The United Nations recently held the Food Systems Summit with a focus on transforming the global food systems, but activists and farmers are exposing the summit as an attempt at corporate colonization of the food supply.
On September 23, the United Nations held the Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) during the UN General Assembly in New York with a focus on how to transform worldwide food systems. The event – nicknamed “The People’s Summit” by the UN – is the latest effort to align international governmental policy with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and the 2030 Agenda.
The UN Food Systems Summit was announced by the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres as a part of the Decade of Action for achieving the SDGs by 2030. The Summit has been promoted as the result of multiple years of dialogues between stakeholders at all levels in order to leverage the “interconnectedness of food systems to global challenges such as hunger, climate change, poverty and inequality”.
The Food Systems Summit resulted in nearly 300 commitments from people and institutions to accelerate changes to the food system. The UN said the summit also resulted in “several multi-stakeholders’ initiatives led by civil society, farmers, women, youth and indigenous groups that Member States commit to in order to deliver on the priorities, needs, and gaps identified in national pathways.”
UN Secretary-General António Guterres released a statement celebrating the Summit as a success. Guterres described the beginning of the 2020’s as a grave time where “many of the world’s food systems were fragile”, where “hunger was on the rise again.” Guterres describes obstacles facing humanity, including malnutrition, obesity, food insecurity, climate extremes, and inequality. He notes that the “COVID-19 pandemic put these worrying trends in overdrive.” In the view of Guterres and the UN, the Food Systems Summit was a “Solutions Summit to make the transformative effects of food systems a driver for the achievement of the SDGs by 2030.”
The Secretary-General also announced that a “stock taking” meeting will convene every two years to review progress in implementing the goals of the Food Systems Summit as part of the 2030 Agenda.
So what is the 2030 Agenda?
The UN SDGs are a collection of 17 interlinked goals designed to be a “blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all”. The SDGs were set in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly with the intention of achieving them by the year 2030. The SDGs were part of a larger resolution known as the 2030 Agenda, or Agenda 2030, aimed at fighting climate change.
While the United Nations is often touted as a tool for establishing healthy multilateral relationships between nations, in truth, the UN SDGs and Agenda 2030 are based in a deeper agenda to monitor, control, and direct all life on the planet. The true agenda of the WEF and the United Nations is to establish a global Technocratic State where supposed experts and technologists make decisions for the vast majority of the people in the name of saving the environment.
The corporate media and aligned political class may promote the UN as a tool for elevating the collective health of the world, but a public which has grown increasingly skeptical of centralized institutions are beginning to question the role of the United Nations and other non-governmental organizations such as the World Economic Forum.
Mr. Monsanto, AGRA, and Corporate Colonization
Despite the United Nations’ claims of hearing from all “stakeholders”, the UN Food Systems Summit has been heavily criticized by a number of organizations and groups which the UN is claiming to represent.
For example, some critics have noted the presence of US Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. Vilsack previously served as Iowa’s Governor and as president and CEO of the US Dairy Export Council since 2017. Secretary Vilsack was appointed by the Biden administration after previously serving as Secretary of Agriculture during the Obama administration.
During the Summit Vilsack stated, “We must use the power of ingenuity to improve on food systems so they provide safe, nutritious, affordable, and accessible food for all, while conserving natural resources, and combating the climate crisis.”
While Vilsack’s statements regarding improving food systems and providing nutritious food to all make for a nice soundbite, they do not reflect his history. Vilsack is notable for being given the nickname “Mr. Monsanto” in reference to his work helping the biotech giant Monsanto Inc, now owned by Bayer.
In fact, in 2001 the Biotechnology Innovation Organization named Vilsack “BIO Governor of the Year” for “his support of the industry’s economic growth and agricultural biotechnology research” while serving as Iowa’s Governor.
