Why are Americans so fat? 87 replies

Please wait...

evildude

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

25th August 2003

0 Uploads

4,300 Posts

0 Threads

#81 16 years ago

i would tell you but i'm not going to

P.S i have no clue and americans are fat because they eat alot




Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#82 16 years ago
Originally posted by SpiderGoat: EU: 99.71 million tons vs US: 64.11 million tons in 1998/1999

Does that include Canada? No, but if you add Canadian numbers to that of the US you get 88.11 pretty darn close to the EU's 99.71. Add Mexico's number to that and you get 91.71, and there are still more countries in N. America. Remember those are the projected amounts for 1998/1999, meaning that 'report' was written in '97 and thats still 7 years ago. Does anyone have any newer figures to present? Well it seems though that Canada,the US and Mexico can produce almost the same amount of wheat that the entire EU comprising of more than just three countries.




SpiderGoat

Nel mezzo del cammin

50 XP

5th December 2003

0 Uploads

4,050 Posts

0 Threads

#83 16 years ago
OctovonDoes that include Canada? No, but if you add Canadian numbers to that of the US you get 88.11 pretty darn close to the EU's 99.71. Add Mexico's number to that and you get 91.71, and there are still more countries in N. America. Remember those are the projected amounts for 1998/1999, meaning that 'report' was written in '97 and thats still 7 years ago. Does anyone have any newer figures to present? Well it seems though that Canada,the US and Mexico can produce almost the same amount of wheat that the entire EU comprising of more than just three countries.

Still: the EU produces more wheat, WITH a smaller area of land (17.19 vs 24.50): intensified agriculture. It would be really strange if countries the size of either Canada, or the US couldn't produce almost as much as Europe...

You can search for data yourself ya know...

anywayz:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/agrista/2003/table_en/4121.pdf

EU: 103.9 vs US: 44 + Canada: 15.7= 59.7

+ with the expansion of the EU, the production will rise. (Note that, while the rest is dropping, Europe is rising.)




Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#84 16 years ago

Well ok, I'll agree with you. I wonder what if Canada and the US decided to do some 'intensified agriculture'? We could produce a lot then. The past few years the prairies have had some bad weather, I hope they bouonce back, then again not all of the prairies are wheat, theirs canola, soy, cattle farms, even the odd bison farm.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#85 16 years ago

The USA does not produce as much wheat as we used to because we don't need it. A lot of the wheat we eat is exported from other countries. Simple peanut butter and jelly bread is made over here, but many Americans prefer French breads, ect. When it comes to land useable to create bread however, we have more. We just choose to use it on other foods. If you think about it though, Canada and America are very large countries with a LOT of good, usable land. I don't think producing only wheat is a priority though.




Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#86 16 years ago
If you think about it though, Canada and America are very large countries with a LOT of good, usable land. I don't think producing only wheat is a priority though.

Thats true, Canada is the second largest country on the planet, after Russia, yet Canada only has a population of about 32 million, including myself.




ScOrPY Advanced Member

Advanced Member

50 XP

17th November 2003

0 Uploads

15,582 Posts

0 Threads

#87 16 years ago

woot, an aussie is now CEO of McDonalds, now we can get some aussie flavour into maccas and get fat! ;)




SpiderGoat

Nel mezzo del cammin

50 XP

5th December 2003

0 Uploads

4,050 Posts

0 Threads

#88 16 years ago

OctovonWell ok, I'll agree with you. I wonder what if Canada and the US decided to do some 'intensified agriculture'? We could produce a lot then. The past few years the prairies have had some bad weather, I hope they bouonce back, then again not all of the prairies are wheat, theirs canola, soy, cattle farms, even the odd bison farm.[/QUOTE]

The problem with intensified agriculture is that it requires more machines, and more time. Because of this, it would be impossible for the US/Canada to use this technique on all their land (you simply have too much :)). Still, you can see that it's effective.

[QUOTE=]The USA does not produce as much wheat as we used to because we don't need it. A lot of the wheat we eat is exported from other countries.

Dude, don't you see that that's a problem? The Spaniards, after they conquered Mexico, and other parts of America, had so much gold, that they didn't have to produce anything! Other countries did everything for them. BUT, after they had lost much of their gold, the countries was left completly broke: they didn't have any industry or economy to speak off... It's always better to have a good economy, than to have a lot of money.