---

In 2015 a two day simulation game was held dubbed by some as the “hunger games” 65 people played out a food crisis simulation set in the years 2020 to 2030.

Do you recall a pandemic simulation held in 2019 called Event 201 that served as a dress rehearsal for the response to the covid “pandemic” in 2020?

Well, it seems such simulations have been used for the war on food as well.  As pointed out by Tracey Thurman, the food crisis simulation, officially called the Food Reaction Game, reveals their strategy for the war on food.

What is the Food Chain Reaction Game?

On 9 and 10 November 2015, Thomson Reuters and other media organisations joined event organisers Cargill, CNA, Mars, World Wildlife Fund (“WWF”) and the Centre for American Progress for a simulation of a real-world food-crisis scenario called the ‘Food Chain Reaction Game: A Global Food Security Game’.

The simulation exercise was held at WWF’s headquarters in Washington DC where 65 international policymakers, academics, business and thought leaders gathered to game out how the world would respond to a future food crisis.

Over two days, the players – divided into teams for Africa, Brazil, China, the EU, India, the US, international business and investors and multilateral institutions – crafted their policy responses as delegations engaged in intensive negotiations.

The game was set between 2020 and 2030 and was based on a scenario of a global food crisis caused by population growth, rapid urbanisation, extreme weather events and political crises.

Each team was tasked with responding to the global food crisis by making decisions on food production, trade and policy. The game was played over several rounds, with each round representing a year from 2020 to 2030.

Cargill, of course, has a vested interest in understanding the future of food – where it will be grown, how it will be grown, and how it can be traded efficiently and sustainably. It’s their business.  “Cargill, the world’s largest agribusiness, has been a strong supporter both of this initiative and of WWF’s mission. As one of the organisers of Food Chain Reaction, Cargill provided a critical private-sector voice to the dialogue,” World Wildlife Fund noted.

“The most eye-catching result [ ] was a deal between the US, the EU, India and China, standing in for the top 20 greenhouse gas emitters, to institute a global carbon tax and cap CO₂ emissions in 2030,” Cargill noted.

The day after the simulation exercise had been completed, Bloomberg reported:

The year is 2026. Flooding, worsened by climate change, has devastated Bangladesh and driven millions of hungry refugees to its border with India. Worried about unrest and disease, India asks other nations for help.

The US and China respond – China with aid deliveries, the US by boosting aid to Pakistan, which has its own food crisis that’s adding to India’s tensions. That assistance helps India focus on Bangladesh. The crisis recedes.

While the scenario was fictional, two food-price shocks since 2008 have prompted riots and fuelled revolutions around the world. Experts say such disruptions are likely to occur more frequently as a warming climate plays havoc with global food production. That fear brought together representatives of corporate food producers, aid groups and governments for two days this week in Washington where they role-played a simulated food crisis. Bloomberg News also participated, representing how media would react to a crisis.

“With climate change, how we deal with food-security threats requires some serious rethinking,” said Kathleen Merrigan, a former US Deputy Secretary of Agriculture who participated in the exercise. “The ups and downs of prices and surpluses will only become more extreme.”

In the simulation – some called it the “hunger games” – at the US headquarters of the World Wildlife Fund a fictional narrative was created to simulate real dangers that can emerge quickly as an increase in greenhouse gases contributes to volatile weather. In 2011, a real-life drought in Russia fuelled food riots in North Africa that fed the Arab Spring uprisings, the aftermath of which reverberates in Syria today.

The fictional scenario began in 2020, with El Nino devastating crops in India and Australia, followed by a major drought in North America the following year.

Eight teams represented the US, European Union, Brazil, China, India, Africa, multilateral organisations such as the United Nations and World Bank, and global businesses.

Global food inventories declined through the first half of the simulated decade, with the Mississippi River flooding and drought in Asia. Food-importing nations in Africa saw demonstrations against rising food prices, while rising oil prices diverted more production to ethanol, further stressing supplies.

The crisis peaked in 2024, with record food prices generating unrest in Africa, South Asia and Ukraine. Both the US and EU teams decided to repeal mandates requiring ethanol use, while Brazil ramped up production of all crops, including sugar used for biofuels. China invested in dams to protect scarce water.

‘Lifelike, Realistic’

The EU added a meat tax to discourage expensive livestock production and temporarily relaxed environmental regulations to boost its own production. The US enacted a carbon tax, India taxed coal and support for a global climate deal was universal.

One point of the simulation was to create plausible scenarios to prepare participants to respond to real-life threats, said Kate Fisher, a game director with CNA Corp., a research organisation that creates crisis simulations for the Defence Department and other federal agencies.

“It’s planning by doing,” forcing participants to make decisions and react to one another, she said. “We try to make it realistic. The players make it lifelike.”

These hunger games proved to be never-ending.

By 2027, the EU repealed its emergency measures on meat and regulations, as a series of large harvests built up supplies, though trouble persisted in Chad, Sudan and other parts of Africa that hadn’t invested in agriculture. Countries began working more closely with the United Nations to handle refugees from climate catastrophes.

New Normal

But prices, and temperatures, rose again at the end of the decade, showing how abnormal is expected to be the new normal in food and agriculture.

Floods, Riots in Mock 2026 Food Crisis Test Government Response, Bloomberg, 11 November 2015

Further reading:

Their Strategy in the War on Food

By Tracy Thurman

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 organisations 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 per cent 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 organisers 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 Centre for American Progress, the Centre for Naval Analyses and Cargill. Note the participation of US military and intelligence-linked organisations 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 has excelled in crushing independent farmers globally to establish total control of the food supply. The Centre 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, centralised, 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.

About the Author

Tracy Thurman is an advocate for regenerative farming, food sovereignty, decentralized food systems, and medical freedom. She works with the Barnes Law Firm’s public interest division to safeguard the right to purchase food directly from farmers without government interference.  Her series of articles about the global war on farmers and the war on food are being published by the Brownstone Institute.