In 2016, Politico reported,
“Progressives say they are also disappointed that during Vilsack’s seven-and-a-half-year tenure, the Agriculture Department sped up approval of controversial GMO crops, backed trade deals they say cost Americans’ jobs and cleared changes to let poultry slaughter facilities police themselves, among a slew of initiatives favoring big producers.”
The Organic Consumer Association also reported on the various genetically modified food products approved during his tenure. According to OCA, while Vilsack was USDA Secretary from 2009 to 2017 he approved more new genetically modified organisms (GMOs) than any Secretary before him or since. Here are just a couple examples:
- Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets: A judge ruled that inevitable contamination would cause the “potential elimination of farmer’s choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer’s choice to eat non-genetically engineered food.”
- Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa: The first genetically modified perennial crop. By the end of the Obama administration, it had gone wild, costing American alfalfa growers and exporters millions of dollars in lost revenue.
The concerns about corporate influence on the UN Food Systems Summit are not limited to “Mr. Monsanto”. There are a growing number of organizations and individuals speaking up in regards to the lack of representation for indigenous and small farmers. Since at least March 2020, the UN Food Systems Summit has faced criticism from indigenous groups and environmental activists.
At that time, Olivier De Schutter, the former UN special rapporteur on the right to food, told The Guardian that food security groups around the world had “expressed misgivings about the UN food systems summit”.
“There’s a big risk that the summit will be captured by corporate actors who see it as an opportunity to promote their own solutions,” De Schutter told The Guardian. De Schutter also stated that the Food Summit was the result of “closed-door agreements” at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
There was also vocal opposition to the UN announcement that Agnes Kalibata, the former Rwandan minister for agriculture, would lead the summit. Critics oppose Kalibata’s involvement because she has also served as president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), an organization which has received criticism for its false promises in the African continent.
In February 2020, 176 organizations from 83 countries signed a letter to the UN secretary general, António Guterres, saying Kalibata’s appointment was “a deliberate attempt to silence the farmers of the world” and signaled the “direction the summit would take”. The letter also accused AGRA of being “puppets of agro-industrial corporations and their shareholders”.
These concerns around the corporate and NGO influence over the summit only increased as the event drew near. The day before the launch of the summit, Michael Fakhri, UN special rapporteur on food rights, told The Guardian the summit was “being led by scientists and research institutes who are pro-corporate sector.” Fakhri said the summit was elitist and claimed that while corporations do not have a role in the “day-to-day operations” of the summit, “the leadership picked comes from organizations that believe corporations are part of the solution.”
As the Food Summit began the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism – a group of more than 500 civil society groups with more than 300 million members – boycotted the meeting and set up their own parallel event. A statement from the CSM reads:
“In a policy brief published today, the People’s Autonomous Response and more than 300 participating organizations of small-scale food producers, Indigenous Peoples, NGOs and academia, argue that the Summit and the process leading up to it are failing to address the most important drivers of world hunger and the climate crisis, especially COVID-19, industrial agriculture, and corporate concentration in food systems. Instead, it is a dangerous distraction, which, by narrowing the focus to finance, technology, and innovation as the solutions, will only exacerbate food insecurity and inequality.”
On the day before the launch of the Food Summit, the People’s Autonomous Response to the UNFSS published a new analysis claiming that non-corporate participants have been sidelined “in favor of big corporations represented by and allied with business associations, non-profits and philanthropy groups.”
The report notes that the summit is broken down into five areas known as “action tracks”. One of the action tracks is supposed to focus on solutions to “boost nature positive production” and includes 26 private corporations such as Nestlé, Tyson, Bayer and the International Fertilizer Association, while only 1 indigenous group is involved. This is despite the fact that most of the world’s food systems and agriculture involves indigenous and small scale farmers.
The analysis found that business associations, think tanks, and philanthropies which represent corporate interests in sectors like agriculture, retail, and finance, were given important leadership roles. For example, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a strong advocate for the use of biotechnology solutions for food insecurity. The Gates Foundation has financial ties to several of the corporate participants, and has helped fund AGRA.
