Archives‎ > ‎

Peter Myers Digest: Gates grants go to lobbies for Industrial Farming

(1) Gates grants go to lobbies for Industrial Farming (Agribusiness) - will get rid of small farmers(2) Vandana Shiva: Gates' Farming without Farmers - Colonization in the name of Sustainability(3) Farmers & civil groups boycott UN Food summit because hijacked by Bill Gates' Chemical Agriculture(4) World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ = Food Imperialism(5) Engdahl: Green Revolution was about Agribusiness, Chemical Farming(1) Gates grants go to lobbies for Industrial Farming (Agribusiness) - will get rid of small farmers the Gates Foundation is driving the food system, in the wrong directionby GRAIN | 17 Jun 2021The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has spent nearly US$6 billion over the past 17 years trying to improve agriculture, mainly in Africa. This is a lot of money for an underfunded sector, and, as such, carries great weight. To better understand how the Gates Foundation is shaping the global agriculture agenda, GRAIN analysed all the food and agriculture grants the foundation has made up until 2020. We found that, while the Foundation's grants focus on African farmers, the vast majority of its funding goes to groups in North America and Europe. The grants are also heavily skewed to technologies developed by research centres and corporations in the North for poor farmers in the South, completely ignoring the knowledge, technologies and biodiversity that these farmers already possess. Also, despite the Foundation's focus on techno-fixes, much of its grants are given to groups that lobby on behalf of industrial farming and undermine alternatives. This is bad for African farmers and bad for the planet. It is time to pull the plug on the Gates' outsized influence over global agriculture. [...](2) Vandana Shiva: Gates' Farming without Farmers - Colonization in the name of Sustainability Shiva: A New Wave of Colonization, Carbon SlaveryAnalysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaJune 25, 2021Vandana Shiva is a brilliant mind calling for inhabitants of the Earth to unite against forces that are threatening to destroy the planet, in part via a new wave of colonization in the name of sustainability.Tech billionaire Bill Gates, now the largest owner of farmland in the U.S.,1 is at the root of the problem, pushing technology as the only mechanism to save the world, and in so doing denying real solutions. This path is not accidental but carefully orchestrated to amass wealth, power and control, while making all but the elite subservient.In my interview with Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., she spoke about Gates Ag One,2 which is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, where Monsanto is also headquartered."Gates Ag One is one [type of] agriculture for the whole world, organized top down. He's written about it. We have a whole section on it in our new report,3 'Gates to a Global Empire,'" she said. This includes digital farming, in which farmers are surveilled and mined for their agricultural data, which is then repackaged and sold back to them.Bill Gates’ New Book Is ‘Rubbish’In the above Under the Skin podcast with Russel Brand, Shiva takes aim at Gates’ book "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need," which was released in February 20214 — calling it "rubbish:"5"Just by chance I was reading the rubbish in Bill Gates’ new book. I normally don't read rubbish but when they want to be rulers through rubbish, I read it. And it's lovely because he says the greenhouse gases from factory farms are not because of factory farms and putting animals in prisons … it's because the cows were the problem. They had four stomachs and the four stomachs make the methane."The reason cows in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) emit methane that smells is because they're fed an unnatural diet of grains and placed in crowded quarters. It's not a natural phenomenon. It's a man-made one. "You walk behind a good cow on a grazing pasture, she's not stinking," Shiva said.6The strong recommendation to replace beef with fake meat is also made in Gates’ book7 — another example of replacing a whole, natural food with something engineered, heavily processed and fake. It all stems from an overreaching theme of arrogance and the desire for recolonization and a global empire.The idea is to imply, or create the environment in which, survival isn’t possible without technology. "It is a denial of the richness of agroecological knowledges and practices that are resurging around the world," according to one of Navdanya’s reports.8Shiva founded Navdanya, a nonprofit organization promoting biodiversity, organic farming and seed saving, in 1994. She has also travelled the globe to warn other countries, including Africa, about plans to displace rural farmers so investors can turn the land into industrial farms to export the commodities.Gates’ book talks about eliminating age-old farming traditions, which Shiva believes must be protected. Speaking with Brand, Shiva said:9"He [Gates] has put the Indian plow that has existed for 10,000 years and says this primitive technology must go. I call this, as the future technology, a partnership between our bodies, the body of the Earth, and the body of the animals — realizing that we are not masters but we are there to serve through what Gandhi called bread labor, the labor of our body in the service of the Earth, in the service of community.So we are for sure at an epic moment where everything wrong is being given a new life just at the time when the world was waking up … I think this is happening … because of arrogance … we've destroyed every