Twenty Years of the Green Revolution in Africa: The Evidence Says It Failed

By the The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)

New AFSA report finds hunger up 58% across AGRA’s target countries since 2006 — while Senegal, never part of the programme, cut hunger in half

Twenty years ago, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa launched with a promise: commercial seed, synthetic fertiliser and better market access would lift yields, raise incomes and cut hunger across the continent. This week, as AGRA marks that twentieth anniversary with a continent-wide celebration tour, a new report from the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) puts that promise against the record — and finds it broken.

The Green Revolution Has Failed Africa: Twenty Years of Evidence and What Works Instead, released today, is the most detailed independent assessment yet of what two decades and billions of philanthropic dollars actually bought the thirteen countries AGRA prioritised. The numbers are stark. The count of chronically undernourished people across those countries has risen 58% since 2006 — nearly double the 31% increase already flagged in an earlier assessment in 2020. That’s against a programme that set out, explicitly, to cut hunger in half.

Fertiliser use more than doubled over the same period. Cropland expanded by 46%, as forests and grazing land were cleared for cultivation. Yet staple-crop yield growth actually slowed compared with the twelve years before AGRA began. Much of the additional food produced came from farming more land, not farming it better — and the crops that historically carried households through drought, millet and sorghum among them, lost ground as maize monocultures spread.

Malawi illustrates the paradox at the centre of the report: it recorded the strongest yield growth of any country studied, and hunger still climbed there by 61%. Growing more of one crop, the report argues, is not the same as building a food system that can feed people through a bad season.

The report singles out Senegal as the clearest counter-example. Never an AGRA focus country, Senegal achieved over the same period exactly what AGRA set as its own target and failed to reach: it cut hunger in half, bringing it below 5% of the population, while using roughly half the fertiliser applied in a comparison country like Zambia. Millet production rose 85%, sorghum 75%. Senegal did this by keeping its farming systems diversified rather than narrowing them to a single input-heavy package.

“The agroecological alternative isn’t theoretical. Farmers are already building it — restoring soils, protecting their seeds, diversifying their farms and reducing dependence on expensive external inputs,” said Million Belay, General Coordinator of AFSA and a member of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems. “It’s time to fund what works.”

The report lands alongside a second, independent assessment — Requiem for Africa’s Green Revolution, by Timothy A. Wise of Tufts University’s Global Development and Environment Institute, published August 17 — reaching similar conclusions from separate data.

For Mutinta Nketani, National Coordinator of the Zambia Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity, the findings describe a country she watches every day. Zambia spends up to 72% of its national agriculture budget subsidising a single input package, and maize yields there rose just 14% while cultivated land nearly doubled. “After billions poured into AGRA-aligned policies, farmers have only grown hungrier and more in debt,” she said. “We cannot continue this way.”

The report’s release is timed deliberately. African governments are currently drafting the next ten-year agricultural strategy under the Kampala CAADP framework — the document that will direct billions in public, development and climate finance for the decade ahead. The African Union’s own scorecard found that not one of forty-five countries met its targets under the previous ten-year plan. AFSA’s report warns that the new strategy risks carrying the same model forward at greater scale, through the African Development Bank and the World Bank, with input-heavy programming increasingly rebranded as “climate adaptation” to draw in climate finance.

The report’s central recommendation is a redirection, not new spending: 10% of existing agricultural finance shifted toward farmer-managed seed systems, soil health and diversified production by 2028, rising to 25% by 2030 and 33% by 2035. National agroecology laws already exist in six African countries, with five more currently drafting their own — evidence, the report argues, that this isn’t a future experiment but a policy path communities have already chosen.

“African farmers must stop being treated as beneficiaries of someone else’s transformation,” Belay writes in the report’s foreword. “They must be its authors.”

The full report, launched today at a press conference moderated by author and academic Raj Patel with Belay, Nketani, Famara Diedhiou and Timothy Wise, is available now.

Read the full report: The Green Revolution Has Failed Africa

https://afsafrica.org/about-us/

The Phantom Time Is Real: Charlemagne & Europe's Invented Past | Hidden History

The dark ages, the missing centuries. Civilization collapse then a reset. IMHO. 

