In Latvia, concepts of equality, transparency, solidarity, and various other positive notions and their essence are becoming increasingly entrenched in the public consciousness. Therefore, this equality must be implemented in all areas, as currently, many processes take place whenever an owner wishes (it seems they are ready, tempted by a high price, etc.), rather than when the official harvest deadline has arrived. To end such unfair practice, public pressure will be needed on those politicians who are preparing to take seats in the Saeima. To ensure this is not just empty talk, relevant propagandists are already being prepared who will know what must be done and why, and why doing so will be for the best.

Latvia has many different associations—non-governmental organizations—that try to protect birds, animals, natural values, and, of course, waters. Landowners often break into a sweat just hearing the name of the latest 'advocates' and the theses for and against what they will be fighting for, sensing what is to come. If last year and this year such sweating of landowners took place before the arrival of the so-called nature surveyors, then now there is talk of a new 'bogeyman', namely, that a new powerful non-governmental organization is in the making, whose goal and task will be to ensure that everyone has equal conditions. Specifically, at present, trees (forests) are in an exceptional state because there is a set age when they can be harvested; of course, there are also special exceptions when they can be harvested according to diameter. To ensure that everyone else—those to be harvested—has the same requirements, a study is being prepared on introducing an optimal harvest 'time' for every vegetable and fruit. There is an opinion that setting such a harvest deadline would promote biodiversity, creating favorable living conditions for insects and rodents, and at the same time, they would be excellent for those who, in turn, use insects, worms, and rodents in their diet. In a word, a kind of paradise would emerge for this category. There is another important nuance, namely that greedy farmers are 'unable' to wait for the harvest to ripen and simply 'spray' the fields with chemicals before threshing, which carries a high risk that human food is already well-chemicalised. Ah yes, and part of the collected harvest ends up as animal feed for those being raised for meat and/or milk, which means that this produce is also chemicalised. Here is another important aspect related to healthy nutrition, which is talked about so much not only in all sorts of forums for clever people but also on social media. Now, who wants to eat bread whose flour is obtained from grains that were sprayed with chemicals before harvest, but that is not written on any product label. The whole of society would benefit, as well as, of course, nature. At the same time, landowners would also benefit, because they would not be able to go to the garden whenever they want and cut off, for example, an underdeveloped carrot, beetroot, or potato row. Consequently, for example, potatoes could only be harvested after, for example, at least 60 days have passed, and later potato varieties only after 90–100 days. Similar minimum harvest deadlines should be introduced for carrots, peas, beans, beets, cucumbers, tomatoes, apples, and all other fruits, vegetables, and berries.
As soon as such regulations are in place in Latvia, they could also be applied to imported agricultural products and food goods, which would even create certain advantages for local food business representatives.
That is exactly why all people, especially crop ripening specialists, need to get involved in the development of relevant regulations, and in turn, a concrete—supportive—attitude must be demanded from those eyeing parliament seats. Such a decision is revolutionary, as it could be unique even worldwide, and Latvia could once again be a kind of pioneer that all progressive, green-thinking countries could follow after some time. Yes, of course, as a guinea pig, being the first always carries some risks, but that is a trifle if one is the first in the whole world, and other countries will be able to look at what has been achieved here with blue envy. The excuses and objections about the harmful impact of such a decision on agriculture and the threats of hunger are simply the tactics of so-called reactionaries. This is proven by the fact that even though foresters wanted to reduce the harvesting diameter for pines, spruces, and birches, they simply gave up on their plans when facing superior force. Now this victory must be fully consolidated—on all fronts, not only in the forests but also in the fields and farmlands.
Ah yes, regarding harvesting crops earlier than the minimum deadline set for a specific species, some kind of bogeyman will be needed—in the form of a penalty. So to speak, so that the good idea is not distorted, as it could be a monetary fine, derived from the product of the value of the prematurely harvested crop multiplied by some coefficient, for example 1.5 or perhaps even 2, but for perpetrators who spit on such norms, forced labor can certainly be applied.

Awaiting fantastic results, Jānis Bērziņš in collaboration with Jānis Ezītis.