alt.energy.renewable

Solar Flare wrote:
> Sugar is food. Food is comprised of nutrients for the human body and
> sugar is one of our prime nutrients. It may not be a good food (one
> lousy nutrient) but still is.
>
> You can't make up definitions to support your arguments. You can try.
>
> "Fran" wrote in message
> news:1a61c702-7e8e-4cfc-a83d-190c8c93cabd@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> No, you missed the point. Sugar is not food. Therefore lands set aside
> for the growing of sugar is not land set aside for raising food. If
> this land is used to raise biofuels, it is not at the expense of land
> used to raise food. So using this land (and any other lands used to
> raise non-foods) can be applied to raise biofuels without affecting
> food prices.
>
>
> Fran
>
>
Yes, telling that sugar is not food is hilarious. in USA many people are
obese, so they would be better of eating less not only sugar, but also
meat, bread, milk, potatoes or any other food. Does it mean that there
is no food production in USA? or should we count only salad and apples
as food?