Nothing wrong with communism fucktard....warlight should just ban you dark night for insane stupidity

You are the stupid at WL you Rep.F*ckt*rd yourself.

Edited 9/11/2015 16:11:47

I did nothing to you h**,what's wrong with you?
What's your prob
you British
snob?

One I'm not a snob......and two, I can't understand what you are typing

http://www.businessinsider.com/insect-eating-wont-solve-world-hunger-2013-5

http://www.fao.org/forestry/edibleinsects/en/ (United Nations)






It seems like 2 billions out of 6-7 billions are eating insects...

Edited 9/11/2015 17:10:43

This is vegetarian but not vegan.And why do they use gallons?-Could you please transform it into liters?-Liters are more often in use than gallons.Gallons is a shitty unit to weight things.Use liters.
1 cubic dezimeter is 1 liter

Its done that way for Americans since they haven't moved on from Middle Age measurements.

I agree with the insect idea, it takes far less space to raise a thousand locusts than it does to raise a cow, supplies more nutrients and uses less man hours too. I support that plan, its completely logical but European squeamishness is its downfall.

Yeah I agree.USA's manner of behaviour is stuck in the middle ages.I agree.

I also agree with the insect idea.It's brilliant.

Edited 9/11/2015 20:28:38

Its done that way for Americans since they haven't moved on from Middle Age measurements.

Actually, the international system has somewhat recently been standardised (in historic outlook); Belarus did not adopt it until 1992. Russia-1918; China-1925; India-1954.

Roughly 5% world population uses archaic English measurements primarily, around the same amount speaks Hindi - should we get rid of Hindi tongue because it's confusing for some folk, and not the sole official tongue of any country?

Edited 9/11/2015 21:05:14

Food can include all kind of things like excrements, fur, molds or insect infestation... FDA regulates those kind of FOOD DEFECTS.

I think the information on this poster is totally misleading and false. It is sure that they are food defects but insects are a small part of the whole. THE FDA controls the maximum level of defects and doesn't ensure that 5% of the food has insects. The second thing is that I wash my food so I should at least remove most defects unless it is canned food. The third thing is that I never saw any insect part in my food. I think it will be rare to find full insects if the food has a defect... Or else, you return the product...

Some sources say it is presently difficult to kill all insects. So some may still be in food.

http://www.thecropsite.com/articles/1242/ozone-kills-insects-in-grain/




Quote :


Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 110.110 allows the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish maximum levels of natural or unavoidable defects in foods for human use that present no health hazard. These "Food Defect Action Levels" listed in this booklet are set on this premise--that they pose no inherent hazard to health.
Poor manufacturing practices may result in enforcement action without regard to the action level. Likewise, the mixing of blending of food with a defect at or above the current defect action level with another lot of the same or another food is not permitted. That practice renders the final food unlawful regardless of the defect level of the finished food.

The FDA set these action levels because it is economically impractical to grow, harvest, or process raw products that are totally free of non-hazardous, naturally occurring, unavoidable defects. Products harmful to consumers are subject to regulatory action whether or not they exceed the action levels.

It is incorrect to assume that because the FDA has an established defect action level for a food commodity, the food manufacturer need only stay just below that level. The defect levels do not represent an average of the defects that occur in any of the products--the averages are actually much lower. The levels represent limits at which FDA will regard the food product "adulterated"; and subject to enforcement action under Section 402(a)(3) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.

As technology improves, the FDA may review and change defect action levels on this list. Also, products may be added to the list. The FDA publishes these revisions as Notices in the Federal Register. It is the responsibility of the user of this booklet to stay current with any changes to this list.

Quote: We shouldn't be feeding cows corn anyway, it is much healthier for them to eat grass and hay. Options to rapidly depopulate the earth are limited without inciting global anger, so I believe that both reducing and changing how we eat meat is the best option humanity has to reduce our impact on the environment. Voluntary sterilization as was mentioned earlier is also good, and needs to be applied to countries that have not yet stabilized their birth rates. Someone said the cows would starve (I hope this is a joke), no the demand for cows and other livestock will be reduced if everyone was to eat meat only once a day or less. As demand for meat dropped off we could use less land to grow inefficient corn and use more of it to grow food humans can eat, or plants like hemp for biofuel and other industrial uses.

The concept of a stable population is not popular in the USA and other developed countries. We are dependent on an ever growing economy and workforce to fund the pyramid scheme of social security. We need to realize that constant economic growth is unsustainable, and adjust those programs and our expectations accordingly. We may stave this off for a few generations by importing migrant workers to keep feeding the machine but this is also unsustainable.

Genocide is a terrible solution, but death will be the result of our reckless growth if we do not take steps to moderate it as a species."

