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

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:

Accelerating protein diversification.
Advancing sustainable production systems.
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.

Award-winning journalist, Alex Newman: "Controlling the food and the energy is the way to control humanity. So when you look at this war on farmers, it seems to me that the intended consequence is total domination of mankind."

"No totalitarian with any sense ever said: 'Hey… pic.twitter.com/nb8EwEPr1R

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) May 27, 2024

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.

Unelected globalists are waging a war on farmers and property rights, under the guise of “saving the planet”. If we don’t resist their agenda, we and our children will be left with no choice but to eat insects and Bill Gates’ lab-grown "meat".

But what is their agenda exactly?… pic.twitter.com/lC4uD1Aac3

— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) October 27, 2023

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.

Up Next

Generous Justin: Trudeau hands out one million raises in four years

Don't Miss

‘Really Astonishing’: Jonathan Turley Says ‘All Of’ Hunter Biden’s Trial ‘Defenses’ Quickly ‘Collapsed’

Todayville

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

Post election report indicates Canadian elections are becoming harder to secure

Health / 3 hours ago

MAiD should not be a response to depression

Business / 3 hours ago

Red tape is killing Canadian housing affordability

Agriculture

In the USA, Food Trumps Green Energy, Wind And Solar

Published on September 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Bonner Cohen

“We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar,” said President Trump in an Aug. 20 post on Truth Social. “The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!”

Trump’s remarks came six weeks after enactment of his One Big Beautiful Bill terminated tax credits for wind and solar projects by the end of 2027.

The Trump administration has also issued a stop-work order for the Revolution Wind project, an industrial-scale offshore wind project 12 miles off the Rhode Island coast that was 80 percent completed. This was followed by an Aug. 29 announcement by the Department of Transportation that it was cutting around $679 million in federal funding for 12 offshore wind farms in 11 states, calling the projects “wasteful.”

Sending an unmistakable message to investors to avoid risking their capital on no-longer-fashionable green energy, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is pulling the plug on a slew of funding programs for wind and solar power.

“Our prime farmland should not be wasted and replaced with green new deal subsidized solar panels,” said Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins on a visit to Tennessee in late August. “We are no longer allowing businesses to use your taxpayer dollars to fund solar projects on prime American farmland, and we will no longer allow solar panels manufactured by foreign adversaries to be used in our USDA-funded projects.”

The White House is putting the squeeze on an industry that can ill-afford to lose the privileges it has enjoyed for so many years. Acknowledging the hesitancy of investors to fund green-energy projects with the looming phaseout of federal subsidies, James Holmes, CEO of Solx, a solar module manufacturer, told The Washington Post, “We’re seeing some paralysis in decision-making in the developer world right now.” He added, “There’s been a pretty significant hit to our industry, but we’ll get through it.”

That may not be easy. According to SolarInsure, a firm that tracks the commercial performance of the domestic solar industry, over 100 solar companies declared bankruptcy or shut down in 2024—a year before the second Trump administration started turning the screws on the industry.

As wind and solar companies confront an increasingly unfavorable commercial and political climate, green energy is also taking a hit from its global financial support network.

The United Nations-backed Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) “has suspended activities, following the departure of numerous financial institutions from its ranks amid political pressure from the Trump administration,” The Wall Street Journal reported. Established in 2021, the NZBA’s 120 banks in 40 countries were a formidable element in global decarbonization schemes, which included support for wind and solar power. Among the U.S. banks that headed for the exits in the aftermath of Trump’s election were JP Morgan, Citi, and Morgan Stanley. They have been joined more recently by European heavyweights HSBC, Barclays, and UBS.

Wind and solar power require a lot of upfront capital, and investors may be having second thoughts about placing their bets on what looks like a losing horse.

“Wind and solar energy are dilute, intermittent, fragile, surface-intensive, transmission-extensive, and government-dependent,” notes Robert Bradley, founder and CEO of the Institute for Energy Research.