international law, we've destroyed all democracy, we have locked people into fear … you know, the British empire had that arrogance."Breaking the Sacred Relationship With FoodIndustrialization started the process of severing humans’ age-old connections to their food and the land on which it’s grown. "Now, with digitalization," Shiva said, "they would like to end it forever."10 Tech giants, in an effort to drive home digital agriculture, are working to reduce life to software11 while advancing digital surveillance systems.So far, Shiva's organization has managed to prevent Gates from introducing a seed surveillance startup, where farmers would not be allowed to grow seeds unless approved by Gates’ surveillance system. The data mining, Shiva says, is needed because they don't actually know agriculture.This is why Gates finances the policing of farmers. He needs to mine their data to learn how farming is actually done. In countering the tech giants’ attempts to remove humans’ sacred relationship to food, Shiva states we can fight back by remembering and focusing on a few essential principles:12Food is the currency of lifeThe highest duty is to grow and give food in abundanceThe worst sin is to let someone go hungry in your neighborhood, not grow food and, worse, sell bad food"We’ve got to bring to the center of our everyday life the rituals that make life sacred," Shiva said. "Our breath … breath is what connects us to the world … water connects us to the world. Food connects us to the world."13‘Net Zero’ NonsenseGates has been vocal that achieving "net zero" emissions will be the "most amazing thing humanity has ever done."14 By 2030, he’s pushing for drastic, fundamental changes, including widespread consumption of fake meat, adoption of next generation nuclear energy and growing a fugus as a new type of nutritional protein.15The deadline Gates has given to reach net zero emissions is 2050,16 likely because he wants to realize his global vision during his lifetime. But according to Shiva, in order to force the world to accept this new food and agricultural system, new conditionalities are being created through net zero "nature-based" solutions. Navdanya’s report, "Earth Democracy: Connecting Rights of Mother Earth to Human Rights and Well-Being of All," explains:17"If ‘feeding the world’ through chemicals and dwarf varieties bred for chemicals was the false narrative created to impose the Green Revolution, the new false narrative is ‘sustainability’ and ‘saving the planet.’ In the new ‘net zero’ world, farmers will not be respected and rewarded as custodians of the land and caregivers, as Annadatas, the providers of our food and health.They will not be paid a fair and just price for growing healthy food through ecological processes, which protect and regenerate the farming systems as a whole.They will be paid for linear extraction of fragments of the ecological functions of the system, which can be tied to the new ‘net zero’ false climate solution based on a fake calculus, fake science allowing continued emissions while taking control over the land of indigenous people and small farmers.‘Net Zero’ is a new strategy to get rid of small farmers in first through ‘digital farming’ and ‘farming without farmers’ and then through the burden of fake carbon accounting.Carbon offsets and the new accounting trick of ‘net zero’ does not mean zero emissions. It means the rich polluters will continue to pollute and also grab the land and resources of those who have not polluted — indigenous people and small farmers — for carbon offsets."Gates already alluded to this double-standard in responding to those who criticized him for the hypocrisy of being a serious polluter himself, with a 66,000 square-foot mansion, a private jet, 242,000 acres of farmland and investments in fossil fuel-dependent industries such as airlines, heavy machinery and cars.18This pollution is acceptable, Gates said, because, "I am offsetting my carbon emissions by buying clean aviation fuel, and funding carbon capture and funding low-cost housing projects to use electricity instead of natural gas."19Carbon Colonization and Carbon SlaveryCarbon colonization and carbon slavery are two terms being used to explain the reality behind carbon trade, which is being regarded by Big Tech as the next big opportunity, Shiva says.20 Carbon trade refers to the buying and selling of credits that allow a company to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide,21 but by buying up credits from nonpolluters, industry can continue to pollute.Technocracy is also a resource-based economic system, which is why the World Economic Forum talks about the creation of "sustainable digital finance,"22 a carbon-based economy and carbon credit trading.23 As explained on its website:24"Digital finance refers to the integration of big data, artificial intelligence (AI), mobile platforms, blockchain and the Internet of things (IoT) in the provision of financial services. Sustainable finance refers to financial services integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria into the business or investment decisions.When combined, sustainable digital finance can take advantage of emerging technologies to analyze data, power investment decisions and grow jobs in sectors supporting a transition to a low-carbon economy."As Navdanya’s report explains, however, this will ultimately further remove the rights of small farmers, who will be forced into a new form of data slavery:25"A global ‘seal’ of approval based on fake science, fake economics of maximizing profits through extraction will create new data slavery for farmers. Instead of using their own heads and cocreating with the Earth, they will be forced to buy ‘Big Data.’ Instead of obeying the laws of Mother Earth, they will be forced to obey algorithms created by Big Tech and Big Ag."Focusing solely on carbon reductionism also misses the point that "forests, lands, ecosystems are so much more than the carbon stored in them," and putting conditionalities on small farmers will only make environmental injustices worse. The report adds:26"Conditionalities under any condition violate democratic principles and human rights. Farmers are guided by Earth care. The culture of Earth care needs to be respected and rewarded because it is centered on rights of the Earth and rights of all her children … Conditionalities put on the nonpolluters by the polluters who want to continue to pollute is unjust and ecologically, morally and ethically bankrupt."‘The Universe Is Divine’According to the ancient Vedas, the universe is divine, and everything therein — even the smallest grass — is an expression of the divine. "When I go to villages," Shiva told Brand, "women will do sacred ceremonies with indigenous seed. They will never use a hybrid seed for a sacred ceremony … It’s quite amazing. No one told them, but they have that understanding of integrity and what the sacred means. It means to treat without violation."27The universe exists for the well-being of all, but her gifts must be enjoyed without greed, Shiva explained. Taking more than your share is theft, and will only backfire. The solution to true sustainability doesn’t lie with new technology, but in relying on the natural "technology" that is the universe:28"It is by learning from the Earth that we can regenerate the Earth. We have to become students of Mother Earth, not try and dominate her. When we practice agriculture in unison with the Earth’s ecological processes aligned with the ecological laws of nature and the Earth, we evolve an agriculture of care for the land, for the soil. We participate in the process of regenerating the seed and biodiversity, soil and water."- Sources and References1 Fortune March 13, 20212 Independent Science News November 16, 20203, 8 Navdanya International, Gates to a Global Empire4, 7 Market Watch February 16, 20215, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 27 YouTube April 13, 202111 Navdanya, Earth Rights Are Human Rights14 BBC News February 15, 202115 ZeroHedge February 16, 202116, 19 Fox Business February 21, 202117 Navdanya, Earth Rights Are Human Rights, Page 1418 The Nation February 16, 202120, 25, 26 Navdanya, Earth Rights Are Human Rights, Page 1521 Investopedia, Carbon Trade22, 24 World Economic Forum, Sustainable Digital Finance Can Unlock a Low-Carbon Economy23 World Economic Forum, What Is a Carbon Credit?28 Navdanya, Earth Rights Are Human Rights, Page 19(3) Farmers & civil groups boycott UN Food summit because hijacked by Bill Gates' Chemical Agriculture and rights groups boycott food summit over big business linksFocus on agro-business rather than ecology has split groups invited to planned UN conference on hungerGlobal development is supported byBill and Melinda Gates FoundationJohn VidalThu 4 Mar 2021 23.32 AEDTAn international food summit to address growing hunger and diet-related disease is in disarray as hundreds of farmers’ and human rights groups are planning a boycott.The head of the food systems summit, due to take place in September, has made an emotional appeal for unity and the UN’s own advisers are urging a rethink of the way it is run.Called by the UN secretary general, António Guterres, the summit was welcomed for recognising that farming has been mostly ignored in climate talks. Its brief was to examine ways to reduce hunger and improve global food systems as the climate crisis intensifies and biodiversity is threatened.The UN estimates that more than 820 million people are undernourished, a jump of 60 million in five years. Nearly a quarter of all children under five are stunted and 1.9 billion adults are overweight, according to the World Health Organization.But the planned summit is already embroiled in arguments over who is to blame for the growth of hunger and disease, and whether the meeting is biased in favour of corporate, hi-tech intensive farming.The meeting got off to a controversial start when Guterres appointed Agnes Kalibata to head the event. The former Rwandan agriculture minister is president of the Gates-funded Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Agra), which was set up in 2006 and has supported the opening up of the continent to genetically modified crops, high-yield commercial seed varieties and intensive farming.Further suspicions that big business was dominating the agenda came when the summit’s concept paper mentioned precision agriculture, data collection and genetic engineering as important for addressing food security – initiatives supported by big technology companies and philanthropists – but made no mention of ecological farming or civil society involvement.The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Michael Fakhri, wrote to Kalibata in January saying the global food crisis was "chronic, urgent and set to intensify" but the summit appeared focused on science and technology, money and markets, and did not address "fundamental questions of inequality, accountability and governance"."It [appears] heavily skewed in favour of one type of approach to food systems, namely market-based solutions … it leaves out experimental/traditional knowledge that has the acute effect of excluding indigenous peoples and their knowledge," wrote Fakhri."The business sector has been part of the problem of food systems and has not been held accountable."Support for ecological initiatives has also come from Olivier De Schutter, former UN special rapporteur on food, and