1. As somebody who raises cows for a living I can tell you that corn is way more healthier than grass and hay. Have you seen a cow raised on grass? It looks skinny as hell. Have you ever tasted a cow raised on grass and hay? it takes like garbage.

2. So your solution would make all the cows eat grass... which we need to stop erosion in places like out west. Not only would this increase erosion but it also lead to more run off of cow manure. more cow manure escaping the fields where it would naturally settle and headed downhill would pollute our rivers and streams and cause MORE pollution not less.

3. Voluntary sterlization is already provided in those developing countries, you idiot. its called cutting off your balls for men and cutting your vagina for women. Damn.

4. "The cows would starve" First of all, it is "cattle" you two city idiots. Cows are female cattle and saying that the females would starve and the males wouldn't is just stupid and trollish.

5. With the droughts out west, the feed supplies all across the nation are at all time highs. These supplies are barely feeding our livestock and you think that it can feed Americans instead? No way. That social engineering would never work.

6. Because of these droughts, there isn't enough feed and feed prices are at all time highs. This raises the cost on meat prices in the supermarket.

7. "as demand for meat dropped off". You clearly have no idea about the reality of the situation. Eating meat is part of the American culture. It helps define what America is. To think that you are going to just force everybody to stop eating meat is absurd. It might work in France or Greece but Americans and more importantly American farmers will defend their meat, armed to the teeth with machine-guns, down to the last man, women, and child.

8. "we could use less land to grow inefficient corn and use more of it to grow food humans can eat, or plants like hemp for biofuel and other industrial uses." Im not sure what you mean by lesss land and more inefficient "corn" leads to a surplus. You seriously need to check your math. As for what we would do with this surplus, it would probably not go into biofuel because of the EPA.

9. Constant economic growth IS sustainable though. Due to the innovations in the internet, somebody can work right from home and contribute to the US economy without burning any fossil fuels at all. Somebody can open up a huge retail store, like amazon without a carbon footprint. We also have to realize that places like Luxemburg has incredibly small populations and land but they still are able to produce huge GDPs. Notice how Luxeburg isn't collapsing out of economy instability.

10. Actually research this crap before you post or else some idealist farmer like me will show you no mercy.

1: BS.
2: BS
3: Correct.
4: Correct.
5: Correct,US-Americans should die out.
6: BS.Who needs US-American meat?!
7: Fine,die if you want to,bastards.
8: Idc.
9: Halfway Correct
10: Correct Cruelest,50% of what you said is BS.

European cattle grows up perfectly with grass.Meat from European cattles is yummy.Meat from
American cattle: baaah.
US-Americans should die,this would decrease air pollution about 99%.
And we wouldn't have to feed 300 million(!) mentally ill and abnormous fat and very hungry
people anymore ;)
Also not everyone at this planet profits from a growing economy.
Thanks you very much
Your hero who fights for justice:
Batman
aka
The Dark Knight

Yeah........At least one of them woukd need to die out.
First Choice: USA
2.nd -"-: USA
3.rd -"-: USA

Somewhere at 10001 is China

No need to insults,and no you were right at first.
China and USA cause most of the pollution.More than Eurooe.Maybe you tried to be sarcastic but that's not working good at the internet.Third world countries cause LESS pollution.
Thx Irony you moron(^.^)

Edited 9/13/2015 23:08:05

I assume by 'Third World' you mean 'developing' since 3rd World is a Cold War term for places that weren't definitively capitalist or communist.

Developing countries are polluting more and more, and the rate of pollution is rising disproportionately compared to wealthier states. However, much of this is down to exploitation by Western and Chinese firms in those states who are using the availability of cheap labour and lax regulations to get at resources that wouldn't be financially viable in their own countries.

The rapid rise in pollution from these states is basically in line with what the West went through from the 1920's to the 50's and what China has undertaken since the 70's. The difference is that both of those regions used its own capital to invest in resources and built their own corporations (or nationalised versions) which served to strengthen their governments powers.

The widespread use of FDI in developing states is encouraging governments to be weaker and weaker on regulation causing more and more pollution. Not to mention more political instability.

The developing world, as a whole, pollutes more than either the US or China, but that's a group that includes well over half the worlds population.

Insect farming. That's nice. Not really. I mean, yeah. Not really though.

Nah......USA + China=
2.3 billion peeps(milliardsif you're no englishmen)
And 1.st world surely owns above 1-2 billion together.So 1 billion is too poor,making
2 billion inhabitants of developing countries.
De ergo USA+China is more or at least the same amount.(We've got 7 billion/milliards of people).

Irony,your last comment was totally moonshine.

Dark Night, have you considered killing yourself for the cause of not feeding mentally ill and retarded folk? I hear you support this cause greatly, EU-Europeans should be killed off.