Given these inherent disadvantages of wind and solar power, it’s no surprise that the Department of Agriculture is throttling the flow of taxpayer money to solar projects. The USDA’s mission is to “provide leadership on food, agriculture, food, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues….” It is not to help prop up an industry whose best days are behind it.

Effective immediately, wind and solar projects will no longer be eligible for USDA Rural Development Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program. A second USDA energy-related guaranteed loan program, known by the acronym REAP, will henceforth require that wind and solar installations on farms and ranches be “right-sized for their facilities.”

If project applications include ground-mounted solar photovoltaic systems larger than 50 kilowatts or such systems that “cannot document historical energy usage,” they will not be eligible for REAP.

Ending Misallocation Of Resources

“For too long, Washington bureaucrats and foreign adversaries have tried to dictate how we use our land and our resources,” said Republican Rep. Harriot Hagermann of Wyoming. “Taxpayers should never be forced to bankroll green new deal scams that destroy our farmland and undermine our food security.”

Hagermann’s citing of “foreign adversaries” is a clear reference to China, which is by far the world’s leading manufacturer of solar panels, according to the International Energy Agency.

According to a USDA study from 2024, 424,000 acres of rural land were home to wind turbines and solar arrays in 2020. While this – outdated – figure represents less than 0.05 percent of the nearly 900 million acres of farmland in the U.S., the prospect of ever-increasing amounts of farmland being taken out of full-time food production to support part-time energy was enough to persuade USDA that a change of course was in order.

Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

Agriculture

USDA reverses course under Trump, scraps Biden-era “socially disadvantaged” farm rules

Published on August 28, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

The Trump administration’s USDA is pulling back from defending Biden-era farm aid programs that gave preferential treatment based on race and gender. The move aligns with President Trump’s directive to dismantle remaining diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across federal agencies.

Key Details:

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) sued on behalf of dairy farmer Adam Faust, challenging USDA aid programs that favor minorities and women.
Programs under scrutiny include loan guarantees, dairy coverage, and conservation incentives, all of which disadvantaged white male farmers.
USDA issued a final rule eliminating “socially disadvantaged” designations, stating programs must uphold meritocracy, fairness, and equal opportunity.

Diving Deeper:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Trump administration is abandoning its defense of farm aid programs created during the Biden years that granted benefits based on race and gender. In a recent court filing, the USDA declined to defend several programs that civil rights watchdogs argue discriminated against white male farmers.

The litigation was brought forward by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) on behalf of Adam Faust, a Wisconsin dairy farmer. Faust contends that the Biden-era rules violated equal protection principles by privileging minorities and women over others in loan guarantees, dairy margin coverage, and conservation cost-share programs.

Under the loan guarantee program, minority and female farmers could secure up to 95% federal backing on loans, while white male farmers were limited to 90%. This disparity directly affected borrowing power and interest rates. Similarly, the Dairy Margin Coverage Program charged white male farmers a $100 annual fee, while exempting “socially disadvantaged” farmers. In conservation projects, minority and female participants received up to 90% reimbursement for costs, while others received only 75%.

On July 10, the USDA issued a final rule to strike the “socially disadvantaged” designation from its regulations, calling it inconsistent with constitutional principles and with President Trump’s policy objectives. “Moving forward,” the USDA rule stated, “USDA will no longer apply race- or sex-based criteria in its decision-making processes, ensuring that its programs are administered in a manner that upholds the principles of meritocracy, fairness, and equal opportunity for all participants.”

The department noted that while the loan guarantee program will be amended immediately, officials are still reviewing how to apply the new policy to the dairy and conservation programs. The USDA also signaled that its decision “could obviate the need for further litigation,” though WILL has indicated its legal fight will continue.

“This lawsuit served as a much-needed reminder to the USDA that President Trump has ordered the end to all federal DEI programs,” said Dan Lennington, deputy legal counsel at WILL. “There’s more work to be done, but today’s victory gives us a clear path to do even more in the name of equality.”