We Should All Be Worried About The United Nations (UN) Food Systems Summit: The Battle For The Future Of Food

A battle for the future of food is already underway. There’s still time to change the outcome.

Later this year, the United Nations is set to hold a historic Food Systems Summit, recognizing the need for urgent action to disrupt business-as-usual practices in the food system.we should all be worried about the united nations food systems summit

But far from serving as a meaningful avenue for much-needed change, the summit is shaping up to facilitate increased corporate capture of the food system. So much so, that peasant and indigenous-led organizations and civil society groups are organizing an independent counter-summit in order to have their voices heard.

At the heart of the opposition is the fact that the conference has been co-opted by corporate interests who are pushing towards a highly industrialized style of agriculture promoted by supporters of the Green Revolution, an approach that is meant to eradicate hunger by increasing production through hybrid seeds and other agrochemical inputs. It has been widely discredited for failing to achieve its goals and damaging the environment.

The Summit’s concept paper perpetuates the same Green Revolution narrative — it is dominated by topics like AI-controlled farming systems, gene editing, and other high-tech solutions geared towards large-scale agriculture, as well as finance and market mechanisms to address food insecurity, with methods like agroecology notably absent or minimally discussed.

A Crisis Of Participation

But the problem is not only the subject matter that the conference has put on the agenda. It’s also the remarkably undemocratic way of choosing who gets to participate, and in what ways. The agenda was set behind closed doors at Davos, the World Economic Forum’s exclusive conference. As Sofia Monsalve, Secretary General of FIAN International puts it, “They have cherry picked representatives of civil society. We don’t know why, or which procedure they used.”

“The multi-stakeholder model of governance is problematic because it sounds very inclusive,” Monsalve continues. “But in fact we are worried about the concealing of power asymmetries, without having a clear rule in terms of accountability. What is the rule here — who decides? And if you don’t decide according to a rule, where can we go to claim you are doing wrong?”

The conference organizers have claimed that they have given peasant-led and civil society groups ample opportunity to participate in the conference, but this is a facade. The UN’s definition of ‘participation’ differs significantly from that of the hundreds of civil society groups that have spoken out against the Summit.

The Summit claims that allowing groups to attend virtual sessions and give suggestions amounts to participation. But true participation means being consulted about crucial agenda items that have a massive impact on the communities they represent. This was not done.

“We didn’t have the opportunity to shape the agenda,” Monsalve explains.

“The agenda was set. Full stop. And therefore we are asking ‘why is it that we are not discussing how to dismantle corporate power? This is a very urgent issue on the ground for the people. How is it that we are not discussing about COVID and the food crisis related to COVID?’”

Organizations like the People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS), which represents 148 grassroots groups from 28 countries, feel similarly.

“It’s just like having a table set,” explains Sylvia Mallari, Global Co-Chairperson of PCFS.

“So you have a dinner table set, then the questions would be who set the table, who is invited to the table, who sits beside whom during dinner? And what is the menu? For whom and for what is the food summit? And right now, the way it has been, the agenda they’ve set leaves out crucial peoples and even their own UN nation agencies being left behind.”

Elizabeth Mpofu of La Vía Campesina, the largest peasant-led organization representing over 2 million people worldwide, explains how “The United Nation food systems summit, from the beginning, was really not inclusive of the peasants’ voices. And if they’re going to talk about the food systems, on behalf of whom? Because the people who are on the ground, who are really working on producing the food should be involved in the planning. Before they even organized this summit, they should have made some consultations and this was not done.”

The concerns are not only coming from outside the UN. Two former UN Special Rapporteurs to the Right to Food — Olivier De Schutter and Hilal Elver — as well as Michael Fakhri, who currently holds the position, wrote a statement to the summit organizers early on in the process.

“Having all served as UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food,” they write, “we have witnessed first-hand the importance of improving accountability and democracy in food systems, and the value of people’s local and traditional knowledge.

It is deeply concerning that we had to spend a year persuading the convenors that human rights matter for this UN Secretary General’s Food Systems Summit. It is also highly problematic that issues of power, participation, and accountability (i.e. how and by whom will the outcomes be delivered) remain unresolved.”

Michael Fakhri has also expressed concern about the sidelining of the Committee on Food Security (CFS), a unique civil society organization that allows “people to directly dialogue and debate with governments, holding them to account.”

As Fakhri explains, if the CFS is sidelined in this summit (as they have been thus far), there is a real danger that “there will no longer be a place for human rights in food policy, diminishing anyone’s ability to hold powerful actors accountable.”

