Agriculture
Their Strategy in the War on Food

From the Brownstone Institute
By
In my previous two articles, we covered the global war on farmers and the culprits behind this agenda. Today, we will dive into the tactics these organizations use to foist their dystopian vision on the rest of us.
Perhaps you remember Event 201, the pandemic simulation run in late 2019 that served as a dress rehearsal for the 2020 Covid response. Such simulations have been used in the War on Food as well. Take, for example, the Food Chain Reaction Game, a 2015 wargame that simulated the time period from 2020 to 2030. Cargill and the other participants have removed the Food Chain Reaction Game data from their websites, but Cargill’s version was archived by independent researchers, so you can still see it here.
In the simulation, the decade brought “two major food crises, with prices approaching 400 percent of the long term average; a raft of climate-related extreme weather events; governments toppling in Pakistan and Ukraine; and famine and refugee crises in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Chad and Sudan.” When the game ended, its organizers had imposed meat taxes in Europe, capped CO2 emissions, and instituted a global carbon tax. The time period of the Food Chain Reaction Game handily coincides with the 2020 Covid crisis and ends with the culmination of Agenda 2030. If you don’t think those dates are significant, you aren’t paying attention.
The parties behind this simulation include the World Wildlife Fund, the Center for American Progress, the Center for Naval Analyses, and Cargill. Note the participation of US military and intelligence-linked organizations in this simulation, much as they appeared throughout the Covid power grab. Cargill, as I mentioned before, is one of the most powerful members of the global Big Ag cartel and have excelled in crushing independent farmers globally to establish total control of the food supply. The Center For American Progress is a Soros and Podesta-affiliated think tank.
The World Wildlife Fund has a shady Malthusian history dating to its eugenicist founders like Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, co-founder of the Bilderberg Group; transhumanist Julian Huxley (brother of Brave New World author Aldous Huxley); and Britain’s Prince Philip, who said he wanted to be reincarnated “as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.”
Note that the measures these conspirators concocted – meat taxes and a global carbon tax – have nothing to do with increasing the food supply to end famine – much as Event 201’s participants obsessed about vaccines and controlling misinformation rather than providing effective early treatment for disease. To state the obvious, neither simulation is really about solving hunger or viral contagion. They are designed to game out how to ram an agenda down the throats of an unwilling populace.
Both exercises are classic examples of Hegelian Dialectic, the problem-reaction-solution strategy whereby a problem is created or used to stimulate public demand for a solution. The solution always involves pre-planned actions or legislation that never would have passed public approval before the problem was created. To quote Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. By that I mean, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
The goal of the Food Chain Reaction Game simulation and the global elites who share this vision is simple but devastating: the controlled demolition of the current food supply and supply chain network – not to end factory farming and replace it with regenerative, earth healing agriculture – but to replace it with a global, centralized, fully surveilled, and tightly controlled food system based on lab-created and industrially processed so-called foods, with little dietary choice and abysmal health outcomes for all but the elites, using climate change as the excuse for it all.
As Bertrand Russell predicted, diet will not be left to individuals, but will be such as the best biochemists recommend.
If you’re new to this topic, you may feel that statement is hyperbolic. It is hard to grasp that there are people planning something this far-reaching and diabolical – it’s as far-fetched as a network of global elites using a lab-escaped virus as an excuse to destroy the economies of the world and forcibly inject billions with experimental poisons. But it is reality, and as the quotes from Bertrand Russell and Monsanto’s CEO hint, this agenda has been in the works for decades.
In my next article, we will look at some of the publicly acknowledged projects that are in the pipeline for achieving this goal.
Agriculture
Canada is missing out on the global milk boom

This article supplied by Troy Media.
By Sylvain Charlebois
With world demand soaring, Canada’s dairy system keeps milk producers locked out of growth, and consumers stuck with high prices
Prime Minister Mark Carney is no Justin Trudeau. While the team around him may be familiar, the tone has clearly shifted. His first week in office signalled a more data-driven, technocratic approach, grounded in pragmatism rather than ideology. That’s welcome news, especially for Canada’s agri-food sector, which has long been overlooked.
