"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...


yep and the Chinese are now becoming one of the wealthier more
industrialised countries and can afford to buy meat, and indeed they are
buying meat, and very happy about it they are as well.

Some are, and they will pay the inevitable price.

no

Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
perspectives from China.
Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.

A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality
characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are
substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with
diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean
intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the
United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and
dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods
of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at
approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary
life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper
is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate
effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly
supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of
evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-
biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted.
There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates. '

you will pay the price, because you are the one who will not be able to
buy food and fuel because they are using it

Assuming that "I" required food from China, which we don't,
what you are actually acknowledging here, is that an increase in
the consumption of meat in China would take away an essential
component of the world's human population's diet. Way to go!

(They can't feed the animals many times more calories in the form
of grain/land/energy/etc and then sell meat at a fraction of the cost.)

Your industry is subsidised. Your 'product' is subsidised too.
The true cost is paid by animals, the environment, and people.

yes, our industry is subsidised which allows the urban population to buy
food at below the true cost of production. The biggest environmental
damage
agriculture does is support urban populations whose stinking cities
fester
across the land

Who ultimately pays for those subsidies? People crowded in urban areas
because of your stinking livestock farms festering across ~70% of the land.
It is not only in "developing" countries where people have been forced off
land by greedy cattle barons who raze/d everything in their way for meat.

yep. let the people back on the land, it worked so well in Zimbabwe

'The biggest disaster to have hit Zimbabwe is the IMF/WORLD BANK
sponsored structural adjustment program critically implemented at the
beginning of 1990. This was at a time when the country was suffocating
from the debts partly accrued by the Smith regime [the last white
government] to repress the liberation struggle and some accrued after
independence. The above mentioned financial institutions had leverage
as is the situation with most developing countries to compel countries
to implement structural adjustment on the discredited pretext that it's
the way to develop economically .

With the SAPs public services were hit hard. Expenditure on medical
staff and drugs was cut significantly. Education budgets were slashed.
Exorbitant fees were introduced for all secondary schools and colleges
which were previously free. This whole new dispensation brought the
greatest disadvantage to the most vulnerable.

State subsidies on food and price controls were removed and people
started starving. The country sank deeper and deeper into debt as the
structural adjustment program depended on huge borrowings. By
1997 the country was now spending seven times more on debt-servicing
than on education and health.

- Interview with John Bomba, a leading democracy activist in Zimbabwe.

http://www.doublestandards.org/sap1.html

Indeed let the government run the land. After all under Socialism the Russia
imported grain, it was desperate for it, now under private ownership Russia
and the Ukraine are major grain exporters.

'The IMF has helped foster a severe depression in Russia

Russia in the 1990s has witnessed a peacetime economic contraction
of unprecedented scale. Many believe much of the blame for the social
and economic catastrophe rests with the IMF, which has had a central
role in designing and supervising Russia's economic policy since 1992.

The number of Russians in poverty has risen from 2 million to 60
million since the IMF came to post-Communist Russia. Male life
expectancy has dropped sharply from 65 years to 57. Economic
output is down by at least 40 percent.

The IMF's shock therapy - sudden and intense structural
adjustment - helped bring about this disaster

"In retrospect, its hard to see what could have been done wrong
that wasn't," Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and
Policy Research told a Congressional committee in late 1998.
"First there was an immediate de-control of prices. Given the
monopoly structure of the economy, as well as the large amount
of cash savings accumulated by Russian households, inflation
soared 520 percent in the first three months. Millions of people
saw their savings and pensions reduced to crumbs."

"Then the IMF and Russian policymakers compounded their
mistakes," Weisbrot explained. "In order to push inflation
down, the authorities slammed on the monetary and fiscal
brakes, bringing about a depression. Privatization was carried
out in a way that enriched a small class of people, while the
average persons income fell by about half within four years."

Meanwhile, Russia kept its economy functioning with an influx
of foreign funds, lent at astronomically high interest rates
because of the strong possibility of default. In 1998, with the
Asian crisis still unfolding and with Russian default seemingly
near, the IMF agreed to a $23 billion loan package to Russia,
seeking to maintain the rubles overvalued exchange rate. An
initial $4.8 billion portion of the loan left the country immediately
[...] some used to pay off foreign lenders, much of it stolen by
Russian politicians.

