(Queensland, Australia) — For those who follow international news, the story of the Dutch farmers’ protest is an inspiration to us all. In 2019, a Dutch court order declared that nitrogen-compound fertiliser was a top threat to the climate and biodiversity and mandated a 70-80% decrease in its use. Even though doing so could destroy a full third of its farming output and eliminate somewhere between 30 and 50% of Dutch livestock. What did they expect the response to be? Did they expect farmers to simply lay down their tools and close their farms? Whether or not they anticipated it, the stage was set for conflict.
In October 2021, Dutch farmers began protesting against their government. Although these farmers would love nothing more than to be left alone to focus on their industry, their sudden and unexpected rise to community politics has seen support grow from around the world as they stood up against an inhumane bureaucracy. By the time the pro-EU coalition government of Dutch PM Mark Rutte took steps to implement the restrictions in June 2022, local farmers responded immediately with ferocious mass protests that blocked roads, airports and grocery distribution centres. As most people should now realise, if there are no farms, there is no food.
Many might be tempted to see this as an isolated event – the flashpoint of the future of agriculture within just one nation. However, you may recall the protests in Sri Lanka, which were also partly a response to the same worldview that sparked the Dutch farm protests, namely a coercive “sustainability” agenda crafted by the unelected and unaccountable “green” elite. Yet, one commentator said that the targets the Dutch government have set are impossible to reach and won’t be met “even if all the farmers go away.” The same commentator speculated that an ulterior motive lies behind the government’s policy: it wants the farmers’ land in order to address the country’s severe housing shortage. By 2030, the government needs to build 845,000 homes to meet expected population needs and farmers are in the way as they collectively own about 54% of land in the country. However, a 2021 Dutch news report saw it differently, stating that farmland bought out by the government would be used for “sustainable agriculture” which is code for lab-grown meat and other scientifically created foods.
But who is ultimately behind this agenda? After all, the term “sustainability” is often self-serving. And those who are serving themselves are generally those who fly to Davos each year and now demand that mankind must eat bugs in order to save the planet. Leveraging their influence over foundations, multilateral institutions and NGO’s, the world’s most powerful leaders and financiers have proposed a series of top-down transformations of the global food system that overrides national sovereignty all so that they can centralise their power and limit agricultural independence. In particular, they desire control over agricultural output because they believe that all elements of the meat production process are harming the planet. Therefore, the only answer in their mind is to reduce the world’s desire for meat.
An influential commission, known as the EAT-Lancet Commission, describes itself as the “Davos for food”. They are lobbying to impose major dietary changes on the global population through its “Planetary Health Diet”. According to their website, the proposed diet is “a global reference diet for adults that is symbolically represented by half a plate of fruits, vegetables and nuts. The other half consists of primarily whole grains, plant proteins (beans, lentils, pulses), unsaturated plant oils, modest amounts of meat and dairy, and some added sugars and starchy vegetables.” I guess we should be thankful there is no mention of bugs….yet. However, one food scientist rubbished ideas of a global diet. He said, “The idea that you would have one diet for an [entire] planet, it just doesn’t make sense. It only makes sense from a very-much globalist view that everything can come from one solution, that they will impose top-down.”
I agree, with one important distinction – those at the top have no intention of changing their diet.
