PMWS pork entering food chain

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...


except that they are still eating more and more meat

Some are. Others, many millions, are starving because land that had
supported them sustainably for generations was expropriated by and
for a meat-eating 'wealthy elite'. You ignore it, because -you-
'profit'.

sure, and explain how I profit out of meat production in china?

I didn't say that you profited from meat production in China.

and now explain why more chinese eating meat, many getting a decent diet for
the first time makes them a wealthy elite

".. diseases of affluence are found in the more densely populated
rural areas nearer the seacoast where industrial activity and literacy
rates are higher ..."

'In many developing nations there has been a rapid increase in the
incidence of cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, lung cancer
and a host of other health disorders concomitant with a rise in
economic affluence (Pellett, 1989). In contrast with the
communicable and infectious diseases affecting the rural poor,
the more economically privileged urban sectors in these countries
suffer from a rising prevalence of chronic degenerative diseases
appropriately referred to as 'diseases of misdevelopment' by
Dumont (1989). Not only do these chronic diseases have a
debilitating effect on a productive segment of the active elite but
also the costs of treating these diseases tend to absorb a
disproportionate share of the public health resources in favor of
an already privileged social group. It is therefore of utmost
importance to developing nations to avoid creating a new and
costly pathology soon after emerging from the scourge of
infectious and nutritional deficiency diseases (Pellett, 1989).
...
China has developed a unique system of decentralized planning
which has recently incorporated private initiative in agriculture,
industry, and trade. From the early 1950s to the mid-1970s the
Chinese government had strict control over agricultural
production and trade. It gave priority to staple foods over
preferred foods (legumes, meats, fruits) in order to ensure an
adequate supply of essential grain for all provinces. Until
recently government policy favored direct consumption of
grain over consumption of animal products requiring feedgrains
(Jamison and Piazza, 1987). However, policy has changed
markedly in the last few years. With the consolidation of the
new 'production responsibility system' the government expects
a rapid growth in the livestock sector (World Bank, 1985).
Cattle production will be limited by the carrying capacity of
China's grasslands, which are already overgrazed. Poultry and
pig production are more dependent on the availability of feed
concentrates. Such production has been increasing for the last
ten years, and there is now a concern that it might be necessary
to monitor the consumption of high-animal-fat food to prevent
deleterious effects both economic and nutritional.
....'
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/rep...ll_china2.html

'.. two-thirds of all soybeans and meal imported into the UK came
from Brazil, the primary source of non GM soy in the world.
..
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/PGE...ments.01.p df

'In Central and South America, ever-increasing amounts of land
are being used to grow soya beans and grain for export - to be
used as animal feed.

exactly, because these people are determined to eat more meat.

We're talking about -your- profits here, jimmy.

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.

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."

Pro-trade policies like that of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) promotes export crop production and
suppresses basic food production. Foreign aid from industrialised
countries has supported such free trade and free market policies.
... '
http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...


except that they are still eating more and more meat

Some are. Others, many millions, are starving because land that had
supported them sustainably for generations was expropriated by and
for a meat-eating 'wealthy elite'. You ignore it, because -you-
'profit'.

sure, and explain how I profit out of meat production in china?

I didn't say that you profited from meat production in China.

and now explain why more chinese eating meat, many getting a decent diet
for
the first time makes them a wealthy elite

".. diseases of affluence are found in the more densely populated
rural areas nearer the seacoast where industrial activity and literacy
rates are higher ..."

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

'In Central and South America, ever-increasing amounts of land
are being used to grow soya beans and grain for export - to be
used as animal feed.

exactly, because these people are determined to eat more meat.

We're talking about -your- profits here, jimmy.

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.



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.


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

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
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.
On the other hand, you have to explain exactly what you have to offer that
means the Brazilians will sell food to you.
What can you give them in return?
After all we have seen the Argentinians stop exports because they didn't
have enough for home consumption, perhaps the Brazilians will decide next
year to export no soya because they need it to feed their people and their
livestock
Perhqaps they will decide to cut their soya acreage to what will supply
themselves and instead grow sugar for ethanol. After all 50% of their sugar
already goes in that direction
Why should they worry about you and your need for soya?

