Agriculture
The China – Russia “Grain Entente” – what is at stake for Canada and its allies?
From the Macdonald Laurier Institute
By Serghey Sukhankin
Moscow – with China’s help, approval, and likely, guidance – intends to challenge the West by changing the rules of trade in foods critical to global buyers.
Throughout its entire history the Soviet Union faced one existential peril that was never solved until its collapse in 1991 – the prospect of food shortage and mass starvation. Its cumbersome, utterly ineffective, and artificially subsidized agricultural sector was a living testament to the erroneous nature of a planned command-administrative economic model.
The situation with food and staples became so dire that starting from 1963 the Soviet Bloc (the USSR, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia) started importing wheat from the United States, Canada, and Australia. This practice continued until the demise of the Soviet Empire. Everything changed after the collapse of the USSR and introduction of market-oriented reforms in Russia in the 1990s, along with the growth of commodity prices and Russia’s inclusion in the global economic architecture.
By 2000, Russia had already doubled the amount of grain it produced, making it one of the world’s top producers of this strategic commodity. By the late 2010s to early 2020s, Russia emerged as a one of the world’s largest exporters of grain and agricultural products.
However, Russia quickly realized that commodities – especially food along with hydrocarbons – could become a very useful tool of coercion in geopolitical confrontations with its rivals. This became abundantly clear after the outbreak of Russia’s full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine in 2022, when both Russia’s top-tier politicians (such as Deputy Chairman of the Security Council and former President Dmitry Medvedev) and chief propagandists (such as Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of the Russian state-controlled broadcaster RT) claimed “hunger” to be Russia’s natural ally, and threaten to cut supplies of food staples to “unfriendly countries.”
At the same time, Russia tried to spark a confrontation between Ukraine and Poland, Hungary, Slovakia over commodities and staples supplies. Ironically, rather than hurting the West, Russia’s actions had a worse impact on so-called “friendly countries” – especially those in the Global South, where access to inexpensive and available foodstuffs is a matter of life and death.
Russia’s strategy of intimidation was also ineffective due to its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Its so-called “special military operation” was supposed to be quick and decisive. Two years later, the war has imposed massive pressure on the Russian budget, requiring a constant cash flow that mainly comes from exporting raw materials and commodities.
Forced to evolve its strategy, Russia seems to be abandoning its plan of threatening to starve its adversaries. Instead, Moscow – with China’s help, approval, and likely, guidance – intends to challenge the West by changing the rules of trade in foods critical to global buyers. This strategy is being implemented via pursuit of two interrelated initiatives: formation of a “Grain Entente” between Beijing and Moscow, and the use of the BRICS trading bloc (consisting of nine nations led by founding countries Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) as a critical vehicle of change.
The first major step in this direction was made in October 2023, when the Russian Food Export Trade LLC company and China Chengtong International Limited concluded the “grain deal of the century” – the largest contract of this type ever signed between the two countries – according to which the Russian side pledges to deliver 70 million tons of various types of grain (produced in the Urals, Siberia, and the Far East) over the next twelve years for US$26.5 billion. As a result, already in the first quarter of 2024, Russia broke a historical record by supplying China with large volumes of oats (.7 times more than the previous year) and buckwheat (3.3 more than the previous year) receiving a staggering US$127 million. Yet, mounting grain sales is only the tip of the iceberg. The most critical development is China’s gradual overtaking of Russia’s logistical infrastructure, which could pave the way for China’s growing control over Eurasian logistics and trade routes.
In September 2023, officials from Russia and China met at the 8th Eastern Economic Summit in Vladivostok, where officials from Russia and China agreed to create a logistical hub – the “Grain Terminal Nizhneleninskoye–Tongjiang” in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. The goal is to create the Russia’s first “land-based grain fleet.” Consisting of 22,000 containers transporting grain, it will be capable of moving up to 600,000 tons of grain with a maximum storage capacity of up to 8 million per year. The strategic significance of this move is clear. On one hand, it allows Russia to “safeguard” itself against sanctions pressure, which will likely make Russia’s behaviour in Europe (and elsewhere) even more aggressive and unpredictable. On the other hand, China – which will acquire de facto control over Russia’s grain – will see Beijing become the world’s largest grain hub, giving it enormous power to influence and set global food prices.