- IMF versus Russia by Vladimir Shestakov.

http://www.doublestandards.org/sap1.html

Yep, let the greedy barons farm, at least they actually produce food

'The often heard comment (one I once accepted as fact) that
"there are too many people in the world, and overpopulation is
the cause of hunger", can be compared to the same myth that
expounded sixteenth-century England and revived continuously
since.

Through repeated acts of enclosure the peasants were pushed
off the land so that the gentry could make money raising wool
for the new and highly productive power looms. They could
not do this if the peasants were to retain their historic
*entitlement* [emphasis is original] to a share of production
from the land. Massive starvation was the inevitable result of
this expropriation.

There were serious discussions in learned circles about
overpopulation as the cause of this poverty. This was the
accepted reason because a social and intellectual elite were
doing the rationalizing. It was they who controlled the
educational institutions which studied the problem. Naturally
the final conclusions (at least those published) absolved the
wealthy of any responsibility for the plight of the poor. The
absurdity of suggesting that England was then overpopulated
is clear when we realize that "the total population of England
in the sixteenth century was less than in any one of several
present-day English cities."

The hunger in underdeveloped countries today is equally tragic
and absurd. Their European colonizers understood well that
ownership of land gave the owner control over what society
produced. The most powerful simply redistributed the valuable
land titles to themselves, eradicating millennia-old traditions of
common use. Since custom is a form of ownership, the shared
use of land could not be permitted. If ever reestablished, this
ancient practice would reduce the rights of these new owners.
For this reason, much of the land went unused or underused
until the owners could do so profitably. This is the pattern of
land use that characterizes most Third World countries today,
and it is this that generates hunger in the world.

These conquered people are kept in a state of relative
impoverishment. Permitting them any substantial share of the
wealth would negate the historic reason for conquest - namely
plunder. The ongoing role of Third World countries is to be the
supplier of cheap and plentiful raw materials and agricultural
products to the developed world. Nature's wealth was, and is,
being controlled to fulfill the needs of the world's affluent
people. The U.S. is one of the prime beneficiaries of this well-
established system. Our great universities search diligently for
"the answer" to the problem of poverty and hunger. They
invariably find it in "lack of motivation, inadequate or no
education," or some other self-serving excuse. They look at
everything except the cause - the powerful own the world's
social wealth. As a major beneficiary, we have much to gain by
perpetuating the myths of overpopulations, cultural and racial
inferiority, and so forth. The real causes must be kept from
ourselves, as how else can this systematic damaging of others
be squared with what we are taught about democracy, rights,
freedom, and justice?
- J.W. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth: the political
economy of waste, (New World's Press, 1989), pp. 44, 45.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRel...ger/Causes.asp

they have tried the diseases of poverty and weren't happy with them,
so
they
have obviously decided to give the others a go

'The decline in infectious and communicable diseases follows an
increase in, and more equitable distribution of, economic resources.

exactly, and the Chinese aren't worried about it, having tried all the
diseases of poverty they are going to try the diseases of affluence,

Where's all the extra arable land, pasture and grain to come from?

that is your problem,

No. It is a question that you unsurprisingly cannot answer.

the Brazilians have plenty to feed and fuel
themselves, it is you that is going to go short.

Assuming that "I" required food from Brazil, which we don't,
what you are actually acknowledging here, is that an increase in
the consumption of meat in Brazil would take away an essential
component of the world's human population's diet. Way to go.

The chinese are worried,
but they do have a big GM programme

A big GM programme, eh.

'Almost all Argentine soya is GE, and the country is determined
to produce GE soya to feed pigs, cows and chickens in the
developed world. Meanwhile the environment and thousands of
families are suffering the consequences of the GE soya agriculture.
Families are actually being violently forced to leave their lands so
that GE soya can be planted, or suffering from glyphosate
contamination not to mention their crops.

I have witnessed this myself in places like Colonia Loma Senes,
Formosa, in the north region of the country, where people have
lost their crops because the glyphosate chemicals sprayed over
GE soya fields right next to their farms contaminated them.

At this very moment, GE soya production in Argentina has no
limits. Land is being converted into GE soya monoculture,
including the remains of our native forests, which provide the
food and homes of many of our communities. All of this is
being lost forever.

We didn't want the GE industry to grow their crops in the first
place. We don't want GE soya to contaminate the entire world
food supply. We don't want to see our biodiversity and natural
resources, which are the real basis of our own survival,
destroyed by an agricultural industry that has more to do with
mining than farming.
...'
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/ge/archives/001374.html

All this worry, misery, trouble and strife... _for what_??

and plans to build 48 nuclear power
stations which should cut their oil and coal use

Too bad.