Gertrude Kenyangi, executive director of Support for Women in Agriculture and Environment (SWAGEN) and PCFS member, stated during a Hunger for Justice Broadcast on April 30th that the problem comes down to one of fundamentally conflicting values:

“Multinational corporations and small-holder farmers have different values,” said Kenyangi. “While the former value profit, the latter value the integrity of ecosystems. Meaningful input of small-holder farmers, respect for Indigenous knowledge, consideration for biodiversity… will not be taken into account [at the Summit]. They will not tell the truth: that hunger is political; that food insecurity in Africa is not only as a result of law and agriculture production, but it’s a question of justice, democracy and political will. That’s our concern.”

The Presence Of AGRA

The problems with the Summit were compounded further by UN Secretary General António Guterres choosing to appoint Agnes Kalibata, president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa (AGRA), as Special Envoy to the conference.

AGRA is an organization, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates and Rockefeller Foundations (as well as our governments), that promotes a high-tech, high-cost approach to agriculture, heavily reliant on agrochemical inputs and fertilizers. They have been at the forefront of predatory seed laws and policies that marginalize and disenfranchise peasant farmers on a massive scale.

AGRA has devastated small-scale farmers under the mission of “doubling productivity and incomes by 2020 for 30 million small-scale farming households while reducing food insecurity by half in 20 countries.” Their approach has been proven to be markedly unsuccessful. Timothy Wise, a senior adviser at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, began to research AGRA’s efficacy in the last fourteen years of work.

Unlike many nonprofits who are held to strict transparency standards, AGRA refuses to share any information about their performance metrics with researchers. It took a U.S. Freedom of Information Act request to find out what AGRA has to show for their US$1 billion budget. Researchers found that AGRA ‘apparently’ had not been collecting this data until 2017 (eleven years after their founding in 2006).

Food security has not decreased in their target countries. In fact, for the countries in which AGRA operates as a whole, food insecurity has increased by 30% during their years of operation; crop production has fared no better. Yet this narrative continues to be pervasive around the world. It is the backbone of the UN Food Systems Summit and most development agendas. And AGRA’s president is leading the conference.

Attempts to build bridges with civil society organizations have failed. In sessions with civil society groups, Ms. Kalibata has demonstrated a lack of awareness of the growing peasant-led movements that reclaim traditional agricultural methods as promising avenues to a more sustainable food system.

Wise explains, “During the session she held with peasant groups, she basically indicated that she didn’t know about the peasant rights declaration that the UN had passed just two years ago. And she told them, why do you keep calling yourselves peasants? She said that she calls them business people because she thinks they’re needing to learn how to farm as a business.”

“It’s also a pretty significant conflict of interest, which people don’t quite realise,” Wise continues. “AGRA is a nonprofit organisation that’s funded by the Gates foundation and a couple other foundations — and our governments. They are about to enter a period where they desperately need to replenish their financing. And so they are going to be undertaking a major fund drive exactly when this conference is happening. And the summit is being positioned to help with that fund drive.”

Since Ms. Kalibata was named special envoy, there has been a public outcry over this clear conflict of interest. 176 civil society organizations from 83 countries sent a letter to the UN Secretary General António Guterres voicing their concerns over Ms. Kalibata’s corporate ties. They never received a response. 500 civil society organizations, academics, and other actors sent the UN an additional statement laying out the growing list of concerns about the Summit. Again, they received no reply.

While 676 total civil society organizations and individuals expressed clear concern over Ms. Kalibata’s appointment, only twelve people signed a letter supporting the nomination. The Community Alliance for Global Justice’s AGRA Watch team found that all but one of these individuals have received funds from the Gates Foundation.

Competing Pathways For Food Systems Change

This summit isn’t just a case of poor planning and a lack of genuine participation for peasant-led organizations. It represents a deeper and more insidious trend in food systems governance: the erosion of democratic decision-making and the rise of powerful, unaccountable, private-sector actors who continue to consolidate power over the food system.

The absence of practices like agroecology from the agenda shows how deeply the private sector has consolidated power — these methods are highly promising, low-input and low-cost solutions for farmers to increase their yields while farming more sustainably. But they are mentioned only in passing.

“If you ever look at a situation and see something that looks like the most obvious, sensible solution and it’s not happening, ask who’s making money from it not happening,” explains Timothy Wise.

The answer here is clear: high-input agriculture makes many people extraordinarily wealthy. This power allows them to set the agenda for food systems change, at the expense of farmers, and at the expense of the environment.

That’s why this conference is so important: it will set the stage for the approach to food systems change in the coming decades. We the people need to decide who should set the agenda for a food future that affects us all — one that preserves biodiversity and prioritizes human rights and well-being.

