My main set of assumptions follow a narrative progression:-

1. I assume that, 100 years ago, there were major problems with agriculture, with low yields (leading to occasional human starvation), losses of crops to pests, difficulties with storage of crops, animal diseases, difficulties with harvesting, and so on.
2. These problems are now minor, having been resolved to a very great extent (at least in 'the West') by the industrialisation of food and farming.
3. My hypothesis is that we now have a totally new range of problems with agriculture and food, chiefly caused by the solutions and treatments adopted in solving the first set of problems.
4. There has been, in effect, a 'quantum change' in the food industry. It is now possible for people in Britain to live entirely off foods which either did not exist or were not available 100 years ago.
5. The process of industrialisation has led to a number of reactions - regrets at the loss of 'former country virtues', concern at the effects on 'nature and the environment', concern at food quality and safety.
6. I have assumed in the text that industrialisation (or industrial attitudes) was a major causal factor in the recent outbreaks of animal and human illnesses. This is not proved, but seems to be validated by the government actions - that industrial techniques had 'gone too far' with animal feed and with spinal matter in human food

No doubt there are other assumptions implicit in this study - I would appreciate being informed of these

>----------------------------------------<00(O)00> ----------------------------------------<