The British pork industry is collapsing, and it's a story that should
serve as a warning to all of us. Why? Because the agents of its demise
have the entire West in their crosshairs.
The numbers are staggering. With a pig herd halved during the last
decade, Britain has gone from producing 110 percent of its domestic
consumption of pork to only 40 percent. This is due to many of the
nation's pig farmers having left the business, and they're poised to be
joined by 100 more this year, which represents "10% of Britain's small
to medium-sized producers," reports the Guardian. Consequently, it's
predicted that domestic production will decline another 20 percent by
Christmas.
Britain's pork farmers' woes have been worsened by the droughts in the
United States, which have increased the cost of feed. But what's the
source of their underlying problems? If you guessed government, go to
the head of the class. As the Financial Times writes, "UK farmers are
part of a global trend as the cost of feed and compliance with welfare
regulations hits suppliers worldwide."
The "regulations" in question are animal-welfare regulations, which have
greatly handicapped British producers because other European Union
nations weren't subject to them; thus, British retailers could obtain
pork more cheaply from those nations. And while this is about to change
-- other EU producers will face compliance with such regulations
beginning in 2013 -- all this does is spread the misery.
And it's already spreading to the United States. The Financial Times
also tells us, "The US Department of Agriculture estimates domestic pork
production will decline by 1.3 percent in 2013 as feed costs put
farmers under pressure."
But why are feed costs rising? Sure, the aforementioned drought is a
proximal cause, but what the articles about Britain's pork woes fail to
mention is the long-cited reason: We've been burning grain to make
biofuel. And aside from giving us, as I understand it, an inefficient
form of energy, this phenomenon is also the result of government
mandates.
Should this continue, there'll be only two possible outcomes: higher
pork prices in the supermarket or pork obtained from places such as
China, a nation notorious for exporting contaminated goods. In either
case, pork consumption will drop. Of course, this is precisely what some
people want.
This threatens to undo a great victory of modern civilization: making
protein -- which has been highly valued historically but often in short
supply -- readily available to the common man. And the larger picture is
even more ominous. If you raise the price of all foods through biofuel
mandates, animal-welfare regulations, and other state intrusion and
couple this with proposed measures making it illegal or difficult to
grow and raise your own food (onerous regulations governing "home
farms"), you have a recipe for government control of the food supply,
diminished dietary quality for the population, and perhaps even famine.
And you don't have to believe in conspiracy to understand how this can
happen. After all, there's a multitude of people who believe in the
global-warming agenda and that using grain-derived fuels is a good
thing. There are vegan fundamentalists who decry the consumption of
animal flesh, radical environmentalists who consider raising livestock a
strain on the ecosystem, animal-rights activists who anthropomorphize
beasts, misanthropes who view humans as a pox upon the planet, and
health Nazis who want to control others' diets. And, of course, these
and other groups overlap. The point is that there's a phalanx of leftist
entities -- whose supporters number in the scores of millions
throughout the West -- that would love to see meat production diminish
and its costs rise. This is similar to the motivation of those who
applaud more expensive gasoline: Raise the price and consumption
declines.
This is why the worldview of those we elect matters. When leaders truly
believe that the secular/animalist agenda outlined above is a moral
imperative, they can say "Let them eat tofu" (the cost of which will
also greatly rise) with the approval of their own consciences. These
people will think nothing of undoing the economic triumph -- that our
forefathers bequeathed to us through centuries of striving -- that has
allowed the common man to enjoy a lifestyle that for most of history was
reserved for the rich. After all, these people are the rich . . . and
the "enlightened" -- the former being their reality, the latter their
perception
Monday, October 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment