My main set of assumptions follow a narrative progression:-
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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