Recent calls that farmers will have to increase production to meet the needs of a world population rapidly climbing is an excellent example of those who teach be totally out of touch with them to "do."
Our supermarkets and cheap ACQUISITION widely in the Third World, where the vast majority of food shortages binds and Malthus are the main contributors to the fact that the Third World is not enough to eat. In difficult economic times, therefore , the government provides pocket taxpayers untold amounts of money to feed the third world. Meanwhile, in the "first" world consider supermarkets as a customer to please core values, eight different types , sizes and packaging of tomatoes instead of the tomatoes. The same goes for almost every type of product.
What happens next ? Large amounts of these foods - those not chosen by the buyer today - with many new containers em around , end up as waste. Statistically between the accumulation of stock and supermarkets are public Have you seen Unable to resist the Buy One / Two and Get One / Two Free provides 30% of food is wasted. I read that the amount of food thrown in the United States could feed the entire Canadian nation.
And we need to increase production ? Why ? - To help figure of landfill operators ?
I suggest that the benefits of using taxpayers Obviously supermarket, when they pay for their purchases and still invisible in its contribution to foreign aid to feed the hungry Here where there is a shortage of food. A third contribution is paid on your taxes the Council to cover the extension of food and waste disposal costs. What part of the cost on the label is actually the cost of importing all the food is intended to be discarded, and to what extent is the cost of comprehensive treatment and food packaging, and waste ?
If farmers to increase supply , the possibility exists that they are capable of producing their sale at a fair price , without unfair competition from imports - That golden Third World farmers to subsidize ?
Here's a thought : Elsewhere in Europe , retailers are obliged by law to provide containers at its facility , where customers can reduce packaging waste : the retailer is also necessary to recycle this - all things possession . Suddenly this would significantly reduce the burden on local councils , consumers and the poor field if a large part of his costume.
Regarding the first problem - a tax on the volume of two , and packaging of food thrown by retailers mitigate Surely deficit PLUS pleasantly allow street stores holds was to level the playing field , reduce inventory ridiculous excess and waste volumes and ( back to top) , leaving thousands of tons of local products from the third World food for them to eat .
Our supermarkets and cheap ACQUISITION widely in the Third World, where the vast majority of food shortages binds and Malthus are the main contributors to the fact that the Third World is not enough to eat. In difficult economic times, therefore , the government provides pocket taxpayers untold amounts of money to feed the third world. Meanwhile, in the "first" world consider supermarkets as a customer to please core values, eight different types , sizes and packaging of tomatoes instead of the tomatoes. The same goes for almost every type of product.
What happens next ? Large amounts of these foods - those not chosen by the buyer today - with many new containers em around , end up as waste. Statistically between the accumulation of stock and supermarkets are public Have you seen Unable to resist the Buy One / Two and Get One / Two Free provides 30% of food is wasted. I read that the amount of food thrown in the United States could feed the entire Canadian nation.
And we need to increase production ? Why ? - To help figure of landfill operators ?
I suggest that the benefits of using taxpayers Obviously supermarket, when they pay for their purchases and still invisible in its contribution to foreign aid to feed the hungry Here where there is a shortage of food. A third contribution is paid on your taxes the Council to cover the extension of food and waste disposal costs. What part of the cost on the label is actually the cost of importing all the food is intended to be discarded, and to what extent is the cost of comprehensive treatment and food packaging, and waste ?
If farmers to increase supply , the possibility exists that they are capable of producing their sale at a fair price , without unfair competition from imports - That golden Third World farmers to subsidize ?
Here's a thought : Elsewhere in Europe , retailers are obliged by law to provide containers at its facility , where customers can reduce packaging waste : the retailer is also necessary to recycle this - all things possession . Suddenly this would significantly reduce the burden on local councils , consumers and the poor field if a large part of his costume.
Regarding the first problem - a tax on the volume of two , and packaging of food thrown by retailers mitigate Surely deficit PLUS pleasantly allow street stores holds was to level the playing field , reduce inventory ridiculous excess and waste volumes and ( back to top) , leaving thousands of tons of local products from the third World food for them to eat .
Inscription à :
Publier les commentaires (Atom)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire