Agriculture
Glimpse into the Future of Food
From the Brownstone Institute
By
Is your food making you sick?
Suddenly, the fact that food is making us sick, really sick, has gained a lot of attention.
When Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced he would suspend his presidential campaign and campaign for President Trump on August 23, both he and Trump spoke about the need to improve the food supply to regain America’s health.
The same week, Tucker Carlson interviewed the sister-brother team of Casey and Calley Means, coauthors of the #1 New York Times bestseller Good Energy: The Surprising Connection Between Metabolism and Limitless Health. Their thesis, borne out by thousands of medical research studies, is that food can make us very healthy or very sick. The grocery store choices many Americans have made have led us to unprecedented levels of diabetes, obesity, and other metabolic and neurologic diseases that prematurely weaken and age us, our organs, and our arteries.
There is a whole lot wrong with our available food.
- Chemical fertilizers have led to abusing the soil, and consequently, soils became depleted of micronutrients. Unsurprisingly, foods grown in them are now lacking those nutrients.
- Pesticides and herbicides harm humans, as well as bugs and weeds.
- Some experts say we need to take supplements now because we can’t get what we need from our foods anymore.
- Subsidies for wheat, corn, and soybean exceed $5 billion annually in cash plus many other forms of support, exceeding $100 billion since 1995, resulting in vast overproduction and centralization.
- We are practically living on overprocessed junk made of sugar, salt, wheat, and seed oils.
And that is just the start. The problem could have been predicted. Food companies grew bigger and bigger, until they achieved virtual monopolies. In order to compete, they had to use the cheapest ingredients. When the few companies left standing banded together, we got industry capture of the agencies that regulated their businesses, turning regulation on its head.
Consolidation in the Meat Industry
Then the regulators issued rules that advantaged the big guys, and disadvantaged the small guys. But it was the small guys who were producing the highest quality food, in most cases. Most of them had to sell out and find something else to do. It simply became uneconomic to be a farmer.
The farmers and ranchers that were left often became the equivalent of serfs on their own land.
Did you know:
- “Ninety-seven percent of the chicken Americans eat is produced by a farmer under contract with a big chicken company. These chicken farmers are the last independent link in an otherwise completely vertically integrated, company-owned supply chain.”
- “Corporate consolidation is at the root of many of the structural ills of our food system. When corporations have the ability to dictate terms to farmers, farmers lose. Corporations place the burden of financial liability on farmers, dictate details of far.”
- ” Corporations also consolidate ownership of the other steps of the supply chain that farmers depend on — inputs, processing, distribution, and marketing — leaving farmers few options but to deal with an entity against which they have effectively no voice or bargaining power.”
When profitability alone, whether assisted by policy or not, determines which companies succeed and which fail, cutting corners is a necessity for American businesses — unless you have a niche food business, or are able to sell directly to consumers. This simple fact inevitably led to a race to the bottom for quality.
Look at the world’s ten largest food companies. Their sales are enormous, but should we really be consuming their products?

Perhaps the regulators could have avoided the debasement of the food supply. But they didn’t.
And now it has become a truism that Americans have the worst diet in the world.
Could food shortages be looming?
If it seems like the US, blessed with abundant natural resources, could never suffer a food shortage, think again. Did you know that while the US is the world’s largest food exporter, in 2023 the US imported more food than we exported?

Cows are under attack, allegedly because their belching methane contributes to climate change. Holland has said it must get rid of 30-50% of its cows. Ireland and Canada are also preparing to reduce the number of their cows, using the same justification.
In the US, the number of cows being raised has gradually lessened, so that now we have the same number of cows that were being raised in 1951 — but the population has increased by 125% since then. We have more than double the people, but the same number of cows. What!? Much of our beef comes from Brazil.
Pigs and chickens are now mostly raised indoors. Their industries are already consolidated to the max. But cows and other ungulates graze for most of their life, and so the beef industry has been unable to be consolidated in the same way.
But consolidation is happening instead in the slaughterhouses because you cannot process beef without a USDA inspector in a USDA-approved facility — and the number of these facilities has been dropping, as have the number of cows they can handle. Four companies now process over 80% of US beef. And that is how the ranchers are being squeezed.