Not only that but according to a strategic review of Europe's energy
situation published by the Commission, EU member states will have to meet a
10% target for the amount of transport fuel coming from biofuels by 2020.
This will be part of a legally binding target of 20% of European energy
coming from renewable sources.
This in itself produces interesting knock on effects.

The UK uses about 37.5 million tons a year.

If we were to replace ten percent of this with bio diesel produced from Oil
Seed Rape, one hectare would produce 1.45 tonnes fuel.

Therefore to meet the 10% target will take 2.5 million hectares, which is
just less than half the 5.7 million hectares of arable land we have.

As an aside at this point, all the biofuel currently being produced has the
margarine
manufacturers in a spin because their raw material has shot up in price.
Soon it may be cheaper to use butter than marge.Indeed margarine production
may stop altogether because we haven't enough cheap vegetable oil


Now obviously all that OSR leaves behind alot of excellent rape meal, a fine
feed for livestock, or again I suppose we could blend it with kibble for
vegetarians.

Now we could perhaps increase our arable area but there are problems here.
Much has been lost under urban sprawl, and even more has been damaged by
being used as flood overspill because of urban building on the flood plain.
So much of it is only fit for grazing because they daren't plough it.

Also in many areas they physically cannot plough the land because the soil
isn't suitable or there would be a danger of erosian because of the slopes.



So with limited arable area, increasing demand for biofuel, there is also
the fact that importing food is going to become more expensive.

A Green MEP Caroline Lucas produced a report for the European parliament
which looked at the effects of high oil prices and biofuel on food prices.

If you want to fetch half a kilo (basically a lb for the politically
unreconstructed) of baby carrots in from South Africa, at the lowest
aviation fuel price for the last couple of years, the fuel cost on those
carrots was 9.1pence. At the peak cost fuel hit a couple of months ago the
fuel cost on the same carrots was 22.5p per pound. If Aviation fuel doubles
in price, then it is going to cost 38.2p per pound to fly the carrots into
this country.




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?



Jim Webster

Hey pearl
now you can help subsidise all these nice South Americans you were so
worried about
Now you can revel in the fact that Argentinian soya has gone up and this
money will go to help the poor.

Isn't it nice to know you have such moral suppliers, so reliable and so keen
to serve your interests

Jim Webster
http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/1120074898.htm

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AFX) - Argentina's government unveiled a plan
Thursday to fight inflation on basic consumer foods, saying it would
subsidize some supermarket goods with money raised by a higher export tax on
soybeans.

The move, in a South American farm country that is the world's top soy meal
exporter, triggered protests by farmers and grain exporters.


It was the latest step in inflation-fighting efforts by the government of
President Nestor Kirchner.

Inflation for all 2006 neared 10 percent and Kirchner, a left-leaning member
of the ruling Peronist party now facing an election year, has vowed to keep
prices in check for consumers still recovering from a deep 2001-2002
economic crisis.

Economy Minister Felisa Miceli said the government would raise the tax on
soybeans and soybean products from an existing 24 percent to 27.5 percent.

The added revenue, she said, would go toward subsidies for producers of key
basic foodstuffs.

She said the measure would raise an additional $100 million in the coming
year for the subsidy program for products ranging from wheat flour to dairy,
pork and poultry.

Argentines for 11 years until December 2001 had their peso currency pegged
by law at 1-to-1 with the dollar, but the crisis that year prompted a more
than 70 percent devaluation of the local money and many wages remain badly
eroded.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not
be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

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?



As I have said a long while back the fundemental activities of food
production, housing and defence have been underrewarded compared with the
general employment market.

The wages of plumbers, plasterers and brickies have risen over the last few
years, the army has a severe recruitment problem
and as you observe the foreighner is no longer a reliable supplier of cheap
food.

In any system the tendency is to move towards the average, we live
substantualy above the world average. The industrial revolution brought us
above the average, we are no longer a world industrial innovator.

Buy your HD 42 inch home cinema TV, sitting at home in the dark is all we
will be able to afford soon.

