Then let people choose how much rice they want to eat instead of subsidizing only rice. Many alternative grains are already part of the culture at every point along the income spectrum. For example, sorghum’s largest producer is Nigeria, with the other large producers being the US, Sudan, Mexico, Ethiopia, and India. Governments can promote these more nutrition and climate friendly grains without forcing anyone to do anything.
I was contrasting it with your claim of “telling people to not eat rice”. Governments can recommend that people not eat as much rice and then simple not put their thumb on the scale.
But now that you mention it, the current effect is that poor people are forced to eat rice. When governments buy up rice and give it to poor people for free, the poor people have little choice but to eat the less nutritious rice. It is similar to how the US subsidizes corn.
You hate the West. I get it. This story is focused on a change that can benefit everyone. The Economist publishes similar stories on Western countries that include policy prescriptions, so it’s hardly “chauvinistic and frankly racist”. And in case you didn’t notice, a lot of people in the West eat plenty of rice, so it applies here as well.
Linked articles showing that extractive western empire is the actual cause of food insecurity, proceeds to defend racist policies promoted by a western propaganda rag as beneficial for everyone. Furthermore, the world already produces far more food than necessary, around half of this food is simply thrown out due to the insane inefficiency of the capitalist system. Rice consumption isn’t an actual problem the world has.
“The Green Revolution of the last century largely increased the world’s capacity to feed itself but now we need a sustainability revolution,” said José Graziano da Silva, Director General, Director General of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), presenting the report with Angel Gurría, Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
"This includes tackling high-input and resource-intensive farming systems that impose a high cost to the environment,” he added, noting the continued degradation of soil, forests, water, air quality and biodiversity.
Hey look, it’s all the stuff The Economist was talking about! Thanks for backing me up.
Once again I’m left wondering if you genuinely have poor reading comprehension or you’re just a troll. I already linked you an article showing how China is currently improving rice farming to make it resource intensive, this is an actual practical way to address problems the article you’re quoting from outlines. What The Economist proposes is nonsense with a whiff of racism. Not surprised that it’s the narrative that you find appealing though.
The Economist recommends switching to new methods and seeds, as I referred to in my summary. It’s tough for many farmers to risk doing so when a failed year from a new method or seed could leave them ruined. Hence why it recommends governments should help insure them during the transition especially. Yup, I didn’t quote every sentence. Sue me.
Then let people choose how much rice they want to eat instead of subsidizing only rice. Many alternative grains are already part of the culture at every point along the income spectrum. For example, sorghum’s largest producer is Nigeria, with the other large producers being the US, Sudan, Mexico, Ethiopia, and India. Governments can promote these more nutrition and climate friendly grains without forcing anyone to do anything.
Who is exactly forcing anybody to do anything?
I was contrasting it with your claim of “telling people to not eat rice”. Governments can recommend that people not eat as much rice and then simple not put their thumb on the scale.
But now that you mention it, the current effect is that poor people are forced to eat rice. When governments buy up rice and give it to poor people for free, the poor people have little choice but to eat the less nutritious rice. It is similar to how the US subsidizes corn.
The actual current effect is that the west is fucking the rest of the world over as usual
You hate the West. I get it. This story is focused on a change that can benefit everyone. The Economist publishes similar stories on Western countries that include policy prescriptions, so it’s hardly “chauvinistic and frankly racist”. And in case you didn’t notice, a lot of people in the West eat plenty of rice, so it applies here as well.
Linked articles showing that extractive western empire is the actual cause of food insecurity, proceeds to defend racist policies promoted by a western propaganda rag as beneficial for everyone. Furthermore, the world already produces far more food than necessary, around half of this food is simply thrown out due to the insane inefficiency of the capitalist system. Rice consumption isn’t an actual problem the world has.
From your second link:
Hey look, it’s all the stuff The Economist was talking about! Thanks for backing me up.
Once again I’m left wondering if you genuinely have poor reading comprehension or you’re just a troll. I already linked you an article showing how China is currently improving rice farming to make it resource intensive, this is an actual practical way to address problems the article you’re quoting from outlines. What The Economist proposes is nonsense with a whiff of racism. Not surprised that it’s the narrative that you find appealing though.
The Economist recommends switching to new methods and seeds, as I referred to in my summary. It’s tough for many farmers to risk doing so when a failed year from a new method or seed could leave them ruined. Hence why it recommends governments should help insure them during the transition especially. Yup, I didn’t quote every sentence. Sue me.