'SA solar research eclipses rest of the world
Willem Steenkamp
February 11 2006 at 12:50PM

In a scientific breakthrough that has stunned the world, a team
of South African scientists has developed a revolutionary new,
highly efficient solar power technology that will enable homes
to obtain all their electricity from the sun.

This means high electricity bills and frequent power failures
could soon be a thing of the past.

The unique South African-developed solar panels will make
it possible for houses to become completely self-sufficient
for energy supplies.

The panels are able to generate enough energy to run stoves,
geysers, lights, TVs, fridges, computers - in short all the
mod-cons of the modern house.

Nothing else comes close to the effectiveness of the SA
invention The new technology should be available in
South Africa within a year and through a special converter,
energy can be fed directly into the wiring of existing houses.
New powerful storage units will allow energy storage to
meet demands even in winter. The panels are so efficient
they can operate through a Cape Town winter. while direct
sunlight is ideal for high-energy generation, other daytime
light also generates energy via the panels.
....'
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_i...0132138C184427

I'm sure there are some other alternatives around too.

and
leave the diseases of poverty to those whose countries cannot produce
enough
to eat, like for example, the UK

To eat meat, even though..

'Over 70 per cent of the land in the UK is used for agriculture, and
66 per cent of this is used as permanent pasture (1) while a high
proportion of the remainder is used to grow crops to feed livestock.

already discussed this earlier in the thread.
You cannot grow crops on land that has been converted into flood storage
because too many people live on the flood plain, you cannot grow crops on
land that washes away if you plough it because of the slope, you cannot grow
crops on the land in the north of scotland because the rock or bog is too
cloe to the surface.
remember they have said the UK, so they include the Scottish highlands and
the welsh mountains, look at a map and see how big an area that is

You cannot grow crops on 'pastureland' or on the land being used to
grow feed crops. Free up that land, and there's plenty to go around.

..'
http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/planetonaplate.htm

exactly
All those biofuel plants will produce all sorts of byproducts that
make
excellent animal food. I suppose we could turn maize gluten into
kibble
for
vegetarians, but cattle love it.

Why are those Chinese planners worried then, if that's the case?

Because they might not be able to offer enough meat for a population
demanding it

Bingo.

yep. And the Chinese government is interested in what the Chinese population
wants, it doesn't give a damn what you want

It's the same sad self-serving story as elsewhere.

'The process of agricultural liberalization has had a high
human cost. We examine trends in rural and urban poverty,
and Chinese agricultural output to tell a story that is rarely
told outside China. While we often hear about cheap and
abundant labor in China, we less often hear about appalling
conditions under which these workers labor. Less often yet
do we stop to ask the provenance of these laborers - too
easily is it assumed that the people in the largest country on
earth were merely waiting for the opportunity to work in
low-tech manufacturing industry. Yet the origins of this
large labor force is in the countryside. The transformation
of the agricultural peasantry into a rural and urban labor
force has been one of the most rapid and large-scale in
human history, effectively beginning in 1978. This paper
examines this process of agricultural transformation, and
the continuing difficulties that those who once worked on
the land now face.
...
The period immediately prior to China's WTO accession
saw a decisive policy shift in favor of less government
intervention in agriculture and, with it, a consolidation of a
shift in power to an urban elite largely unconcerned either
with agricultural issues or with the rural communities
dependent on agriculture. While grain trading was partially
deregulated, the government removed itself completely from
management of "non-strategic" agricultural products such
as vegetables, fruits, seafood and livestock. With sales
from producers' surplus grain added in, the share of retail
agricultural commodities sold at market prices increased
from 4% in 1978 to 83% in 1999 with the lion's share of
reductions in subsidies and price supports occurring in
the late 1990s and thereafter. In addition to a steep drop
in soybean import tariffs, the government also eliminated
protective prices for certain "unmarketable" varieties of
rice and wheat at the beginning of 2000. In 2001, markets
in the principal grain-consuming coastal regions were
liberalized. To the extent that they increased the real
incomes of those in rural areas, these policies are to be
commended. But it is not clear that the benefits of
increased incomes are going to China's small-scale farmers.
Consonant with the policies of a country pursuing an agenda
of market liberalization, the Chinese government now
emphasizes the development of local comparative advantage,
encouraging coastal areas to decrease grain production and
invest in technology, high-value horticulture and fish,
increasing capitalization and scale of farming, while reducing
labor requirements. In addition, strict new regulations on
health and quality to put China on par with international
standards, as well as talk among Party officials of more
competitive agro-industries that would "organize tens of
thousands of farmers in massive production", make it clear
that the government intends to reshape agriculture in the 21st
century along export-oriented agri-business lines. In other
words, the economic players who increasingly profit from this
liberalization are large corporations, not traditional farmers.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts that U.S. farm
exports to China will rise $2 billion per year over the current
average. Using several different scenarios, scholars suggest
that grain imports will increase anywhere from 160% to 200%
after the 5-year WTO transition period ends. As imports surge,
a reduction in producer prices and supply will be almost
inevitable. Estimates suggest that the rise in imports will reduce
domestic production of bulk commodities between 2.5% and
7.7%. Though this is a relatively small percentage, it represents
a large loss to peasant families, particularly those who depend
most heavily on agriculture. Besides being more affected by
heavier agricultural competition, households that are more
reliant on farm income also tend to be poorer in general. For
these people, who number about 311.5 million, a few yuan lost
to a small surge in imports could mean the difference between
getting by and starvation. In 2000, the rural per-capita income
was 2253 yuan after taxes, while average living expenditure
was 1670 yuan, leaving just 583 yuan in disposable income
(compared to an urban disposable income of 1282 yuan, or
more than double). Those figures include wealthier farming
households and non-farming households in addition to poor
agricultural households, so we can safely assume that
disposable income is even less for the latter group. Faced
with declining income, poor peasant households may give up
farming altogether and search for non-agricultural employment,
as many millions already have. They are likely, however, to
encounter a number of barriers along the way.

One immediate consequence of migration is that families lose
a form of social security when they leave the land. It provides
basic subsistence and at least some guaranteed income, and
many families stay on their land hoping that the government
may eventually grant them formal landownership. The land
also cannot be sold, only subcontracted, so farmers would
not even have the necessary collateral to buy an urban
residence. Rural migrants also lack access to the same social
entitlements that urban residents enjoy -- such as subsidized
food, health care, education and housing -- thanks to the
continuing rigidity of the hukou system and local regulations
in many cities. Subtract rural family support networks as well,
and the opportunity cost in terms of social security poses a
major hurdle to off-farm migration. More than 25.5 million state
enterprise workers were laid off between 1998 and 2001 alone,
following Zhu Rongji's public promise to solve the problem of
declining state enterprise profitability in three years.

More than mere statistics, the results are evident in labor
protests and complaints that have become increasingly
commonplace and, in the cases of some public immolations,
spectacularly desperate. Between January and June of 1999,
55,244 labor disputes involving a total of more than 230,000
workers were reported, up from just 7,905 disputes in 1994.
In one instance, layoffs at PetroChina, located in Heilongjiang
province and among the country's largest state owned
enterprises, led to one of the biggest protests in years as
roughly 50,000 unemployed workers protested for almost
two consecutive weeks in spring of 2002. The layoffs were
enacted, in part, under investor pressure to boost productivity
in order to remain competitive after joining the WTO. In April
of 2002, it announced a predicted trebling of unemployment
in the next four years; a result, according to the State Council,
of China's post-WTO restructuring. If this prediction is born
out, the result will be a virtually unbroken rise in unemployment
since approximately 1993.

The longer term future for Chinese agriculture is uncertain.
Clearly, those destined to feel the affects most acutely are
those in already vulnerable positions. They are faced with
difficult choices, either to exploit themselves further in rural
areas, or to migrate to urban areas, where jobs are increasingly
scarce. The Chinese government has, however, felt able to
reverse its policies when faced with overwhelming evidence of
social harm. Membership of the WTO makes this considerably
harder to do in agriculture, at least in the short term. Yet, with
increasing levels of social protest, and increasing evidence of
the failure of urban-growth policies, and with a newfound voice
at the WTO, there is some small hope that the Chinese
government may yet intervene to support the livelihoods of
the largest sector of its population. The appointment of
President Hu Jintao to succeed Jiang Zemin earlier in 2003
may yet signal a sea-change in Chinese multilateral economic
policy. China's recent membership of the G21 group of
countries, who opposed the joint EU/U.S. proposals on
agriculture with their demands that the EU and U.S. slash
their effective farm export subsidies at the WTO's Cancún
Ministerial, suggests that China is finding a voice on the
international stage. Such a position bends slightly away from
the post-1978 pro-market trajectory, but given that the G21's
agricultural policies remain export oriented, differing from the
EU and U.S. only in terms of who should open markets and
reduce subsidies first, we may yet want to be suspicious of
the governments commitment to its rural communities.
...'
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/policy/pb9.html

Obviously it
will mean they have less to export to those whinging in Europe who
cannot
be
bothered to grow their own food, but don't moan to me, go on line
to
the
Latin American groups and moan at them

You buy their produce.

