Agriculture
EU Farmers Rise Against the Climate Cult
From the Brownstone Institute
BY
The EU Commission is playing a dangerous game. On the one hand, they are attempting to placate farmers by making expedient short-term concessions to them. On the other hand, they are holding fast to their commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 90% by 2040
Many major arteries connecting Europe have been obstructed or brought to a standstill in recent days by a wave of protests by farmers against what they claim are overly burdensome environmental targets and unsustainable levels of bureaucracy associated with EU and national farming regulations.
The warning shots of this showdown between policymakers and farmers had already been fired on 1st October 2019, when more than 2,000 Dutch tractors caused traffic mayhem in the Netherlands in response to an announcement that livestock farms would have to be bought out and shut down to reduce nitrogen emissions. Early last year, Polish farmers blocked the border with the Ukraine demanding the re-imposition of tariffs on Ukrainian grain.
But it was not until early this year that an EU-wide protest was ignited. German and French protests and tractor blockades made international news, and the blockades were soon replicated in Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, Netherlands, and Ireland. Major highways and ports were blocked and manure was poured over government buildings, as farmers across Europe expressed their frustration at rising farming costs, falling prices for their produce, and crippling environmental regulations that made their products uncompetitive in the global market.
It seems the farmers have European elites rattled, which is hardly surprising, given that EU elections are just around the corner. While the European Commission announced Tuesday it was still committed to achieving a 90% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 2040, it conspicuously omitted any mention of how the farming sector would contribute to that ambitious target. Even more tellingly, the Commission has backed down or fudged on key climate commitments, at least temporarily.
According to politico, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on Tuesday that “she was withdrawing an EU effort to rein in pesticide use.” The climbdown on this and other Commission proposals relating to farming was rather embarrassing for the Commission but politically inevitable, given that the protests were spreading rapidly and farmers were showing no signs of going home until their demands were met. As reported by politico,
A note on the possibility of agriculture cutting down on methane and nitrous oxides by 30 percent, which was in earlier drafts of the Commission’s 2040 proposal, was gone by the time it came out on Tuesday. Similarly excised were missives on behavioral change — possibly including eating less meat or dairy — and cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, many of which go to farmers to assist with their diesel costs. Inserted was softer language about the necessity of farming to Europe’s food security and the positive contributions it can make.
The EU Commission is playing a dangerous game. On the one hand, they are attempting to placate farmers by making expedient short-term concessions to them. On the other hand, they are holding fast to their commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 90% by 2040, while fudging on the fact that a 90% emission cut in 16 years would have drastic implications for farming.
It is clearly politically expedient, especially in an election year, to put out this fire of farming discontent as soon as possible, and buy some peace ahead of June’s European elections. But there is no avoiding the fact that the Commission’s long-term environmental goals, as currently conceived, almost certainly require sacrifices that farmers are simply not willing to accept.
Independently from the merits of EU climate policy, two things are clear: first, EU leaders and environmental activists appear to have vastly underestimated the backlash their policies would spark in the farming community; and second, the apparent success of this dramatic EU-wide protest sets a spectacular precedent that will not go unnoticed among farmers and transport companies, whose operating costs are heavily impacted by environmental regulations like carbon taxes.
The Commission’s embarrassing concessions are proof that high-visibility, disruptive tactics can be effective. As such, we can expect more of this after June’s EU elections if the Commission doubles down again on its climate policy goals.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Agriculture
Health Canada pauses plan to sell unlabeled cloned meat
From LifeSiteNews
Health Canada has indefinitely paused its plan to allow unlabeled cloned meat in grocery stores after thousands of Canadians, prominent figures, and industry leaders condemned the move.
Health Canada is pausing its plan to put unlabeled cloned meat in Canadian grocery stores, following public outcry.
In a November 19 update on its website, Health Canada announced an indefinite suspension of the decision to remove labels from cloned meat products after thousands of Canadians condemned the plan online.
“The Government of Canada has received significant input from both consumers and industry about the implications of this potential policy update,” the publication read. “The Department has therefore indefinitely paused the policy update to provide time for further discussions and consideration,” it continued, adding, “Until the policy is updated, foods made from cloned cattle and swine will remain subject to the novel food assessment.”
In late October, Health Canada quietly approved removing labels from foods derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) clones and their offspring. As a result, Canadians buying meat from the grocery store would have had no way of knowing if the product was cloned meat.
Many researchers have documented high rates of cloning failure, large offspring syndrome (LOS), placental abnormalities, early death, and organ defects in cloned animals. The animals are also administered heavy doses of antibiotics due to infections and immune issues.
Typically, the offspring of cloned animals, rather than the cloned animals themselves, are processed for human consumption. As a result, researchers allege that the health defects and high drug use does not affect the final product.