"Hamish" wrote in message
...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

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?



As I have said a long while back the fundemental activities of food
production, housing and defence have been underrewarded compared with the
general employment market.

The wages of plumbers, plasterers and brickies have risen over the last
few years, the army has a severe recruitment problem
and as you observe the foreighner is no longer a reliable supplier of
cheap food.

In any system the tendency is to move towards the average, we live
substantualy above the world average. The industrial revolution brought us
above the average, we are no longer a world industrial innovator.

Buy your HD 42 inch home cinema TV, sitting at home in the dark is all we
will be able to afford soon.


yes, one thing that worries me is that 'banking' is going to see us through.

UK citizen wanting to buy food
Brazilian wondering if he needs to sell it

Brazilian. What can you give me for this food
UK We can supply you with banking
Brazilian Banking?
UK Yes, we have a large branch network, a few wizz kids in the city and a
lot of call centres in India, and now Brazil
Brazilian We have our own branch network, our own call centres, and if we
need wizz kids then we'll pay them slightly more than you do and they can
live in nice houses in a nice climate and not in your squalid cities with
substandard schools and health service.

Somehow I cannot imagine the Brazilians giving us food for banking

Jim Webster

"Hamish" wrote in message
...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

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?



As I have said a long while back the fundemental activities of food
production, housing and defence have been underrewarded compared with the
general employment market.

The wages of plumbers, plasterers and brickies have risen over the last
few years, the army has a severe recruitment problem
and as you observe the foreighner is no longer a reliable supplier of
cheap food.

In any system the tendency is to move towards the average, we live
substantualy above the world average. The industrial revolution brought us
above the average, we are no longer a world industrial innovator.

Buy your HD 42 inch home cinema TV, sitting at home in the dark is all we
will be able to afford soon.




Why the bloody hell don't you restrict the posting to the group you read it
in, stop crossposting all this rubbish

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

Why the bloody hell don't you restrict the posting to the group you read
it in, stop crossposting all this rubbish

The world needs my thoughts

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...


except that they are still eating more and more meat

Some are. Others, many millions, are starving because land that had
supported them sustainably for generations was expropriated by and
for a meat-eating 'wealthy elite'. You ignore it, because -you- 'profit'.

sure, and explain how I profit out of meat production in china?

I didn't say that you profited from meat production in China.

and now explain why more chinese eating meat, many getting a decent diet
for
the first time makes them a wealthy elite

".. diseases of affluence are found in the more densely populated
rural areas nearer the seacoast where industrial activity and literacy
rates are higher ..."

don't tell me, tell the Chinese,

You asked me why eating meat makes them a wealthy elite. Clearly
those in wealthier, more industrial counties can afford to buy meat.
(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.

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.
An extensive investigation of mortality rate trends in England and
Wales in the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries
(McKeown and Record, 1955; McKeown and Record, 1962;
McKeown et aL, 1975) indicates that the nineteenth century decline
in mortality rates for the most prevalent infectious diseases was
wholly attributable to environmental control, not to intervention
with curative medicines and vaccines.
...
In contrast with the communicable and infectious diseases affecting
the rural poor, the more economically privileged urban sectors in
these countries suffer from a rising prevalence of chronic degenerative
diseases appropriately referred to as 'diseases of misdevelopment' by
Dumont (1989)
...'
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/rep...ll_china2.html

"misdevelopment", jim.

'In Central and South America, ever-increasing amounts of land
are being used to grow soya beans and grain for export - to be
used as animal feed.

exactly, because these people are determined to eat more meat.

We're talking about -your- profits here, jimmy.

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?

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.

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.

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 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, which Tucumán produces in large quantities. Ironically
the current economic crisis has made exporters wealthier as exports
are priced in dollars and, despite export taxes, farmers are finding it
more profitable to export than to sell to domestic markets. As a
result, local food prices have soared, by over two-thirds in twelve
months, and much of the food produced is now beyond the reach
of the poor.

