Compulsory Voting

[FlatAssembler]

Well, it depends on what definition of "edible" we are using. Is wild maize edible? I think wild maize is usually considered edible. And it's even more cellulose-rich than the old varieties of maize that farmed animals eat. You do realize that, back in 18th century, humans were eating those old varieties of maize, just like farmed animals, right? And even if we consider those old varieties of maize to be inedible by humans, that maize still has to be grown somewhere... on a land on which new varieties of maize, which contain little cellulose and which people today usually eat, can be grown.

Good god, if you' want to argue the merits of eating animal feed, knock yourself out.  You can have it all.  

Well, grass-fed cows are less of the two evils, but they are still an evil. They emit a lot of methane, and they really require a lot of grass. So much so that grass-fed cows are the biggest reason for deforestation today. And one of the reasons why there is less deforestation now when there are fewer grass-fed cows than a century ago. There are more trees now that we switched from grass-fed to grain-fed cows.

Two more instances of misattributed causation.  Though it is a good use of land from an extraction perspective.  Cattle are a value add (or the lease income for the new "pasture" is - don't even get me started on how deeply interwoven ag and ag speculation is with the global laundromat).  Right behind that, are soy and palm oil.  Behind them, biomass production.  At least with respect to deforestation.  We make all sorts of compromises.  No such thing as a free lunch.  OFC, I personally wouldn't advocate for any extraction model.  Kind of defeats the point of regenerative agriculture, eh?

How exactly? That seems to contradict basic biology. How could trace amounts of antibiotics in food lead to antibiotic resistance? Antibiotics do nothing if they are in trace amounts. You need large amounts of antibiotics to kill non-resistant bacteria and to trigger natural selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

It would seem to contradict basic biology because you don't have a working grasp of basic biology.  That's how..exactly.  Sufficeth to say, trace amounts of antibiotics in billions of tons of product would do very little to help you with your infection - but it could harbor a great deal of antibiotic resistance.  Google it, let wonder lead you to knowledge.  This is why those strong regulations, which to you seemed not to exist, do exist.

I want to make sure I put a fine underline on something.  It doesn't actually matter whether or not you know a goddamned thing about ag, with respect to whether or not compelling you to vote for something you think is abhorrent might be a bad idea.  You could have the most ignorant and uninformed position on the face of this planet, and you're probably at least in the running for that - and it could be just as bad and for all the same reasons to compel you to support something as it would be for a person with even the slightest amount of interest and information on a subject.

Do you have any remotely-reliable source that is claiming that use of antibiotics in plant agriculture is the biggest driver of antibiotic resistance in humans? As far as I understand it, it should have no effect, as no bacteria attack both plants and humans. Even if it does have some effect (by some mechanism that escapes me), it is very little, as only around 0.5% of antibiotics go to plants. To me it seems like you are bombarding me with controversial-at-best claims I cannot evaluate. Present your claims in a form that can be evaluated!