Additionally, the People’s Coalition on Food Security wrote to the UN to urge it to sever the “strategic partnership” with the World Economic Forum, the “international organization for public-private partnerships” which convenes an annual meeting of elitists from various sectors in Davos, Switzerland. The WEF is also the main institution behind the push for a “Great Reset”.
“The WEF will exploit the summit to streamline neoliberal globalization. It will mean that global inequality and corporate monopoly would be sidetracked rather than confronted as the root cause of hunger and extreme poverty,” said the coalition.
The partnership between the UN and the WEF was signed at a June 2019 meeting held at UN headquarters between UN Secretary-General António Guterres and WEF Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab. The stated goal of the partnership was “to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
The People’s Coalition on Food Security was right to focus their efforts on ending this partnership between the WEF and the UN. The WEF is using their vast wealth and network to push for The Great Reset agenda, remaking the world’s systems in the name of “inclusiveness” and “diversity”, while in reality resetting the systems to the further benefit of the corporations, their friends in government, and The Predator Class behind them.
Unfortunately, many of the valid criticisms of the UN Food Systems Summit miss the bigger picture. While activists are correct to expose the ties between the United Nations, biotech corporations, the Gates Foundation, and the WEF, many activists still appear to believe the United Nations is generally a positive institution. However, the truth is that the UN has always been a tool for capturing governments and pushing towards global governance schemes in the name of unity and equality.
The United Nations-WEF Great Reset of International Food Systems
The partnership between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum was sealed in June 2019, about 9 months before “COVID-19” became a household name, and exactly one year before the WEF announced The Great Reset initiative. To truly understand the nefarious nature of the partnership between the UN, the WEF, and other stakeholders like Bill Gates you must understand The Great Reset.
The launch of The Great Reset was supported by Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum; England’s Prince Charles; Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the UN; and Kristalina Georgieva of the International Monetary Fund. The kick-off was an international event with the participation of Ma Jun, the chairman of the Green Finance Committee at the China Society for Finance and Banking and a member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the People’s Bank of China. The event was also supported by Bernard Looney, CEO of BP; Ajay Banga, CEO of Mastercard; and Bradford Smith, president of Microsoft.
Klaus Schwab and the WEF have called for utilizing the innovations of “the Fourth Industrial Revolution” to support public good. The 4IR is another pet project of Schwab which was first announced in December 2015. To put it simply, the 4IR is the digital panopticon of the future, where digital surveillance is omnipresent and humanity uses digital technology to alter and, hopefully, improve our lives. Sometimes known as “The Internet of Things,” this world will be powered by 5G and 6G technology.
“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,” Schwab wrote for the announcement of the 4IR.
Of course, for Schwab and other technocrats the 4IR also lends itself towards more central planning and top-down control. The goal is a track and trace society where all transactions are logged, every person has a digital ID that can be tracked, and social malcontents are locked out of society via social credit scores.
How does The Great Reset tie into the UN Food Systems Summit and Agenda 2030?
The World Economic Forum makes it clear that The Great Reset is about capitalizing on the COVID-19 crisis and using it as an opportunity to accelerate the 2030 Agenda and SDGs of the United Nations. With the WEF and the UN now working hand-in-hand it has become clear that the UN Food Systems Summit is another tool which the technocrats in control of these organizations may use to implement The Great Reset.
For example, the UNFSS describes a number of propositions to solve climate change, each of which fall under 15 action areas. These areas are intended to be “the starting point of coalitions of action” between national governments and “multi-stakeholders” to adopt and transform the world towards “more sustainable food systems.” While the UN claims these are voluntary proposals for the moment, we should still be skeptical when billionaire technocrats and heads of state partner together to tell the world how to eat sustainably.
Under Action 3, section 2 we see the title “Manage sustainably existing food production systems” which is dedicated to creating “nature-positive” solutions. This section discusses common UN talking points, including “the need for a global transition away from the industrialised animal production to ensure human and planetary health and to sustain livelihoods.” The move away from animal agriculture towards a diet of genetically engineered, 3D printed meat alternatives is a goal promoted by the UN, the WEF, and Bill Gates.
