well informed on the issue. But this is a minister. However, there has been a lot of information work that has been done over the past three years on biodynamics. Victims who had fallen into esotericism began to testify. This makes Ms. Vautrin’s exit more out of time. We now know that biodynamics is unscientific, and that it can cause damage to people. This is no longer tolerable.
Catherine Vautrin is also Minister of Health. Is this all the more serious?
Biodynamics is inseparable from anthroposophy. It is the cover-up of this esoteric current. But anthroposophy is also anthroposophical medicine or the Steiner schools. It really is a whole. Promoting biodynamics as the Minister of Health did also legitimizes anthroposophic medicine, which is based on principles that endanger the lives of patients. Rudolf Steiner notably recommended treating syphilis with mercury and cancer with mistletoe, or raising fevers in children or not vaccinating them.
What are the differences between organic and biodynamic?
I was invited yesterday to the National Assembly to testify on sectarian abuses. Worried about the risks of anthroposophy entering into ecology, the deputies asked me this same question. I reminded them that it was necessary to differentiate between true ecology, which has a rational basis, with the study of nature and the interactions between a surrounding environment and living beings, and the precepts of Rudolf Steiner. Biodynamics has totally crazy foundations.
“The cosmos invented by Steiner is not only delusional, but it is a vision of the world that can drive you crazy”
How is it esoteric?
Biodynamics is based on a vision of the cosmos which is not only astrological, it is also fantastical. In the cosmos of anthroposophists, we find invertebrate dinosaurs swimming in oceans on the planet Mars… Astrology is in no way scientific, but there are attempts at rationalization – which we can laugh at. The cosmos invented by Steiner is not only delusional, but it is a vision of the world that can drive you crazy. For Steiner, the oak is, for example, under the influence of Mars, while the ash is a Jupiterian tree. Mistletoe is inherited from the ancient incarnation of Earth, and is therefore not influenced by Lucifer, which explains why anthroposophical medicine claims that it can cure cancer.
Catherine Vautrin is at least right in arguing that biodynamics does not pollute…
Biodynamic farms are based on Rudolf Steiner’s vision of the animal, which did not take into account the suffering of animals, as they belong to the “group soul”. On the other hand, biodynamic farms are based on Steiner’s social tripartition, that is to say on a vision of society in which work must not be paid, unions must be prohibited and where individuals as that free beings have no place. Biodynamics does not pollute but it can therefore cause damage. Biodynamics also involves trainees trained in this practice, and who can be indoctrinated into anthroposophy. Personally, my conscious indoctrination into anthroposophy took place on a biodynamic farm. Because these are places where you can find the most fanatic anthroposophists. In particular, we must question the practice of “woofer” [NDLR : bénévolat dans une ferme bio]. Many travelers move from one farm to another, and may find themselves on a biodynamic farm, thinking they are having an agricultural experience and sharing conviviality, while they are indoctrinated in esoteric theories.
Let us also not forget the problems that biodynamics can pose in terms of contagion, in the event of an agricultural epidemic. A few years ago, biodynamic winegrower Emmanuel Giboulot refused to treat his vines, even with a natural pesticide, against flavescence goldene disease, despite a court order. He was presented as a hero opposing the dictates of phytosanitary rules, while he endangered the entire vineyard through his dogmatism.
Catherine Vautrin referred to her region, Champagne. Is biodynamics important in this vineyard?
There are some biodynamic farms in Champagne. The largest region in this area is Alsace, due to its proximity to the Germanic world. But biodynamics is present everywhere in France. It has a good reputation, and even winegrowers who do not practice can be susceptible to this type of discourse. These promoters highlight the fact that it would be “more organic than organic”, which reached the ears of Catherine Vautrin. Anthroposophists have a pretty phenomenal capacity for self-promotion.
.