Russia’s next major move was to push for the creation of a BRICS grain exchange. Fully supported by Russian President Vladimir Putin, the proposed grain exchange would bring together some of the world’s biggest grain buyers and exporters, cumulatively accounting for more than 42 per cent of global grain production (at nearly 1.2 million ) and 40 per cent of global consumption. International observers and subject experts have already warned that Russia- and China- adverse exporters of grain and agricultural products such as the United States, Canada, and Australia “might face challenges in maintaining their market share and negotiating for favourable trade terms, while facing competition from cheaper Russian .” In effect, this may have “significant implications for global agricultural dynamics, ranging from geopolitical and geoeconomic realignments to increased competition in agricultural trade. For traditional exporters such as Australia and the US, it is a call to reassess their national policies and strategies to navigate the evolving landscape of international trade to maintain competitiveness.”
The emergence of the BRICS grain exchange – which will undoubtedly increase Russia’s (and most likely China’s) geoeconomic role – is only a part of a much bigger strategic challenge. If the BRICS grain exchange is successful, it will have a spillover effect on another critical product – the fertilizers required by both developed and developing nations. Russia already has a competitive advantage in fertilizer production, and post-2022, has tried to use its fertilizers as geopolitical tools pressuring international organizations (such as the United Nations) to lobby for the end of sanctions imposed on Russia after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
– If the Russia-China grain alliance proliferates and BRICS becomes a major player in the global flow of grains and other foodstuffs, it could prompt even greater changes to the established world market. Analysis of Russian-language sources and publications indicates that the next step would be the creation of an alternative to the “West-dominated” financial architecture, and ultimately, the transformation of global trade.
Russia’s plans (undoubtedly supported by China) pose a very serious challenge to Canada, its allies, and other liberal democracies.
They will likely suffer economic losses of grain exports due to the cheapness of Russian grain, and that country’s current occupation of a large part of Ukraine’s most fertile black-earth areas. If unchecked, Russia could assume control of more than 30 percent of global grain supplies.
Currently, the Indo-Pacific region is Canada’s largest export destination, with agriculture and food exports totaling $9.4 billion in 2022. If China gains unfettered access to Russian grain, it could seriously undercut Canada’s trade.
Making matters worse for Canada, its relationship with New Delhi is arguably at an all-time low, making it challenging to pivot sales of its agricultural products toward India or other countries without significant economic losses.
Looking at the bigger picture, there are a host of other potential threats to the global foods market, from the ongoing war in Ukraine to droughts and adverse climate conditions in the US, Argentina, and Australia. Amid growing uncertainty and upheaval, it’s possible that the global foods market will be carved up and dominated by Russia and other undemocratic, aggressive nations. Given Russia’s strategic goal of weakening the European Union, and ultimately causing its disintegration, it will continue to use artificially created food shortages in Africa and the Greater Middle East as a geopolitical weapon against the EU. The Kremlin hopes to replicate the crisis that occurred in 2015, when hundreds of thousands (now, potentially millions) of illegal migrants and asylum seekers poured into the EU – wreaking havoc, fostering intra-EU conflict, and assisting the rise of far-right (and left) populists.
The first step in Russia’s grand strategy is the de facto establishment of the Russo-Chinese “Grain Entente.” The next move will be the creation of a BRICS grain exchange and inclusion of other strategic commodities under the umbrella of BRICS operations. This is clearly a wakeup call for the West. We need to heed it, or else risk more dire, far-reaching consequences.
Dr. Sergey Sukhankin is a Senior Fellow at the Jamestown Foundation (Washington, DC) and a Fellow at the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network (NAADSN). His project discussing the activities of Russian PMCs, “War by Other Means,” informed the United Nations General Assembly report entitled “Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination.”
This article was published with support from Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Canada.
Cow feed additive Bovaer meant to curb climate change seems to be killing some Danish dairy cows
Since October 1, 2025, when many Danish dairy farmers began incorporating the synthetic additive Bovaer (containing 3-nitrooxypropanol) into their cows’ feed—alarming reports have come in of animals suffering from: stomach cramps, fevers, miscarriages, drastic drops in milk production, sudden collapses and in some cases, the need to be euthanized.
The first farmer from Denmark comes forward and talks about sick and dead cows, after giving his cows the Bovaer poison. 10/28 25. Remember that waste products from Bovaer, are passed on in milk and meat.
Short version video.
Boycott Arla and share, share, share. pic.twitter.com/fXzHgfWP3G
— Kent Nielsen Denmark (@Kentfrihedniels) October 30, 2025
In the shocking video below, Danish farmer Rene Lillehjælper discusses how her husband is driving their “cow ambulance” tractor— transporting yet another collapsed cow from their dairy farm—because of the “Bovaer Poison.”
