Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, isn't there a contradiction here? You said countries need to protect their agriculture to remain sovereign, which is what the EU is doing. Then you blame the EU for protecting their agriculture. Which is it?
> Wait, isn't there a contradiction here? You said countries need to protect their agriculture to remain sovereign, which is what the EU is doing. Then you blame the EU for protecting their agriculture. Which is it? I get your point. The issue is the hyper-productivism of the EU's agriculture. Public money, e.g. the citizens' money, is used to ensure revenues to farmers. I have no issue with that. But since that mone…
I wish to challenge two things you've said, though.
> The EU could decide to encourage organic farming rather than industrial agriculture based on Monsanto seeds and pesticides. The latter make possible high levels of production, but to a huge cost for biodiversity and even climate dereliction.
I hear alarm bells when I hear people criticizing "Monsanto seeds" and "pesticides". It reminds me of activists who are detached from practical trade-offs or who've bought into woo around GMOs. As if organic pesticides are much better or proven to be much safer? And if they are slightly safer, who is to say the current consideration of trade-offs is wrong? What's wrong with Monsanto seeds?
> Cereals are heavily subsidized and the same dependency is organized to keep Central & South American dependent for basic food.
I am almost certain this is false. It's attributing calculating, conspiratorial malice to forces that can be easily explained by the stock standard self-interested behavior of politicians and an industry lobbying group.