Then, about cheap foods, here is what I tend to guess...
Food is not expensive enough for farmers to live on it with little
land.
There are less and less farmers.
Farmers need a lot of land.
So they need machines, they need to employ people that are eventually underpaid.
The loss would be so important that they preferred to put pesticides.
I want food to be expansive enough so that more people grow and make a living out of it!
I want food to be expansive so that people decide to have their own garden!
I want less intermediates, less traders that make a better living than farmers.
then, another idea I have...
Food was made cheap so that people have money to spend on something else, and so did develop very well industry.
You need hands for the jobs, so you need that some farmers stop growing and migrate to cities.
Governments help agriculture, so that prices can be maintained low enough for people to go on consuming...
Then, all this leads to this fact: less people live of the land, land is sold, and farm land you cannot build on has the lowest price.
Food producing land concentrates little by little in less and less hands.
Then I read 2 things, some time ago, and both make me more afraid of something...
1) I read that some people were buying cheap land in eastern Europe (Poland etc), for producing "industrial organic food", the one that is sold a little cheaper in supermarkets. This is no more fully ecological, as they take some intake from elsewhere in nature, and put it in the land instead of chemicals. It is chemical free in the plate, but this is not
sustainable.
2) In Africa, land is bought as an investment, instead of investing in industry... Why
should land be a better investment, when farmers stop farming? If they were buying only farm land... No, also communal land, where people used to collect medicine, fruits,
wood... and where their animal pasture.
Well, what's about the rule of offer and demand?
Do you think food demand can stop? haha...
How could it happen on earth that it was not farmers who had the power?
I cannot study all the history to search for the precise
answer.
I just know one rule that makes me feel that when more than 50% of the best lands will belong to a sufficient small number of rich people, then the rule will change...
You want to eat? You must pay the price.
And cheap food will be over.
Check out if really some rich people are investing in Agri-lands, and you will smell some uncomfortable smoke....
These are just GUESSES I make, but it is really plausible.
What I do not mean is that there was a big plan about it, I believe it just comes by itself with the logic of the western world.
And I believe some people got the idea that it could be safe to own land, even a lot of land, and a better idea than industrial plants.
And that is terrible to see how many people have no land, and work hard to save money and one day buy their land.
I also know a little about the big landlords of south america, and about land-less farmers.
So, I am very surprised to read such articles that do not go as far.
I am surprised to read about this focus on big companies having a monopole on seeds and the use of hybrids and GMO that limit our liberty to produce food, and nothing about land ownership by "landlords" that get land as you get a factory for producing goods.
i am surprised to read more about seeds concentrating in a few hands than lands concentrating in less and less hands.
Sure, seeds are in less hands than land!
So, one problem is more obvious...
But who knows the percentages and numbers that will come to be a danger?
I do not, but I think there is a problem there, and it started with food being to cheap for people to make a living...
and I think we are co-guilty because we were very happy to be able to buy many nice, useful and comfort bringing goods!
Who but the seller is going to say that he wishes food to be more expansive?
Of
course I mean the basic food before any process.