Historically, the Liberal party has governed with an urban-centric lens, often sidelining agriculture. That must change. Carney’s pledge to eliminate all interprovincial trade barriers by July 1 was encouraging but whether this includes long-standing obstacles in the agri-food sector remains to be seen. Supply-managed sectors, particularly dairy, remain heavily protected by a tangle of provincially administered quotas (part of Canada’s supply management system, which controls prices and limits production through quotas and tariffs to protect domestic producers). These measures stifle innovation, limit flexibility and distort national productivity.
Consider dairy. Quebec produces nearly 40 per cent of Canada’s milk, despite accounting for just over 20 per cent of the population. This regional imbalance undermines one of supply management’s original promises: preserving dairy farms across the country. Yet protectionism hasn’t preserved diversity—it has accelerated consolidation.
In reality, the number of dairy farms continues to decline, with roughly 90 per cent now concentrated in just a few provinces. On our current path, Canada is projected to lose nearly half of its remaining dairy farms by 2030. Consolidation disproportionately benefits Quebec and Ontario at the expense of smaller producers in the Prairies and Atlantic Canada.
Carney must put dairy reform back on the table, regardless of campaign promises. The sector represents just one per cent of Canada’s GDP, yet
wields outsized influence on policy, benefiting fewer than 9,000 farms out of more than 175,000 nationwide. This is not sustainable. Many Canadian producers are eager to grow, trade and compete globally but are held back by a system designed to insulate rather than enable.
It’s also time to decouple dairy from poultry and eggs. Though also supply managed, those sectors operate with far more vertical integration and
competitiveness. Industrial milk prices in Canada are nearly double those in the United States, undermining both our domestic processors and consumer affordability. These high prices don’t just affect farmers—they directly impact Canadian consumers, who pay more for milk, cheese and other dairy products than many of their international counterparts.
The upcoming renegotiation of CUSMA—the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, which replaced NAFTA—is a chance to reset. Rather than resist change, the dairy sector should seize the opportunity to modernize. This includes exploring a more open quota system for export markets. Reforms could also involve a complete overhaul of the Canadian Dairy Commission to increase transparency around pricing. Canadians deserve to know how much milk is wasted each year—estimated at up to a billion litres—and whether a strategic reserve for powdered milk, much like our existing butter reserve, would better serve national food security.
Global milk demand is rising. According to The Dairy News, the world could face a shortage of 30 million tonnes by 2030, three times Canada’s current annual production. Yet under current policy, Canada is not positioned to contribute meaningfully to meeting that demand. The domestic focus on protecting margins and internal price fairness is blinding the sector to broader market realities.
We’ve been here before. The last time CUSMA was renegotiated, Canada offered modest concessions to foreign competitors and then overcompensated its dairy sector for hypothetical losses. This created an overcapitalized industry, inflated farmland prices and diverted attention from more pressing trade and diplomacy challenges, particularly with India and China. This time must be different: structural reform—not compensation—should be the goal.
If Carney is serious about rebooting the Canadian economy, agri-food must be part of the conversation. But that also means the agriculture sector must engage. Industry voices across the country need to call on dairy to evolve, embrace change and step into the 21st century.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
Agriculture
Liberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk

This article supplied by Troy Media.
A fourth Liberal term means higher carbon taxes and trade risks. Could Canada’s farmers and food security be on the line?
The Liberal Party, now led by Mark Carney, has secured a fourth consecutive term, albeit once again with a minority mandate. This time, however, the Liberals have a stronger hand, as they can rely not only on the NDP but also the Bloc Québécois to maintain power.
This broader base of parliamentary support could provide much-needed political stability at a crucial time, particularly as Canada prepares for a new round of trade negotiations with the United States and Mexico.
