Dannon, General Mills and Cabot have emerged victorious in a legal wrangle over the definition of ‘yogurt’...
|
New research supports significant reductions in sodium from where most Americans are today, but does not justify...
|
The percentage of energy derived from snacks in the American diet has increased from 12% in the...
|
Tony Vernon, CEO of Kraft Foods Inc., says the company will ramp up its revitalizing of iconic...
|
The price differential between Hain Celestial’s brands and mainstream grocery brands will close over time as the...
|
Drug stores, club stores and the foodservice market could be the next big areas of opportunity for...
|
Great idea, but...
This is, in my opinion, a nice idea, as long as it doesn't, like every other 'do good' initiative, lead to mandatory rationing, forced changes in diet, and other abuses of our basic rights.
In the end, however, it isn't going to do any good unless accompanied by population control. We already know that increasing the food supply leads to one specific and completely predictable outcome: population growth, which leads to even greater demands for food, water, energy and living space.
We have tried the experiment of increasing the food supply over 10,000 times, now (once each each year, when the growing season starts, or 20,00 times in those regions where there are two growing seasons), and the results never vary. Wherever settled societies grow food, they always experience a chronic lack of food because the population always outstrips the supply. Until we turn the equation on its head and regulate our population to fit within the existing food parameters, humanity as a whole will never know widespread food security.
Oh, and let's stop the mad gamble with monocropping and GMO's while we're at it. These are dead-end strategies which will only serve to make the inevitable even more painful and difficult to ever try to recover from.
Posted by Jennifer Christiano
19 December 2012 | 01h08