No, actually no, not in the last twelve months.

You've quit raising livestock? Go look at a bag of concentrate.

don't lecture me on cattle feed pearl. I don't buy concentrates, I buy
straights, I know the country of origin of each ingredient.

Where's your soya meal from?

duh
don't feed soya

I don't believe you.

Sadly for you, the meat-eating 'wealthy elite' now includes the
massive
majority of the people in these countries, and they are going to
have
their
meat and you are the one who is going to have to pay more for your
food.
They now have three choices
They can eat meat
They can convert grain to fuel
they can sell it to you at an increasingly expensive price

"While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese
and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to
two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people
have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own
country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not
surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets
abroad."

boy you are out of touch

No, webster, you are.

I'm not the one trying to change Chinese and Brazilian food policy by
posting to a UK group, now that is seriously out of touch

Where do your subscribers import soya meal from?

anywhere that produces it cheap,

Two thirds of it comes from Brazil.

but remember rape meal and maize gluten,
both food industry and biofuel byproducts are the important sources of
protein. Soya will be more for pigs and poultry.

Clearly not enough. 389,740 tonnes of soya for the dairy sector alone.
(http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/PGE...ments.01.p df)

work it out on your fingers
The Argentinians stopped exporting beef in 2006 to allow the price at
home
to fall to ensure Argentinians had plenty of beef

SOME Argentinians.

the vast majority, Argentina has a left of centre government

Support your claim of "the vast majority".

look at the election results

How will that tell us what the level of poverty in Argentina is, jim?

'The new poor

Despite being considered the breadbasket of South America, recent
national headlines have highlighted the plight of more than 200,000
children suffering from severe malnutrition in the impoverished
province of Tucumán in the north. Yet, Argentina is the world's
fifth largest exporter of agricultural products, including soybeans
and lemons,

easy done, we'll ban the import of argentinan soya

Brazil .. Argentina. Where is your soya meal imported from?

see above

Uhuh.

Many Argentineans feel that the country has sunk as low as it can
go with little prospect of recovery in the near future. 90% of
Argentina's population live in and around urban areas and the poorest,
a growing number of 'cartoneros', struggle to make a living. Their only
option is to scavenge through the rubbish to sort out recyclable waste,
as even this has increased in value since the collapse of the peso.
..'
http://www.new-agri.co.uk/03-1/countryp.html

get up to date pearl, that is 2003 data, the world is moving on faster
than
you can find web sites

Update us.

already have

An additional $100 million for a population of 38 million?
That'll make it all better, will it? Band-Aid on gangrene.

'Argentina Soya-fication
Brings serious environmental, social and economic problems
by Alberto Lapolla
July 23, 2006
....
A fifth aspect of the problem is that the system produces a
massive loss of labour : four of every 5 real jobs disappear
as a result of the difference in operative time per person per
hectare between the traditional system and the direct sowing
system since the direct sowing-RR soya system requires just
one operative for every 500 hectares.

A sixth aspect linked to the previous one is the destruction
of small businesses. Gardens, wild fruit gathering, bee keeping,
native and artificial grasses and herbs or other cultivation, every
kind of plant is destroyed near the flight paths or other
applications of glyphosate as a result of drift, since it is a total
herbicide. Nor is RR soya profitable on extensions of less than
300, 350 or 500 hectares depending on the region, which means
that small and medium farmers have to lease their land or sell it.

A seventh aspect is the "legal" robbery of ancestral land and
the expulsion of people from the countryside. The direct
sowing-RR soya-glyphosate system makes possible soya-fodder
production in regions and places where before agriculture was
not possible; so ancestral communities or those of limited means
who got by on their lands from family production and gathering
wild fruits are expelled by the mafia-like conspiracy of provincial
and communal authorities, gangster-like legal studies and
investment funds in the service of international financial capital.
They take over enormous extensions of land that some estimates
put at 35 million hectares in foreign hands. This clearly illegitimate
development, doing away with rights written into the national
constitution but not implemented, is bringing violence to the
countryside.