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

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.
...
It is common for people to be thrown off the land, often going to
the towns where there is little other work. About 160,000 people
move from rural areas to cities every day (5). Many migrants are
forced to settle in shanty towns and squatter settlements.
...
The sad irony is that the world produces more than enough plant
food to meet the needs of all its six billion people. If people used
land to grow crops to feed themselves, rather than feeding crops
to animals, then there would be enough to provide everyone with
the average of 2360 Kcal (calories) needed for good health (7).

If everyone were to take 25 per cent of their calories from animal
protein then the planet could sustain only three billion people (8).
In simple, brutal terms, if we were all to imitate the average North
American diet, we would only be able to feed half the world's
population.
...'
http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/feedtheworld.htm

Bottom line, jim. There simply aren't adequate resources to
sustain your hideous nightmare. The destruction must stop.

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.

'As the market responds to money and not to actual need, it can
only work to eliminate hunger when purchasing power is widely
dispersed, says the book. As the rural poor are increasingly
pushed from land, they are less and less able to demand for food
on the market. Promoting free trade to alleviate hunger has
proven to be a failure. In most developing countries exports have
boomed while hunger has continued unabated or actually worsened
according to the book.

"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."

Pro-trade policies like that of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) promotes export crop production and suppresses
basic food production. Foreign aid from industrialised countries
has supported such free trade and free market policies.
...'
http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in
message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...


except that they are still eating more and more meat

Some are. Others, many millions, are starving because land that
had
supported them sustainably for generations was expropriated by
and
for a meat-eating 'wealthy elite'. You ignore it, because -you-
'profit'.

sure, and explain how I profit out of meat production in china?

I didn't say that you profited from meat production in China.

and now explain why more chinese eating meat, many getting a decent
diet
for
the first time makes them a wealthy elite

".. diseases of affluence are found in the more densely populated
rural areas nearer the seacoast where industrial activity and literacy
rates are higher ..."

don't tell me, tell the Chinese,

You asked me why eating meat makes them a wealthy elite. Clearly
those in wealthier, more industrial counties can afford to buy meat.
(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.

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.
An extensive investigation of mortality rate trends in England and
Wales in the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries
(McKeown and Record, 1955; McKeown and Record, 1962;
McKeown et aL, 1975) indicates that the nineteenth century decline
in mortality rates for the most prevalent infectious diseases was
wholly attributable to environmental control, not to intervention
with curative medicines and vaccines.
..
In contrast with the communicable and infectious diseases affecting
the rural poor, the more economically privileged urban sectors in
these countries suffer from a rising prevalence of chronic degenerative
diseases appropriately referred to as 'diseases of misdevelopment' by
Dumont (1989)
..'
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/rep...ll_china2.html

"misdevelopment", jim.

'In Central and South America, ever-increasing amounts of land
are being used to grow soya beans and grain for export - to be
used as animal feed.

exactly, because these people are determined to eat more meat.

We're talking about -your- profits here, jimmy.

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?

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.

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.

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 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, which Tucumán produces in large quantities. Ironically
the current economic crisis has made exporters wealthier as exports
are priced in dollars and, despite export taxes, farmers are finding it
more profitable to export than to sell to domestic markets. As a
result, local food prices have soared, by over two-thirds in twelve
months, and much of the food produced is now beyond the reach
of the poor.

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

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.
..
It is common for people to be thrown off the land, often going to
the towns where there is little other work. About 160,000 people
move from rural areas to cities every day (5). Many migrants are
forced to settle in shanty towns and squatter settlements.
..
The sad irony is that the world produces more than enough plant
food to meet the needs of all its six billion people. If people used
land to grow crops to feed themselves, rather than feeding crops
to animals, then there would be enough to provide everyone with
the average of 2360 Kcal (calories) needed for good health (7).

If everyone were to take 25 per cent of their calories from animal
protein then the planet could sustain only three billion people (8).
In simple, brutal terms, if we were all to imitate the average North
American diet, we would only be able to feed half the world's
population.
..'
http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/feedtheworld.htm

Bottom line, jim. There simply aren't adequate resources to
sustain your hideous nightmare. The destruction must stop.

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.

