3 ms·
> Destabilizing the base of some critical food chain to get 10% better crop yields seems like a bad idea for us to do. Easy to say when you only spend 10% of y
by jcfrei 8y ago
> Destabilizing the base of some critical food chain to get 10% better crop yields seems like a bad idea for us to do.
Easy to say when you only spend 10% of your income on food. Try to convince the people who have to spend between 30% and 50%.
- coldtea 8y agoThose people still pay the same as always. The food companies pocket the extra margins -- and the seed/pesticide companies ensure a constant market for their wares (which they also patent)... (Add to that that untold tons of perfectly good produce are destroyed every year to keep prices high when production quota are exceeded). Besides, it's not because of lack of money going around the globe that people have to spend between 30% and 50% of their income for food. It's because of lack of distribution of money (i.e. income inequality).
- dzhiurgis 8y agoCompetition brings prices down. Most of produce never gets collected in first place for lack of labourers, not destroyed. Throwing money into fields isn't going to magically produce more food.