Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: markomalley

Brita7n is not self sustainable in food?


8 posted on 08/01/2015 6:32:00 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Ive given up on aphostrophys and spell chek on my current device...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Paladin2
Winston Churchill once described England as a nation of shop keepers and a country surrounded by fish which had to import fish; a country blessed with verdant hills and farms which had to import food.

He could be caustic at times and the Brits couldn't wait to vote him out once the war in Europe was won even though the ashes were still smoldering.

12 posted on 08/01/2015 7:12:06 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Paladin2

Britain has never been self-sustainable in food, going back as long as anyone alive today and probably longer.

Yes, a lot longer. According to this article, not as long as the US has been a country.

Britain has not been fully self-sufficient since the eighteenth century. It imported large quantities of wheat, eggs and sugar during the Victorian era, growing an increasingly small proportion of what it ate until World War II, when millions of consumers followed the plea to “dig for victory”. This self-sufficiency trend was immediately reversed after the war ended, however.

Thanks to improvements in agricultural techniques and generous European Union subsidies, British farmers were able to produce 78 per cent of all the food we ate during the first half of the 1980s. It has been in decline since then.


16 posted on 08/01/2015 7:20:56 AM PDT by Flash Bazbeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson