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

2 years 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
Energy / 15 mins ago

75 per cent of Canadians support the construction of new pipelines to the East Coast and British Columbia

espionage / 2 hours ago

Carney Floor Crossing Raises Counterintelligence Questions aimed at China, Former Senior Mountie Argues

International / 3 hours ago

Ottawa is still dodging the China interference threat

Agriculture

Why is Canada paying for dairy ‘losses’ during a boom?

Published on December 18, 2025

By

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Sylvain Charlebois

Canadians are told dairy farmers need protection. The newest numbers tell a different story

Every once in a while, someone inside a tightly protected system decides to say the quiet part out loud. That is what Joel Fox, a dairy farmer from the Trenton, Ont., area, did recently in the Ontario Farmer newspaper.

In a candid open letter, Fox questioned why established dairy farmers like himself continue to receive increasingly large government payouts, even though the sector is not shrinking but expanding. For readers less familiar with the system, supply management is the federal framework that controls dairy production through quotas and sets minimum prices to stabilize farmer income.

His piece, titled “We continue to privatize gains, socialize losses,” did not come from an economist or a critic of supply management. It came from someone who benefits from it. Yet his message was unmistakable: the numbers no longer add up.

Fox’s letter marks something we have not seen in years, a rare moment of internal dissent from a system that usually speaks with one voice. It is the first meaningful crack since the viral milk-dumping video by Ontario dairy farmer Jerry Huigen, who filmed himself being forced to dump thousands of litres of perfectly good milk because of quota rules. Huigen’s video exposed contradictions inside supply management, but the system quickly closed ranks until now. Fox has reopened a conversation that has been dormant for far too long.

In his letter, Fox admitted he would cash his latest $14,000 Dairy Direct Payment Program cheque, despite believing the program wastes taxpayer money. The Dairy Direct Payment Program was created to offset supposed losses from trade agreements like the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

During those negotiations, Ottawa promised compensation because the agreements opened a small share of Canada’s dairy market, roughly three to five per cent, to additional foreign imports. The expectation was that this would shrink the domestic market. But those “losses” were only projections based on modelling and assumptions about future erosion in market share. They were predictions, not actual declines in production or demand. In reality, domestic dairy demand has strengthened.

Which raises the obvious question: why are we compensating dairy farmers for producing less when they are, in fact, producing more?

This month, dairy farmers received another one per cent quota increase, on top of several increases totalling four to five per cent in recent years. Quota only goes up when more milk is needed.

If trade deals had actually harmed the sector, quota would be going down, not up. Instead, Canada’s population has grown by nearly six million since 2015, processors have expanded and consumption has held steady. The market is clearly expanding.

Understanding what quota is makes the contradiction clearer. Quota is a government-created financial asset worth $24,000 to $27,000 per kilogram of butterfat. A mid-sized dairy farm may hold about $2.5 million in quota. Over the past few years, cumulative quota increases of five per cent or more have automatically added $120,000 to $135,000 to the value of a typical farm’s quota, entirely free.

Larger farms see even greater windfalls. Across the entire dairy system, these increases represent hundreds of millions of dollars in newly created quota value, likely exceeding $500 million in added wealth, generated not through innovation or productivity but by a regulatory decision.

That wealth is not just theoretical. Farm Credit Canada, a federal Crown corporation, accepts quota as collateral. When quota increases, so does a farmer’s borrowing power. Taxpayers indirectly backstop the loans tied to this government-manufactured asset. The upside flows privately; the risk sits with the public.

Yet despite rising production, rising quota values, rising equity and rising borrowing capacity, Ottawa continues issuing billions in compensation. Between 2019 and 2028, nearly $3 billion will flow to dairy farmers through the Dairy Direct Payment Program. Payments are based on quota holdings, meaning the largest farms receive the largest cheques. New farmers, young farmers and those without quota receive nothing. Established farms collect compensation while their asset values grow.

The rationale for these payments has collapsed. The domestic market did not shrink. Quota did not contract. Production did not fall. The compensation continues only because political promises are easier to maintain than to revisit.

What makes Fox’s letter important is that it comes from someone who gains from the system. When insiders publicly admit the compensation makes no economic sense, policymakers can no longer hide behind familiar scripts. Fox ends his letter with blunt honesty: “These privatized gains and socialized losses may not be good for Canadian taxpayers … but they sure are good for me.”