'As the market responds to money and not to actual need, it can
only work to eliminate hunger when purchasing power is widely
dispersed, says the book. As the rural poor are increasingly
pushed from land, they are less and less able to demand for food
on the market. Promoting free trade to alleviate hunger has
proven to be a failure. In most developing countries exports have
boomed while hunger has continued unabated or actually worsened
according to the book.

"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."

Pro-trade policies like that of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) promotes export crop production and suppresses
basic food production. Foreign aid from industrialised countries
has supported such free trade and free market policies.
..'
http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm




Why the bloody hell don't you restrict the posting to the group you read it
in, stop crossposting all this rubbish

Alan Holmes wrote:
"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in
message
...
"pearl" wrote in message
...

except that they are still eating more and more meat
Some are. Others, many millions, are starving because land that
had
supported them sustainably for generations was expropriated by
and
for a meat-eating 'wealthy elite'. You ignore it, because -you-
'profit'.
sure, and explain how I profit out of meat production in china?
I didn't say that you profited from meat production in China.
and now explain why more chinese eating meat, many getting a decent
diet
for
the first time makes them a wealthy elite
".. diseases of affluence are found in the more densely populated
rural areas nearer the seacoast where industrial activity and literacy
rates are higher ..."
don't tell me, tell the Chinese,
You asked me why eating meat makes them a wealthy elite. Clearly
those in wealthier, more industrial counties can afford to buy meat.
(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.

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.
An extensive investigation of mortality rate trends in England and
Wales in the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries
(McKeown and Record, 1955; McKeown and Record, 1962;
McKeown et aL, 1975) indicates that the nineteenth century decline
in mortality rates for the most prevalent infectious diseases was
wholly attributable to environmental control, not to intervention
with curative medicines and vaccines.
..
In contrast with the communicable and infectious diseases affecting
the rural poor, the more economically privileged urban sectors in
these countries suffer from a rising prevalence of chronic degenerative
diseases appropriately referred to as 'diseases of misdevelopment' by
Dumont (1989)
..'
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/rep...ll_china2.html

"misdevelopment", jim.

'In Central and South America, ever-increasing amounts of land
are being used to grow soya beans and grain for export - to be
used as animal feed.
exactly, because these people are determined to eat more meat.
We're talking about -your- profits here, jimmy.
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?

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.

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.

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 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, which Tucumán produces in large quantities. Ironically
the current economic crisis has made exporters wealthier as exports
are priced in dollars and, despite export taxes, farmers are finding it
more profitable to export than to sell to domestic markets. As a
result, local food prices have soared, by over two-thirds in twelve
months, and much of the food produced is now beyond the reach
of the poor.

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

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.
..
It is common for people to be thrown off the land, often going to
the towns where there is little other work. About 160,000 people
move from rural areas to cities every day (5). Many migrants are
forced to settle in shanty towns and squatter settlements.
..
The sad irony is that the world produces more than enough plant
food to meet the needs of all its six billion people. If people used
land to grow crops to feed themselves, rather than feeding crops
to animals, then there would be enough to provide everyone with
the average of 2360 Kcal (calories) needed for good health (7).

If everyone were to take 25 per cent of their calories from animal
protein then the planet could sustain only three billion people (8).
In simple, brutal terms, if we were all to imitate the average North
American diet, we would only be able to feed half the world's
population.
..'
http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/feedtheworld.htm

Bottom line, jim. There simply aren't adequate resources to
sustain your hideous nightmare. The destruction must stop.

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.

'As the market responds to money and not to actual need, it can
only work to eliminate hunger when purchasing power is widely
dispersed, says the book. As the rural poor are increasingly
pushed from land, they are less and less able to demand for food
on the market. Promoting free trade to alleviate hunger has
proven to be a failure. In most developing countries exports have
boomed while hunger has continued unabated or actually worsened
according to the book.

"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."

Pro-trade policies like that of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) promotes export crop production and suppresses
basic food production. Foreign aid from industrialised countries
has supported such free trade and free market policies.
..'
http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm




Why the bloody hell don't you restrict the posting to the group you read it
in, stop crossposting all this rubbish

Why the bloody hell don't you snip


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]