Are we willing to let the corporations who pursue profits at all cost continue to claim that they know what’s in our best interest?

Do we want a future governed by the likes of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in partnership with the largest agrochemical and seed companies in the world? Or are we ready to demand that those who actually grow our food — peasants, farmers, and Indigenous peoples around the world — be the ones to determine our direction?

This is what’s at stake. Right now, the most powerful players in the food system are poised to set an agenda that will allow them to continue amassing profits at staggering rates, at the expense of farmers, consumers, and the environment.

But there is still time to fight back. Where the conference holds most of its power is in its legitimacy. As groups mobilize, organize, and demand genuine participation, this false legitimacy driven by actors like the Gates Foundation begins to crumble.

We must stand in solidarity with the grassroots communities who are telling the truth about this conference and what it represents. We must get to work.

someone said Codex Alimentarius ?

Source: AGrowingCulture.Medium.com

What Exactly Is This “Great Reset” People Keep Talking About?

Buckle your seat belts for this one because it’s more chilling than any horror movie you’ve ever seen. You’ve heard your “crazy” friend at work bring it up in conversation. Perhaps you heard it briefly mentioned on TV the other day. And now you’re left wondering, “Just what on earth is The Great Reset?”

what exactly is this “great reset” people keep talking about?

Meet The World Economic Forum (WEF)

You’ve heard of the WEF before. They’ve been in the news quite a bit for the past year or so. The reason? The Great Reset initiative. It is there that a man by the name of Klaus Schwabb runs the show. Schwabb founded the WEF and is one of the most powerful men in the world.

Each year the World Economic Forum hosts an event at a ski resort in the mountains of Switzerland where “the self-proclaimed global elite” meet to discuss global problems they can all work together to “fix.”

Generally, WEF invites 1500 people from roughly 70 countries to attend. All the attendees play major roles in various sectors of society, with a large portion of those invited being major players in the worlds of politics and business. 

In 2020, Schwabb released a book titled COVID-19: The Great Reset, in which he lays out his plans for what he believes needs to happen next.  

Now, Let’s Talk About Agendas

First, you need to understand one thing: the World Economic Forum and the United Nations march together hand in hand. In short, they’re two sides of the same coin.

The United Nations previously announced two separate agendas eerily similar to The Great Reset that contain many of the same components. These two UN agendas, Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, include plans for what needs to happen on earth by 2021 and 2030 (there’s also an Agenda 2050, by the way).

Agenda 2030 has publicly stated goals of promoting racial and gender equality, eradicating global poverty, and abolishing violence, hate, and war from the globe. It also states it will reduce natural resource use in every country and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in every industrialized country. 

And How Do You Suppose Agenda 2030 Would Accomplish Those Goals?

Suppose you’re a lumberjack. A global organization has just stated you’re no longer permitted to cut down trees to “reduce natural resource use.” You’re now out of a job and can’t afford to feed your newborn daughter.

Or, let’s say you’re a farmer. A global organization has just stated that your cows produce too much methane. They’re all slaughtered and left to rot in a field (we’ll get to why later). You’ve now lost a significant investment, your primary source of income, and are out of a job. Farmers in non-industrialized nations are permitted to raise cattle. But you’re an American, so you are not.

Why? Because we need to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions in every industrialized country.”

Here’s another example. You’re an American with unalienable rights, a Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. You have the Declaration of Independence and a long history of fierce protection of freedom. Protection of freedom necessitates the possession of arms.

But now, a global organization has landed troops on your shores. Why? To “abolish violence.” The organization deems your possession of arms as a hindrance to such. Therefore, the organization will take measures against you to abolish violence.

The Great Reset Incorporates All These Ideas Into Its Plans

Publicly, the WEF states The Great Reset is going to be about completely revamping capitalism.

“Every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.” – The WEF 

The WEF particularly likes to say they want to instigate “stakeholder capitalism,” where the bulk of the private sector works hand in hand with the government. They say that such “will require stronger and more effective governments.” According to the WEF, there are human and financial costs of capitalism not being addressed. 

What do you call it when the government owns and controls all private business?

Communism. You call it communism.

And, what happens when capitalism dies?

As Ayn Rand pointed out in her excellent book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, man on this earth without capitalism is bound. It’s inseparable from true human freedom. Collectivism leads to further and further slavery every single time.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution

A significant component of The Great Reset is a term Schwabb coined back in December 2015 – The Fourth Industrial Revolution. The best way to describe it is to combine The MatrixMinority Report, and Will Smith’s I, Robot.

