The WEF has picked up the UN globalization batons and populated the stakeholder table not with “member nations” but “partner corporations” to affect its hellish hierarchy, aping population growth fears and targeting food as “currently responsible for up to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, 70% of all freshwater withdrawals, and … the main driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss.” The unchallenged claim that “low productivity and inefficient food supply chains” are “pushing up the cost of nutritious foods” is then leveraged as cause to “urgently” transform all food production and consumption, and transition to a net-zero economy:
We need to fundamentally transform our food systems to provide all humanity with affordable, nutritious and healthy food within the limits of nature by 2030, in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Agreement. Achieving this transformation within a decade requires us to rapidly re-think and reshape our global food systems. Success rests on millions of smallholder farmers adapting to sustainable practices, billions of people improving their diets, and an ecosystem of actors that can enable transitions. This will demand an unprecedented level of regional and country action, supported by global leadership and underpinned by multiple integrated programmes and large-scale initiatives to leverage technology, streamline value chains, and adjust market systems.
The “we” in this statement refers to corporate profiteers, not Amazonian hunting tribes who have not asked for globalist corporate rescue. This is a prescription for total food domination, the “success” of which “rests” on smallholder farmers who must be incentivized or regulated into compliance with “sustainable practices” that are almost entirely dependent on GMOs, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals. That “rescue package” (financed favorably by those who want to save the world with equitable lending) is buried in the fine corporate print, but it is indeed the globalist plan – more of the same poisons as cure for their poisons.
The WEF will help eliminate meats, claiming in “Creating a Vibrant Food Innovation Ecosystem through Alternative Proteins” that
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. With global meat consumption projected to increase by at least 50% from 2012 levels by 2050, alternative proteins – including plant-based and cultivated meat – offer a globally scalable solution to the issue of how best to transform global food systems as the planet warms.
Cultivated meat is a fantasy that has made billions for corporate profiteers, but not a tablespoon of affordable food for the impoverished or a single job for a farmer. It has not been developed to scale, and cannot be produced at cost. The WEF here ignores the enormous environmental costs of making the stuff – vats, tubes, technologies, plastics, heated (and cooled) buildings, the factories themselves. Like so-called renewables manufacturing, don’t those externalized chemical and fossil fuel costs contribute to the problem allegedly being solved? Aren’t they all far worse than the greenhouse gases (or in this case, cows) they purport to improve upon?
The high-sounding WEF proposal to create “a robust, highly collaborative food-tech innovation environment focused on shared value – a space that can produce scientific breakthroughs, launch and support public–private sector partnerships and create a thriving bioeconomy” is a sleazy corporate scam. Corporations have had way too much “space” to destroy farms and soils with their “scientific breakthroughs,” and “public-private sector partnerships” are also known as fascist alliances when they seize control of individuals and their rights (or food supplies). The innovations needed to protect the environment are local farmers employing regenerative methods, not corporate consolidation, or yet more gadgets in lieu of agricultural stewardship.
The unfolding EU restrictions on farmers, including wildlife regulations, reduced agriculture protections, increased operating costs, and plans to eliminate livestock and small farms are all traceable to the UN and WEF. A 2022 WEF “study” explains the paternalistic, corporatist plan to implement “climate-smart agriculture”:
Climate-smart and regenerative agricultural practices and digital innovations already show great promise in helping to mitigate these trends of climate change and biodiversity loss.
Digital climate-smart practices and digital measurement tools are critical for the transition. They deliver a range of benefits, including improved productivity and crop quality, more efficient operations, reduced fertilizer, pesticide and water use and costs, lower environmental impact and adaptation to climate change. But they also provide the data collection capabilities needed to unlock new revenue streams from results-based schemes (e.g. carbon markets) and innovative, low-cost insurance products.
Yet because food systems rely on healthy natural ecosystems, their role in undermining nature puts crop yields and food security at risk. ….In this context, and with well over half of the earth’s habitable land used for agriculture, the ability to feed a growing population and thrive on a changing planet will depend on reversing these trends and building greater resilience into the planet’s food systems.
The lengthy report lists numerous technological “strategies” (that is, products to manufacture and sell) but only the barest nod to improved livestock pasturing. Carbon credits are a sham that masks yet more profiteering. The usual invocations of crisis, urgency, changed diets, and – never forget – the moral cry that “food systems are inequitable” are duly trotted out.
