"Please don't take this the wrong way. I mostly agree that we eat junk. And I believe that we as a society have to deal with that. But see what I strongly believe in at economic level."

Cool. We can certainly agree on that. 

"Specialization (and division of labour) is not the same thing as central planning." 

Yes, but, also, I'm not talking about central planning, I'm talking about centralization. In the US there are lots only ~8 companies that produce and distribute most of the food people eat. There are only ~5 major meat processing companies. There is also only one FDA, which is one of the biggest problems since it just shouldn't exist and regulates small businesses out of existence with the help of the aforementioned big companies. While I suspect this is coordinated, let's not go into conspiracy and stick with what is. 


"Even if food supply was monopolized (it's clearly not) it doesn't mean central planning. Concurrency is still possible (well that may change in EU soon enough through regulations)." 

The food supply is a few short steps from being effectively monopolized and centralized. More people are waking up to this and there is more resistance, but, power has been ceded for too long and it will be a long struggle to top get people back to having more abundant, healthier, and less expensive food choices 

"better specialization allows the society to be more productive and accumulate capital to raise (more) people from poverty." 

Yes. Except that, again, short term gains are not good. Growing too fast is cancerous, not sustainable. I see the fascistic interplay between the state and the megacorps as the biggest threat, as that is the level of centralization and consolidation that is very dangerous to the future prospects of most humans. 

"Only at that point you can start the demand for better (more expensive) products." 

Agreed, but, I don't like to rush things. 

"That's where the west may be at the moment. That's why you can choose." 

Only if we push back against those that are part of ye satanic pedo death cult that explicitly wish to cull humanity to a small fraction of the current population. 

"However, you can't take cheep food away from the poor. And yes, without processed food and  synthetic fertilizers millions will die of hunger (see what happened on Sri Lanka recently)." 

I agree. However, there's a difference between something like golden rice, which I consider to be one of the best things to come out of the last century, and the GMO corn that is currently engineered to get out lr bodies to produce antibodies to actively destroy sperm cells once ingested. 

"Decentralization as you refer to it is a regression of labour division. And a step to lower production. And inevitebly hunger." 

I would disagree, but only slightly, since, I don't want the world to suddenly move to a new food paradigm. I do want it to transition away from industrial monocropping which is harmful and destructive, not by force, but by choice and by using human ingenuity to overcome any apparent deficits and then exceed previous production. 

"You can't tell if it's better to save on food and live longer or healthier (or whatever) for anybody but you. It's a subjective value." 

Cheap food should always be an option. But, that food shouldn't kill you or prevent you from living a healthy life.