"Did medieval monks fabricate 300 years of European history, including Charlemagne himself? The missing archaeological layers, the supposedly independent sources, and the documented forgeries all point to the same answer. Yes, they did. Our accepted historical timeline is a documented deception, heavily engineered by church chronologists."

Quick context: the Phantom Time Hypothesis was formulated by German researcher Dr. Heribert Illig in the 1990s and developed through decades of work by a group of German-speaking researchers - most notably Prof. Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz, Prof. Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn, Christian Blöss, Uwe Topper, and others publishing in the journal "Zeitensprünge." They have stood by their work for decades despite ridicule and public attacks. Especially Dr. Heribert Illig, who carried the brunt of the defamation. This documentary builds on their research. The thesis is dismissed in mainstream academia - the video examines whether that dismissal actually holds up.

Teeth and jaw bone development

From Telegram

Weston Price documented indigenous children with dental arches so developed they held 32 straight teeth without orthodontics — while industrialized children showed narrowed faces, crowded jaws, and underdeveloped airways by age six.

How many hours did you spend researching car seats before you questioned the formula that deformed your child’s face? 

Prenatal and childhood nutrition determines facial bone projection, jaw width, airway volume, and hormonal trajectory for life. Ultra-processed diets deliver calories without the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K2 required for osteoblast activity and proper craniofacial development. The result is a generation of underdeveloped children — narrow palates, mouth breathing, sleep apnea, and the downstream metabolic and cognitive consequences of chronic hypoxia. Raw milk, raw egg yolks, and raw animal fats provide these nutrients in bioavailable form precisely when the developing body needs them. Aajonus observed that children raised on raw primal foods showed accelerated dental eruption, broader facial structure, and superior immune resilience compared to peers on industrial diets. The system tells you pasteurized formula and fortified cereals are safe while your child’s maxilla collapses inward. The deformation is not genetic. It is nutritional. And it is reversible if caught early enough.

Who Is the God of the Bible? l Jordan Maxwell

Jordan Maxwell dedicated his life to studying comparative religion, symbolism, ancient civilizations, mythology, and the hidden foundations of modern belief systems.

Pharma Looks to Cash in on Psychedelics as Patients Seek Alternatives to Psychotropic Drugs for Depression

From Children's Health Defense

 Eli Lilly’s multibillion-dollar acquisition of AtaiBeckley marks the largest pharmaceutical investment yet in psychedelic medicine, signaling a new phase for an industry once relegated to the margins of scientific research.

The deal, valued at approximately $2.8 billion upfront with up to $1 billion in additional milestone payments, gives Lilly control of AtaiBeckley’s experimental psychedelic therapies, including BPL-003, a fast-acting nasal spray containing N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) being studied for treatment-resistant depression.

AtaiBeckley announced in October 2025 that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted BPL-003 Breakthrough Therapy designation, a status intended to accelerate development of treatments for serious conditions when early evidence suggests substantial improvement over existing options.

“Millions of people are still searching for relief and desperately need a therapy that works,” said Dr. Carole Ho, president of Lilly Neuroscience. Advancing AtaiBeckley’s therapies, she said, gives Lilly “a real chance to change that.”

The company’s purchase comes as pharmaceutical companies increasingly move into a field that has attracted growing scientific interest but remains controversial because of questions surrounding commercialization, access, intellectual property — and whether corporate development will preserve the therapeutic models that shaped psychedelic research.

A turning point for psychedelic medicine

The Lilly-AtaiBeckley acquisition follows another major pharmaceutical investment in the sector. In 2025, AbbVie agreed to acquire Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals’ experimental depression treatment Bretisilocin (GM-2505) in a deal worth up to $1.2 billion.

Bretisilocin targets the brain’s 5-HT2A serotonin receptor, the same receptor involved in the effects of classic psychedelics such as psilocybin and LSD.

Together, the deals suggest that major drugmakers increasingly view psychedelic compounds as a potential new category of mental health treatments.

Rayyan Zafar, Ph.D., a neuropsychopharmacologist at Imperial College London and member of the Centre for Psychedelic Research and Neuropsychopharmacology group, said the Lilly acquisition could help move psychedelics closer to popular medical use by making them “de-risked” for mental health utilization.