For the agri-food sector, the implications are significant. From carbon taxes to trade rules, federal decisions play a decisive role in shaping the costs and risks Canadian farmers face.
First and foremost, carbon pricing will remain a central issue. Carney has made it clear that the industrial carbon tax will stay—a policy that continues to erode the competitiveness of Canada’s agri-food sector, where fuel, fertilizer and transportation costs are especially sensitive to carbon pricing. The tax, currently set at $95 per metric tonne, is scheduled to climb to $170 by 2030.
While consumers may not see this tax directly, businesses certainly do. More concerning is the Liberals’ intention to introduce a border carbon adjustment for imports from countries without equivalent carbon pricing regimes. While this could theoretically protect Canadian industry, it also risks making food even more expensive for Canadian consumers, particularly if the U.S., our largest trading partner, remains uninterested in adopting similar carbon measures. Acting alone risks undermining both our food security and our global competitiveness.
Another looming issue is supply management. Although all parties pledged during the campaign not to alter Canada’s system for dairy, poultry and eggs, this framework—built on quotas and high import tariffs—is increasingly outdated. It is almost certain to come under pressure during trade negotiations. The American dairy lobby, in particular, will continue to demand greater access to Canadian markets. The Liberals have a chance to chart a more forward-looking path. Modernizing supply management could lead to a more competitive, resilient industry while providing consumers with greater choice and better prices.
The previous Parliament’s passage of Bill C-282, which sought to shield supply managed sectors from all future trade negotiations, was a deeply flawed move.
Fortunately, the new parliamentary makeup should make it far less likely that such protectionist legislation will survive. A more pragmatic approach to trade policy appears possible.
On the domestic front, there are reasons for cautious optimism. The Liberals have promised to eliminate remaining federal barriers to interprovincial trade and to improve labour mobility, longstanding obstacles to the efficient movement of agri-food products across Canada. For example, differing provincial rules often prevent products like cheese, meat or wine from being sold freely across provinces, frustrating farmers and limiting consumer choice. Momentum was building before the election, and it must continue if we are serious about building a stronger domestic food economy.
Infrastructure investment is another bright spot. The Liberals pledged more than $5 billion through a Trade Diversification Corridor Fund to upgrade Canada’s severely undercapitalized export infrastructure. Strategic investment in trade gateways is overdue and critical for agri-food exporters looking to reduce reliance on the United States and expand into global markets.
Finally, the Liberal platform was alone in explicitly committing to support food processing in Canada, a crucial pillar of domestic food security. An increased focus on manufacturing will not only create jobs but also reduce reliance on imported food products, making Canada more resilient in the face of global disruptions.
Farmers have long felt sidelined by urban-centric Liberal governments. The past four years were marked by regulatory and trade clashes that deepened that divide. The hope now is that with greater political stability and a clearer focus on competitiveness, the next four years will bring a more constructive relationship between Ottawa and Canada’s agri-food sector.
If the Liberals are serious about food security and economic growth, now is the time to reset the relationship with Canada’s farmers, not ignore them yet again.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
-
Crime1 day ago
Inside B.C.’s Cultus Lake Narco Corridor — How Chinese State-Linked Syndicates are Building a Narco Empire in Canada
-
Alberta2 days ago
Saudi oil pivot could shake global markets and hit Alberta hard
-
Agriculture2 days ago
Canada is missing out on the global milk boom
-
Business1 day ago
Top business group warns Carney’s ‘net zero’ push spells disaster for Canada’s economy
-
Daily Caller17 hours ago
Misguided Climate Policies Create ‘Real Energy Emergency’ And Permit China To Dominate US
-
Alberta16 hours ago
Bonnyville RCMP targeted by suspect driving a trackhoe – Update
-
Business1 day ago
Trump praises Carney at White House, says ‘never say never’ about 51st state
-
International1 day ago
Trump DOJ investigating Washington for new law forcing priests to break Seal of Confession