Canada is not being asked to abandon its dairy sector. It is being asked to face reality. If farmers are producing more, taxpayers should not be compensating them for imaginary declines. If quota values keep rising, Ottawa should not be writing billion-dollar cheques for hypothetical losses.

Fox’s letter is not a complaint; it is an opportunity. If insiders are calling for honesty, policymakers should finally be willing to do the same.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain. 

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Canadians should thank Trump for targeting supply management

Published on December 18, 2025

By

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Gwyn Morgan

Trump is forcing the Canadian government to confront what it has long avoided: an end to supply management

U.S. President Donald Trump’s deeply harmful tariff rampage has put the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) under renewed strain. At the centre of that uncertainty is Canada’s supply management system, an economically costly and politically protected regime Ottawa has long refused to reform.

Supply management uses quotas and fixed prices for milk, eggs and poultry with the intention of matching supply with demand while restricting imports. Producers need quota in order to produce and sell output legally. Given the thousands of farmers spread across the country, combined with the fact that the quotas are specific to milk, eggs, chickens and turkey, the bureaucracy (and number of bureaucrats) required is huge and extremely costly. Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food 2024-25 transfer payments included $4.8 billion for “Supply Management Initiatives.”

The bureaucrats often get it wrong. Canada’s most recent chicken production cycle saw one of the worst supply shortfalls in more than 50 years. Preset quota limits stopped farmers from responding to meet demand, leaving consumers with higher grocery bills for 11th-hour imports. The reality is that accurately predicting demand is impossible.

The dysfunction doesn’t stop with chicken. Egg imports under the shortage allocation program had already topped 14 million dozen by mid-year. Our trading partners are taking full advantage. Chile, for example, is on track to double chicken exports.

The cost to consumers is considerable. Pre-pandemic research estimates the average Canadian family pays $300 to $444 extra for food as a result of supply management. And since, as a share of their income, lower-income Canadians spend three times as much as middle-income Canadians and almost five times as much as upper-income Canadians, the impact on them is proportionally much greater.

It’s no surprise that farmers are anxious to protect their monopoly. In most cases, they have paid hefty sums for their quota. If the price of their product were allowed to fall to free-market levels, the value of their quota would go to zero. In addition, the Dairy Farmers of Canada argue that supply management means “the right amount of food is produced,” producers get a “fair return,” and import restrictions guarantee access to “homegrown food,” all of which is debatable.

All price-fixing systems create problems. Dairy cattle are not machines. A cow’s milk production varies. If a farmer gets more milk than his quota, the excess must be dumped. When governments limit the supply of any item, its value always rises. Dairy quotas, by their very nature, have become a valuable commodity, selling for more than $25,000 per “cow equivalent.” That means a 100-head dairy farm is worth at least $2,500,000 in quota alone, a value that exists only because of the legislated ability to charge higher-than-market prices.

Dairy isn’t the only sector where government-regulated quotas have become very valuable. The West Coast fishery is another. Commercial fishery quotas for salmon and halibut have become valuable commodities worth millions of dollars, completely out of reach for independent fishers, turning them into de facto employees of quota holders.

While of relatively limited national importance, supply management is of major political significance in Quebec. As George Mason University and Montreal Economic Institute economist Vincent Geloso notes, “In 17 ridings provincially, people under supply management are strong enough to change the outcome of the election.”

That brings us back to the upcoming CUSMA negotiations. Under CUSMA, the U.S. gets less than five per cent of Canada’s agricultural products market. Given that President Trump has been a long-standing critic of supply management, especially in dairy, it’s certain to be targeted.

Looking to pre-empt concessions, supply-managed farmer associations lobbied the federal government to pass legislation keeping supply management off the table in any future trade negotiations. This makes voters in those 17 Quebec ridings happy, but it’s certain to enrage Trump, starting the CUSMA negotiations off on a decidedly adversarial note. As Concordia University economist Moshe Lander says: “The government seems willing even to accept tariffs and damage to the Canadian economy rather than put dairy supply management on the table.”

Parliament can pass whatever laws it likes, but Trump has made it clear that ending supply management, especially in dairy, is one of his main goals in the CUSMA review. It’s hard to see how a deal can be made without substantial reform. That will make life difficult for the federal Liberals. But the president will be doing Canadian consumers a big favour.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X