Study: False Promises: The Gates Foundation - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15107269
https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_up ... GRA_en.pdf

From the summary:

In 2006, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation launched the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). Armed with high-yield commercial seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides, it was touted as being able to deliver Africa its own Green Revolution in crop production to reduce hunger and poverty. [...]

[...] The main findings are:

–Little evidence of significant increases in the incomes or food security of small-scale food producers. On the contrary, in countries in which AGRA operates, there has been a 30 percent increase in the number of people suffering hunger, a condition affecting 130 million people in the 13 AGRA focus countries;

–Little evidence that productivity has increased by any significant amount. For staple crops as a whole, yields only rose by 18 percent on average in AGRA countries in twelve years compared to 17 percent in the same period before AGRA. This is an average annual growth rate of 1.5 percent which is similar to the time before AGRA. Moreover the productivity growth declined in eight out of 13 AGRA countries, in three countries the figures have even shifted from positive to negative under AGRA. This is casting doubt about AGRA as a factor for productivty growth. Even maize, heavily promoted by Green Revolution programmes, showed just 29 percent yield growth, well short of AGRA’s goal of 100 percent;

–Minimal reduction in rural poverty or hunger even where production of staple food increased, such as in Zambia, where maize production increased by more than 150 percent, mainly due to farmland increase. Small-scale food producers did not adequately benefit: poverty and hunger remained staggeringly high;

–Further erosion of food security and nutrition for poor small-scale food producers where Green Revolution incentives for priority crops drove land use towards maize and away from more nutritious and climate-re-silient traditional crops like millet and sorghum. While seeds for traditional crops were formerly easy and cheap to get hold of via farmers exchange, the farmers now have to pay for seeds of “priority crops”; and

–Strong evidence of negative environmental impacts, including acidification of soils under monoculture culti-vation with fossil fuel based synthetic fertilizers. [...] Both aspects negatively affect climate change mitigation and adaptation.




It seems that the Gates Foundation doesnt actually deserve being called "foundation" in the first place. It clearly doesnt serve the common good, but the financial interests of the founders, and thus should be fully taxed like a regular company.

Pretty clear France will be taking a leading role […]

He is even less coherent than Alex Jones. My gu[…]

Yes, and it did not order a ceasefire. Did you ev[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]