Meanwhile, efforts are afoot to reduce available farmland for both planting crops and grazing animals. Bill Gates is now the #1 owner of US farmland, much of which lies fallow. Solar farms are covering land that used to grow crops — a practice recently outlawed in Italy. Plans are afoot to impose new restrictions on how land that is under conservation easements can be used.
Brave New Food
That isn’t all. The World Economic Forum, along with many governments and multinational agencies, wants to redesign our food supply. So-called plant-based meats, lab-grown meats, “synbio” products, insect protein, and other totally new foods are to replace much of the real meat people enjoy — potentially leading to even greater consolidation of food production. This would allow “rewilding” of grazing areas, allowing them to return to their natural state and, it is claimed, this would be kinder to the planet. But would it?
Much of the land used for grazing is unsuitable for growing crops or for other purposes. The manure of the animals grazing on it replenishes soil nutrients and contributes to the soil microbiome and plant growth. “Rewilding” may in fact lead to the loss of what topsoil is there and desertification of many grazing areas.
Of course, transitioning the food supply to mostly foods coming from factories is a crazy idea, because how can you make a major change in what people eat and expect it to be good for them? What micronutrients are you missing? What will the new chemicals, or newly designed proteins, or even computer-designed DNA (that will inevitably be present in these novel foods) do to us over time? What will companies be feeding the insects they farm, when food production is governed by ever cheaper inputs?
It gets worse. Real food production, by gardeners and small farmers or homesteaders, is decentralized. It cannot be controlled. Until the last 150 years, almost everyone fed themselves from food they caught, gathered, or grew.
But if food comes mainly from factories, access can be cut off. Supply chains can break down. You can be priced out of buying it. Or it could make you sick, and it might take years or generations before the source of the problem is identified. How long has it taken us to figure out that overprocessed foods are a slow poison?
There are some very big problems brewing in the food realm. Whether we like it or not, powerful forces are moving us into the Great Reset, threatening our diet in new ways, ways that most of us never dreamed of.
Identifying the Problems and Solutions
But we can get on top of what is happening, learn what we need to, and we can resist. That’s why Door to Freedom and Children’s Health Defense have unpacked all of these problems and identified possible solutions.
During a jam-packed two-day online symposium, you will learn about all facets of the attack on food, and how to resist. This is an entirely free event, with a fantastic lineup of speakers and topics. Grab a pad and pencil, because you will definitely want to take notes!
The Attack on Food and Farmers, and How to Fight Back premieres on September 6 and 7. It will remain on our channels for later viewing and sharing as well. By the end of Day 2, you will know what actions to take, both in your own backyard, and in the halls of your legislatures to create a healthier, tastier, safer, and more secure food supply.
See below for a summary and for the complete program.







Agriculture
Bovaer Backlash Update: Danish Farmers Get Green Light to Opt Out as UK Arla Trial Abruptly Ends!
In a pivotal shift, Denmark’s Veterinary and Food Administration has issued new guidance: Farmers can immediately suspend Bovaer administration if they “suspect” it poses risks to herd health. On the heels of the Danish announcement—the major UK trial of Bovaer on 30 Arla Foods farms has abruptly ended amid health fears.
The Mandate Cracks: Farmers Given the Green Light to Opt Out
On November 5, 2025, Denmark’s Fødevarestyrelsen (Danish Veterinary and Food Administration) issued a press release and accompanying guidance clarified that farmers (specifically the herd manager, or besætningsansvarlige) could immediately exempt individual cows or entire herds from the mandatory Bovaer use if they suspected it was causing or exacerbating health issues, prioritizing animal welfare under existing regulations.
Sonia Elijah investigates is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This was in response to surging reports of cow illnesses since October 1, where farms with over 50 cows have been mandated to use the synthetic additive, Bovaer (containing 3-nitrooxypropanol), developed by DSM-Firmenich. If the farms do not comply, they face heavy fines.
Bovaer Backlash: Danish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive |
||||||
|
||||||
| Article updated: November 4 | ||||||
|
The guidance emphasized that exemptions apply to cases of feed-related metabolic disorders (e.g., fatty liver, milk fever, or rumen issues) and require documentation via a “tro- og loveerklæring” (declaration of good faith) on LandbrugsInfo, with veterinary consultation recommended for severe cases. No fines would apply for such welfare-based pauses, though farmers must still meet methane reduction goals via alternatives like increased feed fat. This effectively gave the “green light” for opting out on welfare grounds.
