Wealthy countries with natural 'breadbaskets' - places where it is easy to grow food - have so much abundance they can put special labels like 'organic' on tens of thousands of products and charge more and people will spend $100 billion on them.

Other countries need science, yet it is often the case that regions like Europe dictate what science poorer nations can use. Disagree, and you cannot sell in Europe. Then they mobilize relief efforts for the countries they keep poor. 

When poor people are geopolitical pawns for rich ones, can hunger ever be eliminated?

Not at all. If Europe would end its Science Colonialism toward African and Asian developing nations, for example, they could easily feed themselves. Instead, Europe subsidizes its own food so it can compete in those countries while telling local farmers they have to use products European environmentalists and their allies like - or else.

If the whole world embraced agricultural science, farmland equivalent to the country of India could go back to nature. Thanks to science, 51 percent of America is unused - more than all of Africa combined. Only 17 percent of land is involved in food production, and that can still be done by 2.2 million small family farms. Thanks to science, 16 million acres of American farmland went out of use so far this century. That's even with the Obama administration handing over 5 million acres of public conservation land to corn farmers for his ethanol mandate and subsidy scheme.

Instead of embracing ways to promote less land use and environmental strain, Greenpeace and other well-fed anti-science malcontents protest even a vitamin-fortified bowl of rice, that is not controlled by any corporate parent. It is not about being anti-corporate or cautious, it is a war of extinction on the modern world.(1)

What Greenpeace really wants is brown and black people in developing countries only focused on not starving.

Instead of advocating for science, a new paper argues for...more of the same. We just need to talk to each other.

The paper believes food security will be achieved by more lobbyists, more centralized government, and more politicking; exactly what caused the problem in the first place. We know outside Europe and the U.S. the 'organic' process, using old, ineffective pesticides in startling quantities, cannot work. Sri Lanka was foolish enough to listen to European anti-science activists and in just a few months nearly had a civil war due to the famine and high costs that resulted.

The authors lament that some people are still facing insecurity while rich countries face an obesity crisis but instead of calling out wealthy governments like France for their anti-science beliefs, they argue that the United Nations should take a greater role. The same UN that puts terrorist countries in charge of its Human Rights Commission and blamed Israel when Hamas terrorists beheaded infants. 

"I encourage a stronger commitment from both [trade food security] regimes to implement a human-rights based approach, in order to question the prominent discourse on food trade regimes, which paints food assistance as a distortion in trade that ought to be minimized,” says doctoral student Clarisse Delaville from  McGill’s Faculty of Law.

Indeed it is a human-rights issue, and when it comes to human rights, we don't let rich countries deny it for poor. Food is not a climate change issue, it is not a war issue, it is not a COVID-19 issue, it is solely a strategic one. Food is a strategic empires and we need to call on fading empires to stop clinging to relevance by using food as a geopolitical weapon they control.


(1) Small wonder that famed eugenicists founded nonprofits dedicated to 'population control' when progressives in World War II Germany showed how awful picking and choosing winners was - groups like Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood and more. To their credit, after decades of creating media talking points to help allies in journalism rebut concerns about Margaret Sanger's racist beliefs, they finally cast her off their health center in New York.