Photo Credit: Image: charlesricardo via Pixabay, Pixabay License.
charlesricardo
By getting governments to over-regulate farming, elite oligarchs like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab aim to take control over food production in the name of sustainability.Besides ‘degrowth’ and ‘net zero,’ one other dangerous buzz phrase being bandied about by proponents of the Great Reset is “nature-positive food systems.” The stated goal of moving to new food systems is to reduce nitrogen emissions, livestock production, and meat consumption. This is to be achieved by consuming plant-based products, lab-grown foods, and insects (as a source of protein). The moot question, however, is whether such a change is at all necessary?
The U.N., the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and other NGOs would have us believe so. These institutions are controlled by the global elite, who aim to create monopolistic markets for themselves and enslave people, turning them first into captive consumers without choice, and eventually, without free will. So, the U.N. and its co-conspirators have manufactured a food crisis, and by linking it to their other fabrication — an exaggerated climate crisis — they are using it to reset the world’s food system.
Their plan to “transition to net zero, nature-positive food systems by 2030” translates into a war on traditional farmers. Unable to absorb the added costs of new regulations and controls, small, independent producers are being squeezed out of farming. Their place is being taken by multinational agribusinesses. Unchecked, these multinationals will dominate farming in a decade or two.
Were this to solve the problem of global hunger, there might be some reason for those who oppose the transition to make concessions. But the evidence is to the contrary. For several years now, the Gates Foundation’s Alliance for A Green Revolution (AGRA) has been coercing farmers in Africa to give up traditional seeds and crops and use commercial seeds and synthetic fertilizers. Over those years, the lot of Africa has worsened: the percentage of the population suffering from moderate to severe food insecurity has gone up from 51% in 2014 to 66% today.
In 2021, an alliance of African leaders of faith and farming called on the Gates Foundation to stop promoting harmful programs such as AGRA. Fletcher Harper, director of GreenFaith, an international network, said,
The plan of displacing millions of small-holding farmers using an industrial monoculture approach to farming, lacing the soil and water supplies with toxic chemicals, and concentrating ownership of the means of production and land ownership in a small elite is an immoral and dangerous vision that must be stopped.
In other ways, and in other places, too, elements of the Great Food Reset are being proved wrong or counterproductive. Gates — who, incidentally, is the largest private landowner in the U.S. — has been promoting synthetic meat, and says “all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef.” He has invested heavily in plant-based meat companies, and touted fake beef as a solution to “climate change” and “environmental degradation.” Ironically, fake food is not only associated with health problems, it leaves a much larger carbon footprint. A report from Navdanya, a seed and food sovereignty initiative, lays bare his hypocrisy.
In 2021, Sri Lankan president Gotobaya Rajapaksa banned synthetic fertilizer and pesticide imports, forcing farmers to go organic — ostensibly to mitigate health and environmental impacts. In six months, rice production dropped 20% and tea production 18%, precipitating an economic crisis and widespread hunger. A massive people’s revolt ended the damaging policies.
In 2019, the Dutch government decided to take “drastic measures” to reduce nitrogen emissions from agriculture. In protest, farmers in 2,200 tractors made their way to the Hague. A farmer-citizen movement (BBB) fought the government plan to reduce livestock numbers and buy out thousands of farms. The movement achieved significant clout, and later that year, won a majority of seats in the upper house of parliament. Former U.S. president Donald Trump praised the farmers for opposing the Dutch government’s “climate tyranny.”
“Green” agendas were similarly fought in Germany and France. German farmers, who faced cuts in tax breaks on diesel and the prospect of levies on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, protested these impositions, saying they would rob them of competitiveness. They also complained that more food — produced below German standards — was coming into Germany from abroad. French farmers, too, faced subsidy cuts and additional taxes on fuel. Protests forced governments in both countries to back down.
Behind the government measures in Europe are the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Nature Restoration Law (NRL), aimed at achieving “sustainability” goals. The latest edition of CAP (2023–27) obligates EU countries, already less competitive against imports, to devote at least 4% of arable land to non-productive activities and reduce fertilizer use by 20%. It aims to provide baseline protection for the environment on more than 80% of the EU’s agricultural land. The NRL incentivizes farmers transitioning to “regenerative” practices; member states are required to restore at least 20% of EU’s land and sea by 2030.
In the U.S., similarly, over 30% of territory will become subject to administrative state control under Executive Order 14008, signed by President Joe Biden in 2021. The order is part of a global 30×30 plan to permanently keep 30% of the world’s land and oceans pristine by prohibiting human activity. It’s to be achieved by 2030, hence “30 by 30.” Without any plausible data that such preservation would reverse alleged “climate change,” this is more about control, and amounts to nothing but a massive land grab.
Another ill-conceived idea, advanced by the global elites and governments, was a plan to control natural processes such as clean air, pollination, photosynthesis etc. through companies owning and monetizing nature and natural processes. These “natural asset companies” (NACs) were to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) first, and perhaps others later. The idea, proposed officially by the NYSE, seems fuzzy, but it was discussed in all seriousness by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). Fortunately, it was abandoned after activists pressured the NYSE to withdraw its application.
While Executive Order 14008 hits food security indirectly by limiting land available for farming, a proposed EPA rule — the Meat and Poultry Products Effluents Guidelines-2024 — is yet another example of blatant, politically-motivated administrative overreach that will directly send meat prices skyrocketing. Spurred by two lawsuits filed by 13 environmental organizations, which claimed that pollution control standards for slaughterhouses and meat processing plants had not been updated in the Clean Water Act, the EPA came up with the proposed guidelines, to be put in place by August 2025.
The proposed rule further restricts the release of nitrogen and phosphorus into the environment, as well as the routing of wastewater from meat processors to water treatment plants. It prescribes more stringent pretreatment standards for oil, grease, suspended solids, and biochemical oxygen. Compliance cost for the industry is likely to increase by over $1.16 billion annually. Besides increasing the cost of meat, it will put producers out of business; potential job loss, direct and indirect, is estimated to be 120,000–300,000 in the poultry sector alone.
Critics believe this is a typical case of the elite orchestrating concerted action through environmental groups, the administrative state, and government, this time to reduce meat consumption. Fortunately, a coalition of attorneys general from 27 states has questioned the data presented by the environmental groups and said the rule is “not only costly but unlawful.”
By getting governments to over-regulate farming, elite oligarchs like Gates and Klaus Schwab (WEF) aim to take control over food production in the name of sustainability. The plan, quite clearly, is not to save the planet. When people are starving, it’s easier to keep them in check, prevent them from protesting, and get them to do what you want.
<img a agriculture-field-farm-rural-5310946 alt="
Image: charlesricardo via <a data-cke-saved-href=" captext="
Image: Free image, Pixabay license.