Reports surged of Danish dairy farmers unilaterally halting Bovaer administration, accusing the government of “poisoning” livestock to meet climate targets.
A November 3, 2025, article in LandbrugsAvisen (Denmark’s leading agricultural newspaper), quoted veterinarian Torben Bennedsgaard from BoviCura (a specialized cattle health advisory service closely tied to Danish dairy producers). He stated: “Every other farmer has problems with Bovaer.”
“Bovaer is a proven, effective and safe solution”
A spokesperson for DSM-Firmenich, the company that developed Bovaer, told Agriland, that “animal welfare is our highest priority”. They went on to state: “We are actively engaging with the relevant organisations to ensure that all these concerns are fully investigated and properly addressed..In previously reported cases, Bovaer was not identified as a contributing factor to the health concerns raised…Bovaer is a proven, effective and safe solution that has been successfully used for over three years by thousands of farmers in over 25 countries.”
UK Ripple Effects: Arla Trial Abruptly Halted
On 7 November, the BBC reported that the major UK trial of Bovaer on 30 Arla Foods farms concluded earlier than planned amid “farmer health concerns” for cows, echoing Danish reports. It stated: ‘Bovaer is now the focus of an investigation in Denmark after farmers raised fresh concerns but manufacturer DSM-Firmenich said the additive was “proven, effective and safe.”’
Arla, which supplies major retailers like Tesco and Aldi, is now reviewing data before deciding on wider rollout. The trial aimed to cut methane by 30% but faced criticism for lacking transparency on animal impact.
Jannik Elmegaard, of the Danish Food and Veterinary Administration, told the BBC: “They very aware that some herd owners have reported animals showing signs of illness after being fed with Bovaer” but it was “unclear how many cows were affected”.
Last year, I reported on the UK’s Arla trial—whilst digging through various safety assessment reports on Bovaer, I came across several troubling findings and anomalies.
BREAKING: Methane-Reducing Feed Additive Trialled in Arla Dairy Farms |
||||||
|
||||||
| On November 26th, Arla Foods Ltd. announced via social media their collaboration with major UK supermarkets like Tesco, Aldi, and Morrisons to trial Bovaer, a feed additive, aiming to reduce methane … | ||||||
|
In a public rebuttal, Frank Mitloehner, Professor of Animal Science at UC Davis and Director of the Clarify Center for Enteric Fermentation Research, posted on X ”Hogwash!”—dismissing viral claims of Bovaer-related cow health issues in Denmark by highlighting his lab’s ongoing research and widespread U.S. usage data.
The green light in Denmark is not a mere victory—it’s a damning admission that the emperor’s new feed has holes big enough for a whole herd to escape through.
As Arla licks its wounds and DSM-Firmenich doubles down on “proven safe,” the real trial begins: can climate crusaders stomach the science when it bites back?
If you appreciate the hard work that I do as an independent investigative journalist,
please consider supporting me with a paid subscription.
Subscribe to Sonia Elijah Investigates
Agriculture
Farmers Take The Hit While Biofuel Companies Cash In
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Canada’s emissions policy rewards biofuels but punishes the people who grow our food
In the global rush to decarbonize, agriculture faces a contradictory narrative: livestock emissions are condemned as climate threats, while the same crops turned into biofuels are praised as green solutions argues senior fellow Dr. Joseph Fournier. This double standard ignores the natural carbon cycle and the fossil-fuel foundations of modern farming, penalizing food producers while rewarding biofuel makers through skewed carbon accounting and misguided policy incentives.
In the rush to decarbonize our world, agriculture finds itself caught in a bizarre contradiction.
Policymakers and environmental advocates decry methane and carbon dioxide emissions from livestock digestion, respiration and manure decay, labelling them urgent climate threats. Yet they celebrate the same corn and canola crops when diverted to ethanol and biodiesel as heroic offsets against fossil fuels.
Biofuels are good, but food is bad.
This double standard isn’t just inconsistent—it backfires. It ignores the full life cycle of the agricultural sector’s methane and carbon dioxide emissions and the historical reality that modern farming’s productivity owes its existence to hydrocarbons. It’s time to confront these hypocrisies head-on, or we risk chasing illusory credits while penalizing the very system that feeds us.
