Understanding the Food Component of the Great Reset
The Canadian Government has called on Canadian agricultural producers to reduce use of nitrogen fertilizer by 30%. At this time it has been couched as a call for voluntary compliance. I think that very few Canadian agricultural operations will comply. A very similar measure has been proposed in the Netherlands and in Ireland.
We are told that this is part of a net-zero emissions target set to be reached in 2030. Seems a ways off, right? Wrong. This is only 8 years away. Think back to 2014 and you will realize it's not far into the distant future.
This reduction in emissions to combat "Climate Change" seems a laudable policy.
But it isn't. Without industrial methods of farming using irrigation, fertilizer and petrochemical insecticides the quantity of food produced will dramatically plummet. These methods have been developed by Western farmers over the past 2 centuries. Most particularly in Canada and the United States. This "industrialized farming" was then evangelized by Norman Borlaug who is credited with saving billions of people from famine. How did he do this? By teaching these methods of production to farmers in India and Sub-Saharan Africa.
China now also uses these industrial agriculture methods. So we have China, India and Sub-Saharan Africa all using these farming methods. Of course Western agricultural production is still vastly more productive than even the industrialized farming of those other regions. This is mostly due to intensive use of very sophisticated adjunct technology. Crop yield tracking, soil testing and planting/harvesting algorithms being examples.
Reduction of fertilizer use by 30% will obviously have a negative impact on the production and profitability of agribusiness. I suggest that the impact will be even greater on smaller operations. They not having access to many of the resources available to larger conglomerated producers.
But will this crippling of our agriculture help Save the Planet™?
Not even a tiny bit. No effect whatsoever would be my estimation. You may ask on what evidence I base that opinion. China and India between them make up ~75% of fertilizer use globally. I think we can be assured that neither of those nations is going to enact similar policies. Even if every other country save those two follow in the footsteps of Canadian and European Governments and enacts similar legislation the use of fertilizer will drop by 7-8%. This does not seem sufficient to combat any catastrophic climactic side effects of fertilizer use.
Lucía Fernández
These governments must be aware of these simple facts as I've laid them out. A couple of minutes of investigation and my general understanding of the use of fertilizers globally was statistically confirmed. So why are they enacting these policies? I'll come back to that question in a moment but right now I want to introduce an additional topic (you'll see why in a bit).
Why the push towards plant based meat substitute products?
These are not new products. There have been soy based meat substitutes for over half a century. Vegetable based bacon strips first came to market in the early 1970's. We need to go back to those years as they were a precursor attempt to what is taking place now.
In the 1970's there was a huge marketing campaign that targeted fat and cholesterol nutrients. They were touted as dangerous, unhealthy and nearly poisonous. One of the first foods targeted was butter. Articles were written showing how dangerous it was. Pure saturated fat, the boogie man.
Why the sudden and overwhelming push away from butter and other saturated fats? Simple really. Margarine. Margarine is hydrogenated vegetable oil, vegetable oil is cheap. Yet margarine is no cheaper than butter. Why? The reason is that in order to use it as a spread you must hydrogenate the oil. This means an industrial food process. That was the reason. Move the profits from traditional oil spread (butter) to a corporate industrial food processed foodstuff.
At this same time bacon was the target of massive media campaigns. After all, bacon has a high quantity of fat. Recall, fat was being demonized. Vegetable bacon is a manufactured product which is composed primarily of processed soy products. Similarly to the vegetable based butter, vegetable bacon requires quite a mechanized and industrialized process to produce.
The third major primary food item that was targeted around this time were eggs. Again, they are high in fat and as a bonus they also have high levels of cholesterol. So egg substitutes were introduced. The surprising thing about egg substitutes is that they are mostly just egg whites with coloring and flavoring. But again, moving a primary food item from unprocessed or lightly processed to an industrial process.
I contend that the media was financially incentivized to write these articles. That major food processors and their corporate owners made investments into these articles to promote their products. Products that have always been the output of small, local operations. Operations that did the minimal processing required for these foods.
I am contending that a similar thing is happening now. The difference is that they are not just targeting individual foodstuffs but entire classes of food. Meat in general is bad. It should be replaced by a manufactured food. Milk is bad and should be replaced with ground up almonds or any other white powder that can be colloidally suspended in water. Expect more and more categories of food to be labelled better if manfactured.
So now we link these two thoughts.
As you may have guessed, this is all about money. Vast amounts of money. And this may likely be supported and bulwarked via taxation and licensing. But what about this fertilizer legislation? Small agribusiness doesn't have the depth of resources needed to deal with a drastic decline in production and higher input costs for as long as larger agribusiness. So the financial impact will disproportionately impact smaller farms. Especially family run farms. They will be bought up by large corporate agribusinesses. Consolidating ownership into the hands of a few.
Those few will have huge resources and will be able either lobby for changes to the legislation or provide financial incentives to legislators for some kind of exception to the rules. Massive amounts of money available to the unelected bureaucracy.
After this is done the shift to cheap feedstock crops to sell to the food factories will enhance profits. This will be the final industrialization and centralization of the food supply. Imagine being a majority shareholder in the 10 or so companies that feed the entire Western Hemisphere? A black-box marker of this is the fact that some high profile people are buying up vast amounts of farmland in North America.
As I said, this has nothing to do with "Climate Change". It has every earmark of a part of the general plan of the "Great Reset". This plan is a plan by very powerful people to further center themselves as the mega-elite class.