Wednesday, January 26, 2022

Big Agriculture: conspiracy or blessing? I don't know enough to say

 

I honestly don't know what to think about this report in Off-Guardian, claiming - in so many words - that there's a "Big Agriculture" conspiracy to change humanity's food sources and eating habits into a "Brave New World" sort of mish-mash.  The implication is that this somehow ties into the "Great Reset" sought by the World Economic Forum.  The report provides plenty of supporting "evidence", but that evidence may or may not be paper-thin.  I don't know enough about the subject to be sure, but I find many of the article's comments to be uncomfortably close to neo-environmental activism and anti-corporate and anti-technology campaigns.  Some of them appear to be at least borderline anti-Semitic.  Some of the "experts" cited are known to hold "fringe" views:  some of the latter seem to be downright kooky.

Nevertheless, the report raises sufficient questions that I think we'd all be better off knowing the answers, one way or the other.  I'd be grateful if readers who know more about agriculture than I do would comment on this article, to give us all more information.

Briefly, the report argues that modern "Big Agriculture" is nothing more or less than a conspiracy to impose a new "Food Agenda" on the world, with sinister implications.  Here are a few excerpts, but they only scratch the surface.  You'll need to read the entire article to grasp the big picture.


Shortly after World World Two, The Rockefeller Foundation set forth on a quest to bring about a transformation of world agriculture.

They did this, in part, by “socially engineering” the scientific culture to not only accept but promote the use of GMO foods and dangerous biotechnologies.

And now, they are at it again.

This new attempted policy change is outlined in a document titled “The True Cost of Food: Measuring What Matters to Transform the US Food System”.

In the report, mention is made of both the Covid-19 crisis and the climate crisis, claiming that now is the opportunity we’ve been waiting for to effect “transformative change” in food production.

The report is the result of a collaboration between the Rockefeller Foundation, various academics from leading universities, the World Wildlife Fund and the True Price Foundation.

. . .

The intended goal of the report is to uncover the “true cost” of food in the US, which is claimed to be at least $3.2 trillion per year, three times more than than $1.1 trillion that Americans spend annually on food.

Included in this “cost analysis” are things like diet-related diseases, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and reduced biodiversity – all reasonable concerns. However, to understand the true agenda at play, one must read past the flowery language and popular buzzwords.

As noted by author and researcher, William Engdahl:

“The message is that the current American food production is to blame and that radical and costly changes are urgently needed. The difficulty in reading the report is that the language is deliberately vague and deceptive. For example one of the most damaging components of American agriculture since the 1990s has been the wholesale introduction of GMO crops—especially soybeans, corn and cotton and the highly carcinogenic Monsanto-Bayer Roundup with glyphosate. The Rockefeller report omits their direct role in fostering that devastation by their creating and promoting Monsanto and GMO for decades, knowing it was destructive.”

As Engdahl makes clear, such a report detracts attention away from the fact that most of the “costs” associated with the food industry can be traced directly to the Rockefellers themselves and their role in creating the current industrialized food chain that has not only wrought destruction on global agriculture but contributed to the explosion of chronic disease.

. . .

According to the Rockefeller report, the way to construct a more resilient food supply chain is by increasing corporate involvement through a focus on industrialization and technological innovation. However, these are the very same measures that caused many of the issues being outlined.

For example, the report makes mention of “soil health” as a primary concern. However, it is precisely the widespread implementation of modern farming techniques (which involve the use of artificial fertilizers and the spraying of pesticides) – advocated for by the Rockefellers – that has depleted the soil of its nutrients in the first place.

Unsurprisingly the report makes no mention of agroecology or other regenerative methods of natural farming that seek to harness, maintain and enhance biological and ecological processes in agricultural production.

. . .

... a quick search through the scientific literature indicates that the use of molecular manufacturing in food production goes far beyond alleviating “scarcity” and may have more to do with altering the structure and function of the body itself. For example, a 2015 review paper states that (emphasis added):

“The potential benefits of utilizing nanomaterials in food are improved bioavailability, antimicrobial effects, enhanced sensory acceptance and targeted delivery of bioactive compounds.

Another review published in the American Journal of Food Technology makes mention of “nanotechnology-based biosensors” for the detection of food-borne pathogens. Shades of the DARPA/NIH brainchild, Profusa, and their research into developing an injectable biosensor that can “detect future pandemics”.

Once again, “public acceptance” is cited as a major hurdle to the introduction of food created using nanotechnology, and therefore one can reasonably predict to see further regulatory frameworks created specifically for such products.


There's much more at the link.

So, is this Kooks United at work, or is there serious science involved?  Are we looking at an "agricultural conspiracy" leagued with the whole COVID-19 brouhaha, or is this a conspiracy theory run amok?  I simply don't know enough to say, but I hope some of my readers can enlighten us.  If you can, please provide more information in Comments, backing it up with links to sources if possible.

Peter


11 comments:

Grumpy Old Timer said...

I too am curious. And skeptical. I often ponder if what we are seeing in many of these types of things is organized/planned evil, egos rum amok, sheer ignorance, greed, or some combination (most likely).
Looking forward to any additional input here.