Marketed as a “climate-friendly” methane reducer, this product—produced by the Dutch-Swiss giant DSM-Firmenich—became a legal requirement for Danish dairy farmers to add into their animal feed for 80 days or for their cows to be fed extra fat throughout the year.
Notably, farmers experimenting by removing Bovaer saw their herds recover rapidly, only for symptoms to return upon reintroduction. Yet, despite these red flags, authorities insist on pushing ahead, with an investigation only now underway.
These reports build on the concerns I outlined in my November 2024 investigation into Arla’s UK trials, where EFSA tolerance studies highlighted issues such as reduced feed intake, decreased organ weights (including ovaries and heart), and altered enzyme levels in cows at elevated doses—yet these effects were ultimately classified as “non-adverse” by regulators.
BREAKING: Methane-Reducing Feed Additive Trialled in Arla Dairy Farms
On November 26th, Arla Foods Ltd. announced via social media their collaboration with major UK supermarkets like Tesco, Aldi, and Morrisons to trial Bovaer, a feed additive, aiming to reduce methane …
What was even more troubling were the findings from my analysis of the safety assessment report, prepared by the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Food Standards Scotland (FSS), reviewed by Animal Feed and Feed Additives Joint Expert Group (AFFAJEG) and the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF).
It stated: “In relation to safety studies for the consumer, a 2-year carcinogenicity study in Wistar rats showed “mesenchymal cell tumours were reported in 4 out of 49 females at the top dose of 300 mg/kg bw/day of 3-NOP given orally. Based on these results, the original study report concluded there was evidence of carcinogenicity in female rats.”
AFFAJEG noted potential for mesenchymal cell hyperplasia and benign tumours at high doses but, citing no malignant tumours or genotoxicity, concluded the additive is not carcinogenic at recommended inclusion rates.
ACAF echoed that the additive “can be considered safe for consumers.” Yet, their conclusion was seemingly contradicted by the following statement: “The additive should be considered corrosive to the eyes, a skin irritant and potentially harmful by inhalation.”
In a separate development, a May 2024 FDA letter addressed to Elanco US, Inc, (which has an agreement with DSM-Firmenich to market Bovaer) stated: “Based on a review of your data and the characteristics of your product, FDA has no questions at this time regarding whether Bovaer® 10 will achieve its intended effect and is expected to pose low risk to humans or animals under the conditions of its intended use.”
Ironically, the FDA letter included an attachment with the following warning:
It should be noted that Bovaer passed the FDA review in under 12 months—much shorter than industry standard.
Kjartan Poulsen, chairman of the National Association of Danish Dairy Producers, has received numerous calls from concerned farmers. “We have so many people who call us and are unhappy about what is happening in their herds,” he shared with TV 2.
He described the recurring issues as unusual and is urging reports of suspected Bovaer-linked miscarriages. Poulsen emphasized that any animal harm undermines the additive’s purpose: “This should give a climate effect – and if cows die from this, or they produce less milk, then the effect is minus.” He is calling for a temporary pause from Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen and for farmers to cease use if welfare issues arise.
Approved by the European Commission in 2022 based on EFSA assessments, Bovaer was deemed safe for cows, consumers, and the environment, with claims of up to 30-45% methane reduction.
However, field experiences differ. Reports from Jyllands-Posten and TV 2 describe lower milk yields tied to miscarriages, plus collapses—some cows recovering with treatment but others needing to be euthanised.
Earlier whispers from Danish farmers included fevers, diarrhoea, mastitis, and even cow deaths attributed to Bovaer. One producer lost six animals in under a month. Critics label it “animal cruelty,” especially under mandatory use for farms with over 50 cows.
The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration acknowledges these reports and has enlisted Aarhus University to analyse real-world data, with initial findings expected after the 2025-26 new year.
The irony is stark: a product meant to “save the planet” for reducing methane is harmful to dairy herds, slashing productivity, and raising fears of contaminating the food chain—despite assurances it “breaks down fully” with no residues.
Yet, the true winners emerge clearly: DSM-Firmenich, cashing in on booming sales fuelled by mandates and climate subsidies, alongside powerhouse investors like BlackRock (holding ~3.3%) and Vanguard, who reap the rewards from this relentless Net-Zero drive.
If you appreciate the hard work that I do as an independent investigative journalist,
please consider supporting me with a paid subscription.
This article supplied by Troy Media.