This series of factors entails misery, expulsion and destruction
of family production together with the enrichment of a tiny section
of the population - the country's whole rural population is not
even 10% of the national total - seen in four wheel drive SUVs,
high cost imported machinery, the construction of mansions and
luxury expenses of every kind as well as scarcely legal deals in
the majority of the communities caught up in the soya "business".
All that is compounded by a brutal concentration of land : 6900
family businesses own 49.7% of the country's land. This wealth
of the few joined with the proliferation of hunger and
unemployment among the working population is expressed in the
thousands of welfare plans for heads of household paid out in
small rural communities where unemployment never existed before.

It is good to remember that half the country's population is still
below the poverty line and a quarter is in extreme poverty. One
final point has to do with the dependence of producers vis-a-vis
multinational businesses like Monsanto, owners of the seed
patents which subsume the producer into permanent debt. In
synthesis this genuine environmental, social and economic
catastrophe has been brought about to produce soya-fodder so
industrial countries can produce meat at low cost subsidised by
hunger, unemployment, illness and environmental devastation
for Argentina and the Argentineans.
...
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...m?ItemID=10628

As for Brazilians, their growth forecasts are that as their country
develops
the amount of meat eaten by the local population will increase as they
get
wealthier

They will get wealthier because Brazil is self sufficient in food and
converting a lot of it into energy to reduce its dependence on
imported
oil
They also are developing a pretty good manufacturing industry.
So their population is pretty well guaranteed enough to eat and enough
fuel
to shift the food.

'The developing world hasn't always been hungry. Early explorers
of the 16th and 17th centuries often returned amazed at the huge
amounts of food they saw there. In parts of Africa, for example,
people always had three harvests in storage and no-one went
hungry. The idea of buying and selling food was unheard of.

don't worry, they'll probably go back to it, which is a bit of a sod
because
you are one of the people dependent on imported food

They can't go back to it, as their land is used to meet your demands.

tough isn't it

That's all you have to say? Thought so. Now shift the blame..

You don't fancy a sod busting life as a subsistance peasant and the world
cannot see a reason to sell you food.

It is not *my* diet that requires massive amounts of crops.

not my nightmare kiddy, it is the real world, it is what is happening out
there. They don';t give a damn about you because they are going to get
through it, because they have the food and the fuel.

Many don't, kidder. Those poor you don't give a damn about
because you make money - as the nightmare for them goes on
in the real world - unlike your fantasy-land 'hamburgers for all'.




You on the other hand are the one who is going to have to find a really
convincing reason for them to sell you food. What have you got to offer
that
they cannot produce at home

They're selling you feed even though people are starving.
They do it for money. Just like you. All else be damned.

you still haven't grasped it have you.
Even if you plough everything in the UK that will plough, and to hell with
flooding and massive soil loss through erosian, there still isn't the land
to produce the food, even if we are entirely vegetarian.

Ipse dixit and nonsense. You need to do a course in sustainable farming.

Remember you have
lost half the land to biofuel anyway

Support that claim with evidence.

And you still haven't said why the Brazilians should take food out of their
peoples mouths to give it to you

They absolutely shouldn't, but that's for you meat eaters to answer.

On the other hand, you have to explain exactly what you have to offer
that
means the Brazilians will sell food to you.

Why should they worry about you and your need for soya?

All these interesting imported protein sources beloved of many
vegetarians
are going to become awfully expensive

So it is about time people woke up to the changing world and decided
what
they are going to do about it.

The Brazilians are under no obligation to reduce their standard of
living
for the privilege of selling us food. What have you got to sell them
in
exchange?

It is YOUR need for soya that is driving people off land and
destroying rainforest, farmer jim. Profit before anything else.

OK so what protein sources do you eat.

It is not feeding people that's a problem. It's feeding livestock.

You never will answer this question will you, what protein sources do you
eat

A wide variety of vegetables, leafy greens, fruits, legumes,
seeds and nuts, and some wholegrains. Negligible soya.

remember that I know what is being fed to my cattle and there is no soya.
At
the moment they are all eating byproducts from food production that
people
cannot eat.

BS.


sorry if it doesn't fit in with your bigotted preconceptions but beef cattle
do fine on grass silage, maize gluten and busicit meal, the last a
confectionary waste product

Obviously not enough to go around.

So what protein sources do you eat

and how are you going to convince people to sell them to you

two questions you seem unable to answer

It's not feeding people that's a problem. It's feeding livestock.

A harsh reality which you seem unable to grok.