Of course we didn't have truly free markets over the past 50 years and consumers have not been able to make informed choices (not that they always act rationally). Few politicians change things. Markets are controlled by the wealthy few, with disproportionate power. A man in a suit in London working eight hours a day, who has never planted a seed nor picked a piece of fruit from a bush, can dictate the livlihood of a (subsistence) farmer in South America who grafts hard on the land for 15 hours a day, seven days a week.
I see promising seeds of revolution in the Paleosphere. Maybe not enough to ignite the revolution (Capitalism is eating itself so there is no need for further intervention), but perhaps fuel for the fire. There are too many stories of the sick mending themselves by simple dietary change for 'something' not to tip. What manifests from this dietary change goes against NGOs (heart foundations and cancer charities), against the advice of the medical establishments, against pharmaceutical companies, against governmental advice, against the corrupt research coming out of academia, against corrupt 'official' advice from all corners designed not to help you, but to drive profits.
If you eschew grains and sugar you are hitting BIG multinational conglomerates where it hurts. You are striking at those that fund political parties, stifle research and ultimately control your sickness.
You can further assist in this process by making sensible decisions about what food you buy and where you buy it from - through support of local, sustainable agriculture. We have a lot of political power, but we have to play our own game. The oppressor usually defines the nature of the struggle, but as 'paleo' has shown, we can think alone and independently, and act collectively. Politicians, the super-rich and the multinationals need YOU much more than you need them!
Once you have changed WHAT your put in your mouth, think about WHERE it comes from.
- "While the world as a whole is moving beyond 19th century manufacture, agriculture is still trying frantically to move in to it; still trying to re-enact the process that took Britain, and the rest of the world, in to the Industrial Age at the end of the 18th century. Enlightened agriculture can be seen as post-industrial agriculture: not gratuitously nostalgic as defenders of the status quo tend to insist, but ahead of the game; leap-frogging the 200 years of heavy machinery and pollution that the Industrial Revolution brought to manufacturing. Some wise person observed that we can envisage a post-industrial society, but we cannot envisage a post-agricultural society. Enlightened Agriculture can properly be seen to be modern, for it belongs to the age of biology; while the corporate, highly mechanized, industrially-chemicalized, homogenized, monoculture kind of farming that we are still so frantically being urged to develop can properly be seen as yesterday's news, as crude in its way as the sulphurous hell-holes of the early 19th century that excited the wrath of social reformers...enlightened agriculture emphatically is not retrospective. It should appeal above all to those with a penchant for progress, when progress is sensitively defined.
Enlightened Agriculture has another, perhaps more rigorous, claim to modernity. For millenia, philosophers have drawn parallels between organization of societies and that of living organisms. This is far from foolish, for an organism is a miracle of organisation, with many billions of components combining to form the whole....[as a] 'neural net'....The neural net, in general form, is remarkably like the markets that Adam Smith envisaged...
The natural economic structure of enlightened agriculture is that of the neural net. It is old-fashioned in the sense that it reflects the vision of Adam Smith. But it is also ultra-modern. By contrast, the hierarchical structure of the MICG [monetarized, industrialized, chemicalized and globalized] model - everything run by a few corporations, as Egypt was run by the pharaohs - is grotesquely out of date. Corporations may or may not be useful but society as a whole certainly does not need them..."