The authors of this WEF study include “experts” from pharmaceutical and chemical giant Bayer Corporation (the new owner of Monsanto and its product lines of pesticides, glyphosate, and GMO seeds), German chemical giant BASF, and Zurich Insurance. What interests might those companies have in shifting small European and global farmers to the corporate “sustainable agricultural model” over Nature’s (God’s) provision?
Chemical manufacturer BASF lectures the world about agriculture: perhaps instead, Amish farmers should explain how to manufacture chemicals with less worldly damage. The facade of compassion for the world’s poor is easily shattered by BASF’s claims that it is “reinventing itself” as a “sustainable” manufacturer of toxic chemicals. Just slapping the word “sustainable” on toxic chemicals does not make it so. BASF proudly proclaims “Our goal is net-zero emissions by 2050. How is that possible for a company in the energy-intensive chemical industry? It’s ambitious, for sure.”
Actually, it’s not ambitious – it is an entirely fraudulent claim by a polluter in sheep’s (sustainability) clothing, running amok in the flock. But the wolf wants to pretend it is now wooly:
We bring our corporate purpose – We create chemistry for a sustainable future – to life by systematically integrating sustainability into our strategy, our business, and our assessment, steering and compensation systems.
We pursue a holistic sustainability approach that covers the entire value chain – from our suppliers and our own activities to our customers – and contributes to environmental, social and governance key sustainability topics (ESG). We have formulated commitments for our conduct and underpinned these with corresponding targets and measures. Based on our corporate strategy, we steer the global sustainability target for climate protection for 2030 via the most important key performance indicator (KPI) absolute CO2 emissions.
Notice the one-chemical focus: CO2. Not the endocrine-disrupting, carcinogenic ecotoxins that destroy soils and pollute water – all for social and governance topics, naturally.
Pinnochio’s nose would stretch to the sun if he made such claims. BASF boasts it is incorporating recycled chemical wastes in its production – making its endless stream of forever chemicals, phthalates, and other manmade potions suddenly “sustainable.” These are dubbed “mass balance products.” Voila! “It is all sustainable now – see, we even said so, and it’s no secret after all, and we are using unsustainable toxins to sustain our corporate profits for the future!” (Jim Jones is selling Kool-Aid also, BTW – organic and vitamin-enriched!)
BASF does not hide its collusion with the UN:
As a cofounder of the U.N. Global Compact, we contribute to the implementation of the United Nations’ (U.N.) Agenda 2030. Our products, solutions and technologies help to achieve the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – especially SDG 2 (Zero hunger), SDG 5 (Gender equality), SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation), SDG 7 (Affordable and clean energy), SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth), SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production) and SDG 13 (Climate action). To prioritize the SDGs relevant to BASF, in 2023, internal experts once again assessed the impacts and positive contributions of our products, our corporate targets and strategic action areas.
What are the positive, sustainable impacts of manufacturing forever chemicals? BASF may be at the WEF food planning table for profits as well as its supposed moral agenda. Article after article at its web site touts its “sustainability” bona fides – mostly packaging old chemicals in shiny new bottles. It also offers a glimpse of how its net-zero, high-tech, highly-profitable aspirations result in total food control with its (presumably proprietary) “next-level sustainability: “farm to retail” traceability”:
Ever look at your cotton-made attire and wonder, where did that come from? How was it grown and does it deliver improvements from a sustainability standpoint?
Now, all those questions can be answered thanks to a new technology developed by BASF. The global company’s agricultural solutions business created a one-of-a-kind e3 sustainable cotton program. Why is it called e3, you might ask? Because customers know their clothes meet all three E’s – they’re socially equitable, economically viable and use environmentally responsible sustainable practices. (The three pillars of sustainability are society, environment and economy, and this program covers all three.)
The unique program delivers the comprehensive level of e3 cotton farm-to-retail traceability, along with third-party verification and BASF certification.
How quickly this technology could be applied to food supplies. A computer scan and AI oversight, especially linked to an electronic currency system, could track every morsel of food consumed by every human within the tracking system — and decide whether it was “acceptable” based on environmental, social or economic criteria.
Not for me and my house, thanks! We will grow our own food, for liberty!!
