I'd say considering we produce for 40 million (at last count) This is objectively false. We produce for profit. Simple as that. We the population subsidize these corporations to use the land as they please. We then get left with what's left over.

Give us the means and we can produce for ourselves. Not hard to grow zucchini. Literally throw seeds in some ground and they sprout up.

Need land and resources and can stop relying on supermarkets.

Obviously plenty of caveats on that way of thinking. However current system isn't fit for purpose. Several individuals get obscenely wealthy while we create health inequalities. Governments are meant to be for the people. Currently that is not the case

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree. Government should be funding as many initiatives as possible. Food should be getting cheaper not more expensive.

Don't think we should ever rely on unpaid workers and volunteers. Really it's a matter of national security. Without a safeguarded food supply the country is at risk. Failing a fundamental human requirement.

[–] liv@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes I agree. It's the basic needs of our population, it should be core govt business.

Without a safeguarded food supply the country is at risk

That part gets complex because international organizations like the WTO and the World Bank really, really hate it when countries are interested in food supply self-sufficiency. It's seen as being "anti-trade" and any country that tries it gets the hard word put on them pretty smartly.

NZ for example produces way more protein (esp dairy) and fruit than our population's collective nutritional needs, and not nearly enough vegetables.

[–] schzztl@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 year ago

Fucked up. It's much more sustainable to rely on locally produced food, but I suppose the show must go on.