Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Agriculture

WEF report calls on governments to push fake meat products to meet Paris Climate goals

Published

5 months ago

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

The World Economic Forum has urged governments to join in a coordinated effort with corporations to drive consumer behavior change toward lab-grown meats and ‘alternative protein’ sources to ‘decarbonize the global economy.’

The unelected globalists at the World Economic Forum (WEF) call on governments to promote fake meat and other alternative proteins in a coordinated effort to drive “consumer behavior change.”

In a white paper entitled “Creating a Vibrant Food Innovation Ecosystem: How Israel Is Advancing Alternative Proteins Across Sectors,” the authors claim that the push towards alternative proteins requires a global effort of governments and corporations working together to manipulate human behaviour:

Government leadership is needed to develop and promote alternative proteins and address one of the biggest global challenges of this era.

READ: UN chief compares humans who contribute to ‘climate change’ to meteor that allegedly wiped out dinosaurs

According to the report, achieving universally accessible protein will require multiple transition pathways:

  1. Accelerating protein diversification.
  2. Advancing sustainable production systems.
  3. Driving consumer behavior change.

What’s the reason behind the push to drive consumer behavior change towards fake meat and other alternative proteins?

The science is clear: it will be impossible for governments and others, including farmers, the private sector and consumers, to meet their obligations under the Paris Agreement and decarbonize the global economy without investing in sustainable protein diversification pathways and the overall food system.

“Nations around the world are becoming aware of the benefits of prioritizing alternative proteins to meet their climate, biodiversity, food security and public health goals,” the report claims.

However, due to the “high-tech nature” of alternative proteins and their “high capital expenditures (CAPEX) requirement and longer return on investment timelines,” the authors say they “may pose investment challenges for some parts of the private sector.”

This is where the unelected globalists want governments to step in to incentivize, coerce, modify, or otherwise manipulate human behavior, “within current frameworks,” like the ones that gave us COVID lockdowns and vaccine passports.

“Within current frameworks, governments can create clear, supportive, agile and efficient regulatory processes to ensure safe and transparent pathways that instill confidence in consumers and industry players alike, fostering a robust alternative protein market in a shift towards food systems that are more sustainable, secure and just,” the authors claim.

On the flipside, Italy has already banned lab-grown meat, and Wired reports that “States are lining up to outlaw lab-grown meat,” with legislation proposed in Florida, Alabama, Arizona, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

Governments need to consider investing in open-access research and creating private sector incentives to realize the full economic and societal benefits of plant-based and cultivated meat and make these options accessible to all.

Notably absent from the latest WEF report is any mention of the use of insects as an alternative protein, which is something the unelected globalists have been pushing for years.

The current report says that alternative proteins consist of plant-based meat, cultivated meat, and fermented products.

However, the WEF’s White Paper on Alternative Proteins published in January 2019 states that alternative proteins involve “purely plant‑based alternatives, products based on insects and other novel protein sources, and the application of cutting‑edge biotechnology to develop cultured meat [emphasis added].”

Alternative proteins are game-changing agricultural innovations that, with proper levels of support, can help aid planetary and public health.

The official narrative to push fake food on the populace is that it will help tackle challenges in climate change, food security, and planetary health.

The latest report states that “[in] light of the escalating challenges posed by climate change and the need to ensure food security, nations are called on to undertake a collective effort to elevate alternative proteins as a solution.”

But what the alternative protein agenda is really about is destroying independent farmers, taking their land, and controlling what people can eat.

Control the food, control the people.

The same can be said of money and energy, and the unelected globalists are definitely trying to control them all through individual carbon footprint trackers, central bank digital currencies, and alternative proteins:

Countries that strategically adapt to evolving global food systems and diversify their food value chains stand to benefit from the positive impacts of integrating alternative proteins into their national policies.

 

At the same time, the WEF report says that a potential shift to alternative proteins would actually help farmers:

There is a growing acknowledgement that, despite the industry being in its infancy, alternative proteins – meat made from plants, cultivated from animal cells or fermentation-derived meat – have transformative potential, particularly for farmers, who can benefit from and lead the transition towards a thriving alt-protein economy.

Did they really just say that meat is made from plants?

And how is that farmers can possibly benefit from the production of fake food grown in labs?

According to the authors, “Projections indicate a substantial surplus of agricultural side streams, particularly from corn, soy, wheat, sugarcane, barley, rice, canola and tomatoes. Using these for alternative protein production represents a significant opportunity to enhance sustainability and circularity within the food supply chain, optimizing resource use and creating a more resilient agricultural sector.”