According to Schwabb, the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution is “Ubiquitous, mobile supercomputing. Intelligent robots. Self-driving cars. Neuro-technological brain enhancements. Genetic editing. The evidence of dramatic change is all around us, and it’s happening at exponential speed.”

In Short, Schwabb Wants To Turn The World Into A Digital Mecca

Perhaps you don’t care about the above “improvements” – they don’t bother you? Well, let’s continue to delve deeper.

As it is, the WEF has already alluded to the possibility of using an AI to govern humanity. Humans would no longer have elected representatives in office (not that the US has that now, but I digress). Instead, super-powerful AI would determine what supplies went where and what prices would be, and so on. 

It’s the surrender of humanity to a machine.

Furthermore, What About These Brain Enhancements And Genetic Editing?

Look around at the world before you and what “the powers that be” have forced upon society. In a world full of brain enhancements and genetic editing, do you genuinely think you would still be free to choose?

Remember that The Fourth Industrial Revolution heavily ties in with The Great Reset, which seeks a one-world government. In such a world, should it be decreed under the guise of law that overpopulation is a problem, the ability to genetically edit sterility into 20% of the population becomes a reality. Let’s say the lottery system selects both of your kids. Do you really think they would grant you a say?

Freedom Would Have Long Been Rotting In The Grave In Such A World.

Further aspects of The Fourth Industrial Revolution include digital surveillance everywhere, made possible worldwide by 5G (with the hope of utilizing 6G eventually).  

There would be no privacy in such a world. It would be Nazi Germany on steroids. Have you read Zamyatin’s dystopian novel We (in many ways, the inspiration for 1984)? Practically, you’d be living in a world of glasshouses.

It’s worth noting that there are several other aspects of TGR that bear mentioning. Consider the following:

Rural Populations Will Be Forcibly Coerced Into Urban Environments 

Allegedly, to combat climate change. In reality, it is to have easier control over potential dissidents. It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to leave your farm. The good of the whole compels you, and men who have heartily devoured Mao Zedong’s philosophy on power (“Political power only grows out of the barrel of a gun.”) will be happy to assist you in your mental transition here. 

Citizens Now Rent Everything Because They Own Nothing

Aden Tate wrote about what the world would like like without personal property in this article. Aden writes, “Within the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, the mantra has come out that by the year 2030, ‘you’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.’”

The government now owns everything, as a group of men comes in to tell you they are stealing what is rightfully yours. The world falls back to a system of feudalism. The Irish are well-familiarized with how such a system works out. 

All Media Is Digital

Climate change, of course. And let’s not forget the recent trend to battle “disinformation’. If everything is digital, it is censorable. This serves as the ultimate means of wholly controlling what it is people read and say. 

A Chinese-Style Social Credit System

Good global citizens of the one-world government will have a higher social credit score than the older American who supports those fighting against foreign invaders. These higher scores will permit access to travel “privileges,” better food, and better jobs. And in a world full of brain implants and genetic editing, I wonder what some of the punishments for low-scoring Americans could be? 

A Digital Blockchain Currency Is Now The Way Forward

Cash becomes a vector of disease, expensive to produce, and inefficient. Of course, this means they can track every purchase you ever make.  There is no anonymity of purchases any longer. Given the new ability to pay for food with your palm, the push for using a QR code to pay for anything, and quantum dot tattoos that may be able to store your financial data, this may not be too far off.

What’s For Dinner? Bugs And Fake, Food-Like Lab Products

According to The Great Reset, animals are a “resource-intensive” form of protein. The GR seeks to steer you away from such foods and “towards four main categories of alternatives – aquatic, plant-based, insect-based, and laboratory-cultured.”  

The Great Reset And The World Economic Forum Are NOT Your Friends

Should The Great Reset succeed, the world will firmly fall into the grip of a totalitarian government. You will be a slave in every sense of the word, liable to medical experimentation and forced treatments. The state will own your children, and if history serves as a guide, you won’t get to keep them for long. Should the AI determine it’s convenient, your family will be uprooted and transferred to a newly created ghetto.

Forced to ingest chemicals rather than food, you will never know what genetic-altering agents and medications are in those foods. 

Your lifelong dream to be a parent could be vaporized as mandates of forced sterility begin. Should woke culture decide masculine men are an issue, would it be outside the scope of the power of a government that owns everything to mandate the creation of eunuchs throughout your town?

Though the rest of the world may have fallen, Americans can never let their country follow suit.

Too much depends upon it.

By Jeff Thompson, TheOrganicPrepper.com