Agriculture
WEF report calls on governments to push fake meat products to meet Paris Climate goals
From LifeSiteNews
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.
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].”
So, it appears that the WEF is trying to distance itself from the “you will eat zee bugs” ridicule it has been receiving as of late:
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.
Agriculture
Ottawa may soon pass ‘supply management’ law to effectively maintain inflated dairy prices
From the Fraser Institute
Many Canadians today face an unsettling reality. While Canada has long been known as a land of plenty, rising living costs and food insecurity are becoming increasingly common concerns. And a piece of federal legislation—which may soon become law—threatens to make the situation even worse.
According to Statistics Canada, rising prices are now “greatly affecting” nearly half of Canadians who are subsequently struggling to cover basic living costs. Even more alarming, 53 per cent are worried about feeding their families. For policymakers, few national priorities are more pressing than the ability of Canadians to feed themselves.
Between 2020 and 2023, food prices surged by 24 per cent, outpacing the overall inflation rate of 15 per cent. Over the past year, more than one million people visited Ontario food banks—a 25 per cent increase from the previous year.
Amid this crisis, a recent academic report highlighted an unforgivable waste. Since 2012, Canada’s dairy system has discarded 6.8 billion litres of milk—worth about $15 billion. This is not just mismanagement, it’s a policy failure. And inexcusably, the federal government knows how to address rising prices on key food staples but instead turns a blind eye.
Canada’s dairy sector operates under a “supply management” system that controls production through quotas and restricts imports via tariffs. Marketing boards work within this system to manage distribution and set the prices farmers receive. Together, these mechanisms effectively limit competition from both domestic and foreign producers.
This rigid regulated system suppresses competition and efficiency—both are essential for lower prices. Hardest hit are low-income Canadians as they spend a greater share of their income on essentials such as groceries. One estimate ranks Canada as having the sixth-highest milk prices worldwide.
The price gap between the United States and Canada for one litre of milk is around C$1.57. A simple calculation shows that if we could reduce the price gap by half, to $0.79, Canadians would save nearly $1.9 billion annually. And eliminating the price gap would save a family of four $360 a year. There would be further savings if the government also liberalized markets for other dairy products such as cheese, butter and yogurt. These lower costs would make a real difference for millions of Canadians.
Which brings us back to the legislation pending on Parliament Hill. Instead of addressing the high food costs, Ottawa is moving in the opposite direction. Bill C-282, sponsored by the Bloc Quebecois, has passed the House of Commons and is now before the Senate. If enacted, it would stop Canadian trade negotiators from letting other countries sell more supply-managed products in Canada as part of any future trade deal, effectively increasing protection for Canadian industries and creating another legal barrier to reform. While the governing Liberals hold ultimate responsibility for this bill, all parties to some degree support it.
Supply management is already causing trade friction. The U.S. and New Zealand have filed disputes (under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) accusing Canada of failing to meet its commitments on dairy products. If Canada is found in violation, it could face tariffs or other trade restrictions in unrelated sectors. Dairy was also a sticking point in negotiations with the United Kingdom, leading the British to suspend talks on a free trade deal. The costs of defending supply management could ripple farther than agriculture, hurting other Canadian businesses and driving up consumer costs.
Dairy farmers, of course, have invested heavily in the system, and change could be financially painful. Industry groups including the Dairy Farmers of Canada carry significant political influence, especially in Ontario and Quebec, making it politically costly for any party to propose reforms. The concerns of farmers are valid and must be addressed—but they should not stand in the way of opening up these heavily regulated agricultural sectors. With reasonable financial assistance, a gradual transition could ease the burden. After all, New Zealand, with just 5 million people, managed to deregulate its dairy sector and now exports 95 per cent of its milk to 130 countries. There’s no reason Canada could not do something similar.
Bill C-282 is a flawed piece of legislation. Supply management already hurts the most vulnerable Canadians and is the root cause of two trade disputes that threaten harm to other Canadian industries. If passed, this law will further tie the government’s hands in negotiating future free trade agreements. So, who benefits from it? Certainly not Canadians struggling with food insecurity. The government’s refusal to modernize an outdated inefficient system forces Canadians to pay more for basic food staples. If we continue down this path, the economic damage could spread to other sectors, leaving Canadians to bear an ever-increasing financial burden.
Author:
Agriculture
2024 harvest wrap-up: Minister Sigurdson
As the 2024 growing season comes to a close, Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation RJ Sigurdson issued the following statement:
“While many Albertans were enjoying beautiful fall days with above-average temperatures, farmers were working around the clock to get crops off their fields before the weather turned. I commend their continued dedication to growing quality crops, putting food on tables across the province and around the world.
“Favourable weather conditions in August and early September allowed for a rapid start to harvest, leading to quick and efficient completion.
“The final yield estimates show that while the South, North West and Peace regions were slightly above average, the yields in the Central and North East regions were below average.
“Crop quality for oats and dry peas is currently exceeding the five-year average, with a higher rate of these crops grading in the top two grade categories. In contrast, spring wheat, durum, barley and canola are all grading in the top two grades at rates lower than the five-year average.
“Crop grading is a process that determines the quality of a grain crop based on visual inspection and instrument analysis. Factors like frost damage, colour, moisture content and sprouting all impact grade and affect how the grain will perform during processing or how the end product will turn out. Alberta generally produces high-quality crops.
“Farmers faced many challenges over the last few years and, for some areas of the province, 2024 was a difficult growing season. But Alberta producers are innovative and resilient. They work constantly to meet challenges head-on and drive sustainable growth in our agricultural sector.
“Alberta farmers help feed the world, and I’m proud of the reputation for safe, high-quality agricultural products that this industry has built for itself. Thank you to our producers, and congratulations on another successful harvest!”
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Most Devastating Report So Far
-
Business1 day ago
Carbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million
-
ESG1 day ago
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
John Stossel24 hours ago
Green Energy Needs Minerals, Yet America Blocks New Mines
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Los Angeles Passes ‘Sanctuary City’ Ordinance In Wake Of Trump’s Deportation Plan
-
COVID-192 days ago
Dr. McCullough praises RFK Jr., urges him to pull COVID shots from the market
-
MAiD2 days ago
Over 40% of people euthanized in Ontario lived in poorest parts of the province: government data
-
Alberta1 day ago
Province considering new Red Deer River reservoir east of Red Deer