Let’s take Canada as an example.
It’s estimated that our agriculture sector emits 69 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) annually, or 10 per cent of national totals. Around 35 Mt comes from livestock digestion and respiration, including methane produced during digestion and carbon dioxide released through breathing. Manure composting adds another 12 Mt through methane and nitrous oxide.
Even crop residue decomposition is counted in emissions estimates.
Animal digestion and respiration, including burping and flatulence, and the composting of their waste are treated as industrial-scale pollutants.
These aren’t fossil emissions—they’re part of the natural carbon cycle, where last year’s stover or straw returns to the atmosphere after feeding soil life. Yet under United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines adopted by Canada, they’re lumped into “agricultural sources,” making farmers look like climate offenders for doing their job.
Ironically, only 21 per cent—about 14 Mt—of the sector’s emissions come from actual fossil fuel use on the farm.
This inconsistency becomes even more apparent in the case of biofuels.
Feed the corn to cows, and its digestive gases count as a planetary liability. Turn it into ethanol, and suddenly it’s an offset.
Canada’s Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR) mandate a 15 per cent CO2e intensity drop by 2030 using biofuels. In this program, biofuel producers earn offset credits per litre, which become a major part of their revenue, alongside fuel sales.
Critics argue the CFR is essentially a second carbon tax, expected to add up to 17 cents per litre at the pump by 2030, with no consumer rebate this time.
But here’s the rub: crop residue emits carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide whether the grain goes to fuel or food.
Diverting crops to biofuels doesn’t erase these emissions: it just shifts the accounting, rewarding biofuel producers with credits while farmers and ranchers take the emissions hit.
These aren’t theoretical concerns: they’re baked into policy.
If ethanol and biodiesel truly offset emissions, why penalize the same crops when used to feed livestock?
And why penalize farmers for crop residue decomposition while ignoring the emissions from rotting leaves, trees and grass in nature?
This contradiction stems from flawed assumptions and bad math.
Fossil fuels are often blamed, while the agricultural sector’s natural carbon loop is treated like a threat. Policy seems more interested in pinning blame than in understanding how food systems actually work.
This disconnect isn’t new—it’s embedded in the history of agriculture.
Since the Industrial Revolution, mechanization and hydrocarbons have driven abundance. The seed drill and reaper slashed labour needs. Tractors replaced horses, boosting output and reducing the workforce.
Yields exploded with synthetic fertilizers produced from methane and other hydrocarbons.
For every farm worker replaced, a barrel of oil stepped in.
A single modern tractor holds the energy equivalent of 50 to 100 barrels of oil, powering ploughing, planting and harvesting that once relied on sweat and oxen.
We’ve traded human labour for hydrocarbons, feeding billions in the process.
Biofuel offsets claim to reduce this dependence. But by subsidizing crop diversion, they deepen it; more corn for ethanol means more diesel for tractors.
It’s a policy trap: vilify farmers to fund green incentives, all while ignoring the fact that oil props up the table we eat from.
Policymakers must scrap the double standards, adopt full-cycle biogenic accounting, and invest in truly regenerative technologies or lift the emissions burden off farmers entirely.
Dr. Joseph Fournier is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. An accomplished scientist and former energy executive, he holds graduate training in chemical physics and has written more than 100 articles on energy, environment and climate science.
-
armed forces23 hours agoIt’s time for Canada to remember, the heroes of Kapyong
-
Digital ID19 hours agoCanada moves forward with digital identification for federal benefits seekers
-
Daily Caller14 hours agoLaura Ingraham Presses Trump On Allowing Flood Of Chinese Students Into US
-
Opinion1 day agoThe Germans called her the ‘White Mouse’ for her elusiveness
-
Daily Caller15 hours agoUS Nuclear Bomber Fleet Shares Fence With Trailer Park Linked To Chinese Intel-Tied Fraudster
-
Alberta19 hours agoSchool defunding petition in Alberta is a warning to parents
-
Agriculture1 day agoBovaer Backlash Update: Danish Farmers Get Green Light to Opt Out as UK Arla Trial Abruptly Ends!
-
espionage14 hours agoChinese-Owned Trailer Park Beside U.S. Stealth Bomber Base Linked to Alleged Vancouver Repression Case