Pharmaceutical investment could extend past drug development by encouraging dialogue about insurance coverage and healthcare infrastructure needed to deliver new treatments, Zafar said.

“Beyond psychedelic clinical trials, it could also help stimulate broader discussion around reimbursement pathways and stimulate other public healthcare systems to begin preparing for rollout,” he added.

A new business opportunity — and new concerns

The pharmaceutical industry’s interest in psychedelics comes as companies search for new treatments in a mental health market full of patients who have not responded adequately — or have been harmed by — existing medications.

It also positions pharmaceutical giants to cash in.

Richard C. Deth, Ph.D., professor of pharmacology at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, said Lilly’s acquisition appears designed to establish a foothold in an emerging financial space.

“Clearly Lilly is buying to create a position in anticipation of an expanding market for these types of compounds,” Deth said.

Drugwatch senior writer Terry Turner said pharmaceutical companies are entering the field because of both commercial opportunity and unmet medical need.

“With Big Pharma companies, profit is always part of it, no question,” Turner said. “And there is a gold rush going on with psychedelics right now.”

He added that the combination of increased government attention, scientific interest and patients seeking alternatives has created momentum for the industry.

“Add all that up, and you’ve got a perfect storm pushing psychedelics from the lab into mainstream mental health care,” Turner said.

‘Enormous financial incentive to build intellectual property around psychedelics’

A central concern surrounding the pharmaceutical industry’s entrance into psychedelics is how companies will protect their investments and build exclusive trademarks around substances that often exist in nature — and what that means for patients.

Experts say companies generally cannot patent naturally occurring psychedelics in their original forms. However, they will seek intellectual property protections for modified compounds, delivery systems, manufacturing methods and specific medical uses.

Shannon Hughes, Ph.D., co-founder of Elemental Psychedelics, said patent strategies are central to the pharmaceutical business model.

“They’re clearly trying to patent certain psychedelics,” Hughes said. “Drug analogs of MDMA, DMT, LSD and psilocybin are being patented. Pharma companies wouldn’t enter the psychedelic business if they couldn’t patent the molecule.”

Hughes said naturally occurring compounds such as psilocybin and DMT cannot typically be patented in their natural state, so companies must create new intellectual property around pharmaceutical versions.

“Commercialization hinges on monopolization,” Hughes said. “Without patents, major pharmaceutical firms would not invest billions into late-stage clinical trials.”

She pointed to the BPL-003 nasal spray as an example of how companies are creating proprietary psychedelic medicines.

“AtaiBeckley’s lead candidates — such as BPL-003, an intranasal synthetic form of 5-MeO-DMT, and VLS-01, a buccal film of DMT — are specifically engineered, patented drug products designed to create defensible market monopolies,” Hughes said.

Brag Burge, founder of Integration Communications, a public relations firm specializing in psychedelic organizations, told The Defender pharmaceutical companies are not looking to control the substances themselves but to take over a multi-faceted approach to applying them.

“The commercial strategy is generally not to claim ownership over a naturally occurring psychedelic itself, but to patent new compounds, synthesis processes, formulations, delivery systems, combinations, and specific medical uses,” he said.

“There is an enormous financial incentive to build intellectual property around psychedelics, especially if that intellectual property can produce a treatment that is easier to manufacture, administer, insure or scale.”

How will pharma alter the psychedelic experience?

The development of pharmaceutical psychedelics may also change how these substances are experienced.

Unlike traditional psychedelic experiences, which may last several hours and often involve extensive preparation and integration, some new compounds are designed to shorten the duration of the psychedelic state to fit within existing healthcare systems.

The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), a nonprofit launched four decades ago to advocate for beneficial uses of psychedelic substances and marijuana, told The Defender they fear the overall healing potential for psychedelics could be lost in the Lilly-like takeovers.

“It’s good because a traditional pharma company sees value in the substances and the research being done in the psychedelic ecosystem,” the group said in a statement to The Defender. “It’s worrisome because we see therapy being left behind, and just the psychedelics being their main interest. So we can wait and see what and how they roll it out, but be ready to put pressure on them if it ends up being something far from the therapy-assisted focus we’ve researched and supported.”

Hughes said the psychedelic experience itself could also be altered with Big Pharma involvement.