And you may never find out if Health Canada gets its way
Cloned-animal foods could soon enter Canada’s food supply with no labels identifying them as cloned and no warning to consumers—a move that risks public trust.
According to Health Canada’s own consultation documents, Ottawa intends to remove foods derived from cloned animals from its “novel foods” list, the process that requires a pre-market safety review and public disclosure. Health Canada defines “novel
foods” as products that haven’t been commonly consumed before or that use new production processes requiring extra safety checks.
From a regulatory standpoint, this looks like an efficiency measure. From a consumer-trust standpoint, it’s a miscalculation.
Health Canada argues that cloned animals and their offspring are indistinguishable from conventional ones, so they should be treated the same. The problem isn’t the science—it’s the silence. Canadians are not being told that the rules for a controversial technology are about to change. No press release, no public statement, just a quiet update on a government website most citizens will never read.
Cloning in agriculture means producing an exact genetic copy of an animal, usually for breeding purposes. The clones themselves rarely end up on dinner plates, but their offspring do, showing up in everyday products such as beef, milk or pork. The benefits are indirect: steadier production, fewer losses from disease or more uniform quality.
But consumers see no gain at checkout. Cloning is expensive and brings no visible improvement in taste, nutrition or price.
Shoppers could one day buy steak from the offspring of a cloned cow without any way of knowing, and still pay the same, if not more, for it.
Without labels identifying cloned origin, potential efficiencies stay hidden upstream. When products born from new technologies are mixed with conventional ones, consumers lose their ability to differentiate, reward innovation or make an informed choice. In the end, the industry keeps the savings while shoppers see none.
And it isn’t only shoppers left in the dark. Exporters could soon pay the price too. Canada exports billions in beef and pork annually, including to the EU. If cloned origin products enter the supply chain without labelling, Canadian exporters could face additional scrutiny or restrictions in markets where cloning is not accepted. A regulatory shortcut at home could quickly become a market barrier abroad.
This debate comes at a time when public trust in Canada’s food system is already fragile. A 2023 survey by the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity found that only 36 per cent of Canadians believe the food industry is “heading in the right direction,” and fewer than half trust government regulators to be transparent.
Inserting cloned foods quietly into the supply without disclosure would only deepen that skepticism.
This is exactly how Canada became trapped in the endless genetically modified organism (GMO) debate. Two decades ago, regulators and companies quietly introduced a complex technology without giving consumers the chance to understand it. By denying transparency, they also denied trust. The result was years of confusion, suspicion and polarization that persist today.
Transparency shouldn’t be optional in a democracy that prides itself on science based regulation. Even if the food is safe, and current evidence suggests it is, Canadians deserve to know how what they eat is produced.
The irony is that this change could have been handled responsibly. Small gestures like a brief notice, an explanatory Q&A or a commitment to review labelling once international consensus emerges would have shown respect for the public and preserved confidence in our food system.
Instead, Ottawa risks repeating an old mistake: mistaking regulatory efficiency for good governance. At a time when consumer trust in food pricing, corporate ethics and government oversight is already fragile, the last thing Canada needs is another quiet policy that feels like a secret.
Cloning may not change the look or taste of what’s on your plate, but how it gets there should still matter.
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.
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
Public Execution of Anti-Cartel Mayor in Michoacán Prompts U.S. Offer to Intervene Against Cartels
Prince Andrew banished from the British monarchy
Province orders School Boards to gather data on class sizes and complexity by Nov 24
“We have a deal”: Trump, Xi strike breakthrough on trade and fentanyl
How one major media torqued its coverage – in the take no prisoners words of a former Alberta premier
Watchdog Presses Ottawa to Release Hidden Lobbying Rulings
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoHow the UK and Canada Are Leading the West’s Descent into Digital Authoritarianism
-
Business2 days agoCapital Flight Signals No Confidence In Carney’s Agenda
-
International2 days agoThe capital of capitalism elects a socialist mayor
-
Daily Caller1 day agoUS Eating Canada’s Lunch While Liberals Stall – Trump Admin Announces Record-Shattering Energy Report
-
Business1 day agoCarney’s budget spares tax status of Canadian churches, pro-life groups after backlash
-
Justice1 day agoCarney government lets Supreme Court decision stand despite outrage over child porn ruling
-
Business1 day agoThe Liberal budget is a massive FAILURE: Former Liberal Cabinet Member Dan McTeague
-
COVID-191 day agoFreedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich to appeal her recent conviction