Dov Sar said...

I am a farmer. who just retired from commercial sales. I have read from credible sources that nanoparticles for the tracking of products was supposed to be introduced into Romaine lettuce last fall. These nanoparticles will tell exactly the lat/long that the product came from, so that if you get sick from the product, they ca tell the lat/long where the product was grown and the farm associated with it. I assumed this would be a fecal sample. Much of this is kept under wraps, and I am not sure what other products it is in, other than "organic" will not save you from buying these products. Also, heat and washing will not remove these particles. Avoidance seems to be the only way around them. We grow and eat our own food, and do not have any interest in eating nanoparticles for our health.

Old NFO said...

This reminds me of one of Frank James' rants about commercial farming. He rotated crops to maintain the land, where the commercial farms around him pumped various rounds of fertilizer, roundup, etc. then planted GMO corn/soybeans, and sprayed, not caring if it floated over on his property and killed his non-GMO corn/soybeans. Commercial farming is all bottom line, no care for land renewal or allowing land to lie fallow. As far as GMO, wheat today is nothing more than a GMO'ed weed over generations.

Jonathan H said...

I suspect some of it is true and some of it isn't... the challenge is figuring out which is what, and how dangerous to you the true parts are.
I suspect a large part of their increased cost is environmental baloney.

Stuart said...

These people are not kooks. They are very intelligent, serious people. That doesn't mean they have your best interests at heart.
Yes, there is serious science involved. That also doesn't mean it is good for your well-being. Zyklon-B was serious science.

coyoteken48 said...

I am in my mid 70s and live on a farm I don't farm anymore and grew up on a farm. I have watched this transition since Roundup was invented. There are a lot of causes that put us where we are now and while big ag, big corporations and big government have played a significant role I cannot say that it was a planned movement. Yes, government pushed Roundup and it was done to reduce tillage to reduce soil erosion as demanded by the environmentalists. Yes, tomatoes are picked by machines now but that was caused by Hugo Chavez organizing strikes and unionizing migrant workers. I can come up with many examples too extensive for a comments section. It was caused by many disparate factors usually unrelated to government or big business. I would say that the biggest causes were young people leaving the small farms to make more money doing less work and the average person going to the giant chain supermarkets instead of their local store. ---ken .

B said...

While there may be some substance to your sources for this post, remember that GMO/Big Agriculture etc has increased yields and lowered costs (for the grain, anyway) and has enabled the increase in populations around the world.....Without these innovations people would literally be starving.

Doesn't mean that this comes without a price, or that they aren't in it to make a (large) buck, but using methods and seed stock from 50 years or more go would result in crop yields of less than 2/3 of what we have today.
Is the price worth it? I dunno.

SiGraybeard said...

See when I see a statement like this that's pure bullsheet, I tend to get lots more skeptical of the rest of what they say,

highly carcinogenic Monsanto-Bayer Roundup with glyphosate.

Last time I did a deep dive on this, about 14 months ago, the sources said no controlled study had ever concluded that Roundup (glyphosate) causes cancer, nor had any country declared it a carcinogen. Even the EPA hadn't ruled Roundup to be dangerous and you've got to know the EPA would love to regulate as much as they possibly can. After all these are the people who wanted to regulate puddles as part of the "navigable waterways" they're in existence to watch after.

Everyone has the right to be wrong, but a glaring line like that makes me feel pretty sure that there's more in there.

Chris Nelson said...

I spent several summers on the family farms in my youth. Many weeks were spent spraying weeds with Roundup. We practically bathed in the stuff due to leaky spray guns, heads and hoses. No cancers except one cousin that smoked like a chimney and dipped when he couldn't smoke and came down with mouth cancer.

And if you haven't been on a modern farm family or corporate farm, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Here's some farmers to watch. Come back after 100-200 hours of viewing.

https://www.youtube.com/c/FastAgMontana

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRDywryGtWBmac-O4AReYpA

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNgolUwyOgZZDUoIeSyojpw





Will said...

Frank James observed that the farmers near him that didn't use chemical fertilizers and weedkillers had crop output at best of 75% of those who did. That was the best in the world, he stated. IIRC, he thought that the general output was closer to 2/3rds for the rest of the farmers in that category.

That's a whole lot of starvin', if we are forced to go back to the old ways of farming, for whatever reason might cause it.

Stephen St. Onge said...

        There's a good deal of Kookery in this.

        The Rockefeller Foundation encouraged “GMO” after WWII?  That’s horsestuff, and would make excellent fertilizer.  The technology to create “GMOs” didn’t exist until the 1980s.  What the Rock. Found. funded was Norman Borlaug’s selective breeding work to increase crop yields.  Such breeding has been going on since before the beginning of recorded history.

        And the Monsanto Corp. was founded in 1901, with the Rockefellers having nothing to do with it.

        What’s going on here is the author’s blaming everything they dislike on the Rockefellers, and calling anything they dislike “GMOs.”  These are lies.  When people can’t make their case without lying, you should not take them seriously.