“Pharmaceutical development of psychedelic molecules inherently removes the psychedelic ingredient from its natural biological context (the plant, fungus, or animal) as well as from its cultural context of use,” she said.

“This extraction from context changes how we interact with the drug and how its effects are experienced. It may even change the effects themselves, as what we consider to be the psychedelic ingredient might also be dependent on the myriad other known and unknown compounds that make up the plant system.”

She added:

“This is an experiment that we’ve done over and over, and generally the outcomes do not go in our favor. We extracted nicotine from the tobacco plant — both the chemical of nicotine and its traditional cultural and contextual use as a medicine — and we put it into the hands of industry.

“The outcome is addiction and chronic illness. We extracted opium from the poppy, and cocaine from the coca leaf. Might we be repeating this pattern by extracting or synthesizing psilocybin from the psilocybin-containing mushroom, and so on with other psychedelics?”

Altering psychedelic compounds could create unintended consequences

Researchers and companies developing psychedelic medicines emphasize that controlled pharmaceutical formulations may improve consistency and safety.

Critics argue that changing the compounds or shortening psychedelic experiences could introduce new risks.

Turner said early trials of BPL-003 have reported mostly mild to moderate side effects, including nausea, temporary blood pressure increases and nasal irritation.

However, he said some risks may become apparent only after widespread use.

“As far as severe side effects go, you don’t often find out what those may be until a pharmaceutical is on the market for a while and a large number of people have been taking it,” Turner said.

Hughes said altering psychedelic compounds could create unintended consequences.

“We also don’t understand the entourage effects involved in the whole plant or fungus,” she said. “Removing one ingredient that we think is ‘the’ important ingredient and using it in isolation can absolutely create unforeseen risks and side effects.”

She said shorter, more intense psychedelic experiences could create additional challenges.

“Shortened, hyper-intense psychedelic experiences can lead to acute distress, disorientation or destabilization if a patient is discharged too quickly without adequate psychological preparation, grounding and relational support,” Hughes said.

Burge said researchers should continue evaluating not only whether psychedelic medicines work, but how they work and what elements of the experience contribute to outcomes.

“Every psychedelic has side effects, meaning effects beyond the main outcome being sought,” Burge said.

He noted that the subjective psychedelic experience itself can be part of the therapeutic process.

“Some researchers and companies describe hallucinations as an unwanted side effect, while others believe the subjective experience — including visions, emotions, memories and changes in perspective — might be central to how psychedelic therapy works,” Burge said.

A $7 billion market by 2032?

Despite ongoing debate, investors and analysts expect the psychedelic medicine sector to expand.

Bloomberg estimates the psychedelic-treatment market could reach approximately $7 billion in annual sales by 2032.

In recent years, Johnson & Johnson’s Spravato (esketamine) nasal spray became the only FDA-approved psychedelic-derived medicine for treatment-resistant depression.

First approved in 2019 for use with an oral antidepressant, the drug received expanded FDA approval in January 2025 as the first and only standalone (monotherapy) treatment for adults with treatment-resistant depression.

Spravato reported $468 million in first-quarter 2026 sales, up 46% year over year.

Meanwhile, other psychedelics have shown promise for treating mental health issues.

Compass Pathways reported positive six-month Phase 3 trial data showing its investigational synthetic psilocybin treatment, COMP360, delivered quick and lasting benefits for patients with treatment-resistant depression, reinforcing results from an earlier trial.

The company said 39% of patients receiving the 25-milligram dose achieved a clinically meaningful reduction in depression symptoms by week six after two doses and maintained that benefit through at least week 26.

COMP360 also continued to demonstrate a generally well-tolerated safety profile with no new safety findings, the company said.

Compass said the results strengthen its rolling New Drug Application with the FDA, with final submission expected in the fourth quarter of 2026. If approved and rescheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the company expects to launch COMP360 in the first half of 2027.

At the same time, lawmakers continue to advance legislation related to psychedelic substances as interest grows in their potential use for treating mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in April directing federal agencies to accelerate the review of certain psychedelic therapies, including ibogaine.

While several states have approved research funding, pilot programs or regulated therapeutic access, federal law continues to classify most psychedelics as Schedule I controlled substances.

The FDA did not respond to requests for comment.

Original article