In other words, farmers will be coerced, incentivized, or otherwise manipulated into growing only what they are told to grow, so that their crops can be used to produce fake food.

At the same time, “Plant-based and cultivated meat require a small fraction of the land and cause far fewer emissions than industrial animal farming. Freed-up land can be repurposed for biodiversity preservation, reforestation and more ecologically friendly and regenerative methods of animal farming.”

READ: Italy’s parliament bans artificial foods derived from animal ‘cells’

The idea here is to shrink the amount of land needed for farming real food in order to make way for fake food that can be synthetically engineered with “far fewer emissions.”

Climate change policies have morphed into public and planetary health policies, and the unelected globalist solutions are always the same: merge corporation and state to monitor, manipulate, and control human behavior.

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Censorship Industrial Complex / 2 hours ago

Joe Rogan Responds To YouTube Censorship of Trump Interview

Alberta / 3 hours ago

Alberta introduces bill banning sex reassignment surgery on minors

Alberta / 17 hours ago

Alberta court upholds conviction of Pastor Artur Pawlowski for preaching at Freedom Convoy protest

Agriculture

Sweeping ‘pandemic prevention’ bill would give Trudeau government ability to regulate meat production

Published on November 1, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Bill C-293, ‘An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness,’ gives sweeping powers to the federal government in the event of a crisis, including the ability to regulate meat production.

The Trudeau Liberals’ “pandemic prevention and preparedness” bill is set to become law despite concerns raised by Conservative senators that the sweeping powers it gives government, particularly over agriculture, have many concerned.

Bill C-293, or “An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness,” is soon to pass its second reading in the Senate, which all but guarantees it will become law. Last Tuesday in the Senate, Conservative senators’ calls for caution on the bill seemed to fall on deaf ears. 

“Being from Saskatchewan I have heard from many farmers who are very concerned about this bill. Now we hear quite a short second reading speech that doesn’t really address some of those major concerns they have about the promotion of alternative proteins and about the phase-out, as Senator Plett was saying, of some of their very livelihoods,” said Conservative Senator Denise Batters during debate of the bill. 

Batters asked one of the bill’s proponents, Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie, how they will “alleviate those concerns for them other than telling them that they can come to committee, perhaps — if the committee invites them — and have their say there so that they don’t have to worry about their livelihoods being threatened?” 

In response, Mégie replied, “We have to invite the right witnesses and those who will speak about their industry, what they are doing and their concerns. Then we can find solutions with them, and we will do a thorough analysis of the issue. This was done intentionally, and I can provide all these details later. If I shared these details now, I would have to propose solutions myself and I do not have those solutions. I purposely did not present them.” 

Bill C-293 was introduced to the House of Commons in the summer of 2022 by Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. The House later passed the bill in June of 2024 with support from the Liberals and NDP (New Democratic Party), with the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois opposing it.   

Bill C-293 would amend the Department of Health Act to allow the minister of health to appoint a “National pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada to coordinate the activities under the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act.”  

It would also, as reported by LifeSiteNews, allow the government to mandate industry help it in procuring products relevant to “pandemic preparedness, including vaccines, testing equipment and personal protective equipment, and the measures that the Minister of Industry intends to take to address any supply chain gaps identified.”

A close look at this bill shows that, if it becomes law, it would allow the government via officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada, after consulting the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and of Industry and provincial governments, to “regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture.”  

The bill has been blasted by the Alberta government, who warned that it could “mandate the consumption of vegetable proteins by Canadians” as well as allow the “the federal government to tell Canadians what they can eat.” 

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Trudeau government has funded companies that produce food made from bugs. The World Economic Forum, a globalist group with links to the Trudeau government, has as part of its Great Reset agenda the promotion of “alternative” proteins such as insects to replace or minimize the consumption of beef, pork, and other meats that they say have high “carbon” footprints.  

Trudeau’s current environmental goals are in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades, as well as curbing red meat and dairy consumption. 

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Time to End Supply Management

Published on October 30, 2024

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Génie

According to a 2021 report from the Montreal Economic Institute, Canadian families pay up to $600 more per year on dairy products alone due to supply management.

The New Democrats and the Liberals have pledged to tackle inflation, curb price gouging, and address child poverty. Leaders like Jagmeet Singh have railed against corporate greed while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has introduced programs claiming to feed your children.