However, there are no comprehensive human studies on the effects of eating cloned meat, meaning that the side-effects for humans are unknown.
News of the plan spread quickly on social media, with thousands of Canadians condemning the plan and promising to switch to local meat providers.
“By authorizing the sale of meat from cloned animals without mandatory labeling or a formal public announcement, Health Canada risks repeating a familiar and costly failure in risk communication. Deeply disappointing,” food policy expert and professor at Dalhousie University Sylvain Charlebois wrote on X.
"By authorizing the sale of meat from cloned animals without mandatory labeling or a formal public announcement, Health Canada risks repeating a familiar and costly failure in risk communication. Deeply disappointing."
More on this week's Food Professor Podcast! https://t.co/UZTIcQzUN3
— The Food Professor (@FoodProfessor) October 30, 2025
Likewise, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis warned, “Health Canada recently decided that meat from cloned animals and their offspring no longer needs a special review or any form of disclosure.”
“That means, soon you could buy beef or pork and have no idea how it was bred,” she continued. “Other countries debate this openly: the EU has considered strict labelling, and even the U.S. has admitted that cloned-offspring meat is circulating.”
“But here in Canada, the public wasn’t even told. This is about informed choice,” Lewis declared. “If government and industry don’t have to tell us when meat comes from cloned animals, then Canadians need to ask a simple, honest question: What else are we not being told?”
Health Canada recently decided that meat from cloned animals and their offspring no longer needs a special review or any form of disclosure. That means, soon you could buy beef or pork and have no idea how it was bred.
Other countries debate this openly: the EU has considered… pic.twitter.com/zCnqJOpvf3
— Dr. Leslyn Lewis (@LeslynLewis) November 14, 2025
Likewise, duBreton, a leading North American supplier of organic pork based out of Quebec, denounced the move, saying, “Canadians expect clarity, transparency, and meaningful consultation on issues that directly touch their food supply. As producers, we consider it our responsibility and believe our governing food authorities should too.”
According to a survey conducted by duBreton, 74 percent of Canadians believe that “cloned meat and genetic editing practices have no place in farm and food systems.”
Agriculture
Federal cabinet calls for Canadian bank used primarily by white farmers to be more diverse
From LifeSiteNews
A finance department review suggested women, youth, Indigenous, LGBTQ, Black and racialized entrepreneurs are underserved by Farm Credit Canada.
The Cabinet of Prime Minister Mark Carney said in a note that a Canadian Crown bank mostly used by farmers is too “white” and not diverse enough in its lending to “traditionally underrepresented groups” such as LGBT minorities.
Farm Credit Canada Regina, in Saskatchewan, is used by thousands of farmers, yet federal cabinet overseers claim its loan portfolio needs greater diversity.
The finance department note, which aims to make amendments to the Farm Credit Canada Act, claims that agriculture is “predominantly older white men.”
Proposed changes to the Act mean the government will mandate “regular legislative reviews to ensure alignment with the needs of the agriculture and agri-food sector.”
“Farm operators are predominantly older white men and farm families tend to have higher average incomes compared to all Canadians,” the note reads.
“Traditionally underrepresented groups such as women, youth, Indigenous, LGBTQ, and Black and racialized entrepreneurs may particularly benefit from regular legislative reviews to better enable Farm Credit Canada to align its activities with their specific needs.”
The text includes no legal amendment, and the finance department did not say why it was brought forward or who asked for the changes.
Canadian census data shows that there are only 590,710 farmers and their families, a number that keeps going down. The average farmer is a 55-year-old male and predominantly Christian, either Catholic or from the United Church.
Data shows that 6.9 percent of farmers are immigrants, with about 3.7 percent being “from racialized groups.”
National census data from 2021 indicates that about four percent of Canadians say they are LGBT; however, those who are farmers is not stated.
Historically, most farmers in Canada are multi-generational descendants of Christian/Catholic Europeans who came to Canada in the mid to late 1800s, mainly from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Ukraine, Russia, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Germany, and France.
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta will defend law-abiding gun owners who defend themselves
-
Alberta2 days agoThis new Canada–Alberta pipeline agreement will cost you more than you think
-
MAiD1 day agoFrom Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
MAiD2 days agoHealth Canada report finds euthanasia now accounts for over 5% of deaths nationwide
-
Business2 days agoNew Chevy ad celebrates marriage, raising children
-
Business1 day agoCarney government should privatize airports—then open airline industry to competition
-
Automotive2 days agoPower Struggle: Governments start quietly backing away from EV mandates
-
Great Reset2 days agoCanada’s MAiD (State Sanctioned Murder) Report Just Dropped