Olivia Yambi, a nutrition expert and former Unicef official.They have argued that the summit should be broadened into a more inclusive world food congress, and that initiatives such as agro-ecology, endorsed by scientists, civil society and farmers, and food sovereignty be put firmly on the agenda.This week the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism – a group of more than 500 civil society groups with more than 300 million members – said they would boycott the summit and set up a parallel meeting."We cannot jump on a train that is heading in the wrong direction. We are questioning the summit’s legitimacy. We sent a letter last year to the secretary general about our concerns. It was not answered. We sent another last month, which has also not been answered," said Sofía Monsalve Suárez, head of Fian International, a group working for the right to nutrition."The summit appears extremely biased in favour of the same actors who have been responsible for the food crisis. " [...](4) World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ = Food Imperialism Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ Plan for Big Food Benefits Industry, Not People"The Great Reset is about maintaining and empowering a corporate extraction machine and the private ownership of life." — Vandana ShivaBy Jeremy LoffredoThe World Economic Forum’s (WEF) The Great Reset includes a plan to transform the global food and agricultural industries and the human diet. The architects of the plan  claim it will reduce food scarcity, hunger and disease, and even mitigate climate change.But a closer look at the corporations and think tanks the WEF is partnering with to usher in this global transformation suggests that the real motive is tighter corporate control over the food system by means of technological solutions.Vandana Shiva, scholar, environmentalist, food sovereignty advocate and author, told The Defender, "The Great Reset is about multinational corporate stakeholders at the World Economic Forum controlling as many elements of planetary life as they possibly can. From the digital data humans produce to each morsel of food we eat." [...](5) Engdahl: Green Revolution was about Agribusiness, Chemical Farming "F. William Engdahl" <> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 00:58:17 +0000 Subject: How A Rockefeller Foundation Project Destroyed Our Food To: petermyersaus@gmail.comDear Reader,I want to share a section from my bestselling book, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic ManipulationIt deals with the origins of one of the least-discussed projects, one that has had the greatest consequences for human health and well-being. It is a project financed and sponsored beginning in the 1950’s by a tax exempt US foundation built on a fortune in oil. It gave rise to the transformation of family farming into vertically-integrated, solely-for-profit agriculture. They even gave it a name-- agribusiness.   The results we have today where once rich, productive farms have been turned into contract units of multinational corporations whose main goal is shareholder value not nutrition.With best regards,William Chapter 7Rockefeller and Harvard Invent USA "Agribusiness"A Green Revolution Opens the DoorThe Rockefellers’ Green Revolution began in Mexico and was spread across Latin America during the 1950’s and 1960’s. Shortly thereafter, backed by John D. Rockefeller’s networks across Asia, it was introduced in India and elsewhere in Asia. The "revolution" was a veiled effort to gain control over food production in key target countries of the developing world, promoted in the name of free enterprise market efficiency against alleged "communist inefficiency."In the aftermath of World War II, with Germany’s I.G. Farben a bombed-out heap of rubble, American chemical companies emerged as the world’s largest. The most prominent companies—DuPont, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, Hercules Powder and others—faced a glut of nitrogen production capacity which they had built up, at US taxpayer expense, to produce bombs and shells for the war effort. An essential chemical for making bombs and explosives, nitrogen was a prime component of TNT and other high explosives. Nitrogen could also form the basis for nitrate fertilizers. The chemical industry developed the idea of creating large new markets for their nitrogen in the form of fertilizers, ammonia nitrate, anhydrous ammonia, for both domestic US agriculture and for export. The nitrogen fertilizer industry was part of the powerful lobby of the Rockefeller Standard Oil circles which, by the end of the War, included DuPont, Dow Chemicals, Monsanto and Hercules Powder among others.The global marketing of the new agri-chemicals after the war also solved the problem of finding significant new markets for the American petrochemical industry as well as the grain cartel, a group of four to five companies then including Cargill, Continental Grain, Bunge and ADM. The largest grain traders were American and their growth was a product of the development of special hybrid seeds through the spread of the Green Revolution in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Agriculture was in the process of going global and the Rockefeller Foundation was shaping that process of agribusiness globalization.With a monopoly on the agricultural chemicals and on the hybrid seeds, American agribusiness giants were intent on dominating the global market in agricultural trade. As Kissinger noted in the 1970’s, "If you control the food you control the people." Governments from the developing sector to the European Economic Community, the Soviet Union and China, soon depended on the powerful grain cartel companies to provide the needed grains and food products to maintain their political stability in times of bad harvest.True, there was US Government concern to contain communist and nationalist movements in the developing world during the 1960’s by offering food aid in the form of privately sponsored agricultural inputs. However, the combination of US Government aid and the techniques being developed in the name of a Green Revolution would present a golden opportunity for the influential policy-making circles around Rockefeller and their emerging agribusiness groups to turn that concern to their advantage. Nelson Rockefeller worked hand-in-glove on agriculture with his brother, John D. III, who had set up his own Agriculture Development Council in 1953, one year after he had founded the Population Council. The focus of the Agriculture Development Council was Asia, while Nelson concentrated on his familiar turf in Latin America. They shared the common goal of long-term cartelization of world agriculture and food supplies under their corporate hegemony.When the Rockefeller Foundation’s Norman Borlaug came into Mexico in the 1950’s, he worked on hybrid forms of rust-resistant wheat and hybrid corn types, not yet the genetically engineered projects to come several decades later. Behind the façade of agricultural and biological science, however, the Rockefeller group was pursuing a calculated strategy through its Green Revolution during the 1950’s and 1960’s.The heart of its strategy was to introduce "modern" agriculture methods to increase crop yields and, so went the argument, thereby to reduce hunger and lessen the threat of potential communist subversion of hungry, unruly nations. It was the same seducing argument used years later to sell its Gene Revolution. The Green Revolution was the beginning of global control over food production, a process made complete with the Gene Revolution several decades later. The same companies, not surprisingly, were involved in both, as were the Rockefeller and other powerful US foundations.In 1966, the Rockefeller Foundation was joined by the considerable financial resources of the Ford Foundation, another US private tax-exempt foundation which enjoyed intimate ties to the US Government, US intelligence and foreign policy establishment. Together with the Ford Foundation resources, the Rockefeller Foundation’s Green Revolution went into high gear.That year of 1966, the Government of Mexico along with the Rockefeller Foundation set up the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). The center focused its work on a wheat program, which originated from breeding studies begun in Mexico in the 1940s by the Rockefeller Foundation.[1]Their efforts in food and agriculture received a boost that same year when US President Lyndon Johnson announced a drastic shift in US food aid to developing countries under P.L. 480, namely that no food aid would be sent unless a recipient country had agreed to preconditions which included agreeing to the Rockefeller agenda for agriculture development, stepping up their population control programs and opening their doors to interested American investors.[2]In 1970, the Rockefeller’s Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Prize. Interestingly enough, it was not for biology but for peace, the same prize Henry Kissinger was to receive several years later. Both men were also protégé’s of the influential Rockefeller circles.In reality, the Green Revolution introduced US agribusiness into key developing countries under the cover of promoting crop science and modern techniques. The new wheat hybrids in Mexico required modern chemical fertilizers, mechanized tractors and other farm equipment, and above all, they required irrigation, which meant pumps driven by oil or gas energy.The Green Revolution methods were suitable only in the richest crop areas, and it was deliberately aimed at the richest farmers, reinforcing old semi-feudal Latifundist divisions between wealthy landowners and poor peasant farmers. In Mexico, the new wheat hybrids were all planted in the rich, newly-irrigated farm areas of the Northeast. All inputs, from fertilizers to tractors and irrigation, required petroleum and other inputs from advanced industrial suppliers in the United States. Oil and agriculture joined forces under the Rockefeller aegis.In India, the Green Revolution was limited to 20 percent of land in the irrigated North and Northwest. It ignored the huge disparity of wealth between large feudal landowners in such areas and the majority of poor, landless peasants. Instead, it created pockets of modern agribusiness tied to large export giants such as Cargill.The regions where the vast majority of poorer peasants worked remained poor. The introduction of the Green Revolution did nothing to change the gap between rich feudal landowners and poor peasants, but overall statistics showed significant rises in Indian wheat production. …Rockefeller Finances the Creation of AgribusinessWhile the Rockefeller brothers were expanding their global business reach from oil to agriculture in the developing world through their Green Revolution scheme, they were financing a little-noticed project at Harvard University, which would form the infrastructure to globalize world food production under the central control of a handful of private corporations. Its creators gave it the name "agribusiness," in order to differentiate it from traditional family-farmer-based agriculture.Agribusiness and the Green Revolution went hand-in-hand. They were part of a grand strategy which included Rockefeller Foundation financing of research for the development of genetic manipulation and patenting of plants a few years later. [...]