But despite these announcements, food affordability remains a serious problem in Canada. If our political leaders are truly committed to making nutritious food accessible for all Canadians, they must confront the largely ignored factor: Canada’s supply management system.

Supply Management Hurts Families

Supply management, which governs the production and pricing of dairy, eggs, and poultry in Canada, was designed  to stabilize farmers’ incomes. However, it now acts as an unnecessary burden on consumers, artificially inflating the cost of essential food items. Farmers are given strict quotas on how much they can produce, and sky-high tariffs—often more than 200%—are imposed on imports.

This creates a closed market that keeps prices far higher than in a free-market system. According to a 2021 report from the Montreal Economic Institute, Canadian families pay up to $600 more per year on dairy products alone due to supply management. This is no small sum to households already feeling the pinch.

To put it in perspective, a litre of milk in Canada costs between $1.50-$2.50, compared to USD 1.00 (around $1.35 CAD) in the United States, where such market controls don’t exist. The cost of other staples, such as eggs and chicken, follows the same pattern, with Canadians paying significantly more than their American counterparts.

These artificially high prices disproportionately affect families struggling. As inflation continues to drive up the cost of housing, fuel, and other essentials, paying extra for basic food becomes the tipping point between having three meals a day or skipping meals to cover rent or bills.

The Conservative Opportunity: Free Markets and Family Values

The Conservative Party has historically championed free markets and policies promoting family well-being, but they also support the food cartels.

In a genuinely free market, prices are determined by supply and demand, leading to lower consumer costs and more production efficiency. Ending supply management would achieve both goals.

While Conservatives have long supported free markets, they have been reluctant to challenge supply management, largely due to political concerns in Quebec, where the system is popular among producers. Being pro-trade and supporting supply management are incongruous political positions.

However, with the Conservatives drawing closer to forming government, potentially without significant electoral support from Quebec, now is the time for a strategic shift. Shedding the protectionist policies would be a bold and forward-thinking move to distinguish the party as serious about free markets and family welfare.

It would also send a powerful message to voters across the country, particularly in regions where food insecurity is rising. Conservatives could frame the policy change as a direct effort to reduce food prices, ease the burden on low-income families, and protect Canadian consumers from the high costs supply management imposes.

The Ethical Case: Dumping Food While Canadians Go Hungry

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of supply management is the appalling waste it produces. To keep prices high, in 2023 alone, tens of millions of litres of milk were discarded—wasted food that could have gone to Canadians in need. This is an unconscionable practice in a country where nearly 2 million people rely on food banks to survive. How can wasting food while so many families struggle to afford basic groceries be justified?

This waste flies in the face of compassion and fairness, and contradicts the principles of a free market.

The Bloc Quebecois’ Game

Given that the significant dairy industry in Quebec benefits immensely from supply management, the Bloc Quebecois is seeking to leverage the weakness of the Trudeau minority in exchange for a Bloc bill, Bill C-282, that would shield supply management from future changes.  The Bloc Québécois Bill C-282 wants to amend the Trade and Development Act. Reportedly, it has support from all parties in Parliament.

One of the key setbacks is the restriction supply management places on open market access. It hinders the ability to fully embrace free trade agreements. A primary objectives of Bill C-282 is to prevent the Canadian government from making concessions in international trade agreements that could undermine the supply management system. This is particularly relevant in trade negotiations where foreign countries often seek increased access to Canada’s agricultural markets.

Consequently, this limits the potential for growth in agricultural exports. Central Canada benefits the most from supply management, and although its trade reverberations hurt everyone, they seem to hurt Western producers the most.

A Call to Action for All Parties

For New Democrats and Liberals, the solution to supporting families and children through food affordability lies  in targeting alleged corporate greed and expanding social programs. But if they are serious about addressing child poverty and food insecurity, they would confront supply management. Likewise, for Conservatives, ending supply management is a natural extension of their free-market impetus and commitment to family values.

The time for change is now. Regardless of party, all political leaders should recognize that dismantling supply management would be a direct, meaningful step toward making food more affordable for all Canadians, as well as maximizing agricultural chances to expand Canada’s exports. With the rising cost of living pushing more families into food insecurity, we cannot afford to let outdated policies continue to inflate prices, immorally perpetuate waste, and curtail chances for greater growth in Agrifoods.

Dismantling supply management would offer tangible relief to millions of Canadian consumers, particularly low-income families.  All other parties should start by killing Bill C-282.

Marco Navarro-Génie is the Vice President of Research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Continue Reading

Trending

X