simpleton
You studied this in the "archives", or it's just as usual your brain suddenly locked up around 1960/70.
A source perhaps?
No, I'm kidding, a source from Janic...
That's what you're kidding, but who could be surprised?
Go to the historical archives my dear! Go out a little, there is another world than your poison merchants
dumb
But there are others, interests. In the 19th century, food accounted for 65 to 80% of household budgets. In 1960, it still represented 35%. Today around only 20%.
Quite correct, but in the cities, because in the countryside the rural people provided for their food needs directly and the populations of the cities were more of a minority than now, where people pile up on top of each other in the suburbs. big cities.
If the eco-bobo thinks that the population is ready to triple its food budget to buy so-called "nutrient-rich" food, it's because he's as stupid as I think he is.
The populations you "quote" have reduced their budget only to buy consumer products, encouraged by manufacturers to enrich themselves,
them! (cars, washing machines, smartphone and other gadgets) for petty bourgeois (former serfs and slaves) also killing themselves, really, at jobs to access them. And of course, I am part of it like the rest of the population of the artificially wealthy.
otherwise, no need to triple its budget. With an identical family quotient, I spent either less or equivalent (20 to 35%) to my colleagues by buying only organic. Like what idiots are not where you think, but rather at home!
https://www.coordinationrurale.fr/lactu ... my-century/
Typical example of "rural" cities! A bit of historical reality and a lot of cultural fantasies fed by fertilizer and chemical treatment merchants who triple the cost of adulterated food.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
there is an option is to reduce the dose...