Other sections discuss creating “regenerative”, “sustainable”, “diverse”, “inclusive” food systems which are “led by indigenous peoples based on their knowledge”. However, as noted above, the UN is better at using trendy buzzwords than actually including the voices of marginalized peoples.
One final example of the interconnectedness between the UN, the WEF, the Gates Foundation, and other “stakeholders” comes from an announcement made at the Food Systems Summit. During the summit the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) announced a commitment to “transform the food systems”.
GAIN claims they are an alliance “driven by the vision of a world without malnutrition”. They are listed as partners with the WEF, and have been working with the WEF for the last couple years in preparation for the Food Summit. When we dig further into GAIN we learn that the organization developed something known as the Access to Nutrition Index in 2009. The Index ostensibly “tracks how well the food and beverage industry provides nutritious products to consumers.” The tool was originally developed and funded by GAIN, with help from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust.
While GAIN may publicly claim to envision a world without hunger malnutrition, their choice of partners make it clear that, once again, the technocrats are using their money and influence to guide global food policy. This is the same tried and true method which has allowed unelected power to capture the education system, the media, and the current food systems.
Is It Possible to Prevent History from Repeating Itself?
While much focus has been made on the WEF, the Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and other important players in the Great Reset/2030 Agenda, we would be remiss not to make special mention of the Rockefeller family and Foundation.
The current mainstream food paradigm, with its toxic practices of mass pesticide use, violent and dirty Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), and monopolized business, was born out of the so-called “Green Revolution” of the 1950’s and 60’s. Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho invited the Rockefeller Foundation into the country to help study and modernize Mexico’s farming. In 1943, Norman Borlaug, a plant geneticist, and his team of researchers traveled to Mexico and jumpstarted the so-called Green Revolution. Borlaug was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, with both organizations having an interest in establishing international farming standards which benefitted their bank accounts.
While the Green Revolution is often touted as a success due to increases in crop yields and an apparent drop in infant mortality, there is also a growing body of evidence indicating that the abundant use of pesticides has caused a rise in adverse health effects, including cancer. Most infamously, the world’s most widely used herbicide, glyphosate – a product of Agri giant Monsanto, now owned by Bayer – has been linked to a number of cases of cancer and resulted in multiple billion dollar settlements against the company.
Now, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the WEF, and the UN are asking the public to trust them as they attempt to remake the world’s food systems once more. One of the Rockefeller’s latest initiative is called “Reset the Table”. Much like the WEF, the Rockefeller Foundation is claiming that COVID-19 and the economic losses from lockdowns have “made the negative consequences of the food system worse and more obvious”. The Foundation notes that COVID-19 has presented the moment to “transform the U.S. food system.”
The Rockefeller document, titled Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System, outlines how the Rockefeller Foundation can once again use its money and influence to shape the direction of a major industry, this time, the food supply itself. Ironically, the Reset the Table document also notes that the Rockefeller Foundation “played a role in seeding and scaling” The Green Revolution, while also noting that the Rockefeller Green Revolution left a legacy of “overemphasis of staple grains at the expense of more nutrient-rich foods”, and a “reliance on chemical fertilizers that deplete the soil, and overuse of water.”
With no hint of shame, the Rockefeller’s and their ilk will present themselves as the solution to problems they previously contributed to or outright created. This is exactly what we are seeing with the UN Food Systems Summit, Agenda 2030, and The Great Reset.
The people of the world – especially those who truly care about healthy and durable food systems and supply chains – would be wise not to leave the fate of our food in the hands of unelected, maniacal technocrats. If we blindly walk into the world of The Great Reset we will see a repeat of the failures of the 1st “Green Revolution” and a further loss of nutrition, biodiversity, and autonomy over our food.