A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER OF FOOD SYSTEM ANALYSIS No.

300, December 2013

ISSN 0827-4053

Parasites
Anyone who has ever kept sheep and raised lambs for
market knows that parasites – internal and external –
are a perpetual problem which just doesn’t go away. As
sheep farmers, raising lots of lambs for our marketing
coop (Northumberlamb) in Nova Scotia, we learned a lot
about parasites. Some parasites can be found in the
wool on the sheep for sale, while others can be found in
auction barns among the buyers. Many others can be
found hiding under corporate blankets.
We learned the hard way about the cost of para-
sites in and on sheep and lambs and how to manage
them. ‘Manage’ because eliminating them, like elimi-
nating ‘weeds’, is simply a romantic notion or an indus-
trial dream. More practical, and ecologically sound, was
learning to keep the parasite burden at an acceptable
level by managing the whole farm to minimize their
presence and their destructiveness. Rotational grazing
was a key to this, but this was hard to achieve on
marginal land which was good grazing but not possible
to make hay on, so we still had to use, cautiously,
specific de-worming drugs/chemicals. Reflecting on this
experience, it occurs to me that the parasites must
make some contribution to the farm ecology, but I am
not yet clear as to what it may be.
Thinking about the food system, the same ques-
tion arises: how many industrial-corporate parasites
can the food system support?
Somehow it seems appropriate to be writing this 300th
issue of the Ram’s Horn on the longest night of the year.
It seems like there is no end to the stories we need to
report describing the greed, duplicity, and utter
selfishness of those who claim to be our leaders, whether
in industry, finance, or government. But the focus of this
season is on the return of the light with the lengthening
of the days, and for Christians, new life, not somewhere
in the heavens but right here among us. So despite it all,
we live in gratitude – for all those who struggle
determinedly for justice and peace, and for the generosity
and beauty of the Earth. It’s all there, not because we
deserve it, but simply as a gift. Happy Holidays!
socially just economy. But the Harper government is far
more interested in the welfare of corporate parasites
than the welfare of the Canadian people. Hence the new
“Changes to Support Agricultural Sector Growth
Through Modernization”.
After some debate between ourselves we decided
to print the verbatim text of the Government of Canada
press release concerning these ‘modernization’ changes
. . . continued next page

It is not in the interest of a parasite to kill the host,

and for the food system to be sustainable, the parasite
burden has to be minimized. Parallel to the strategy of
rotational grazing on the sheep farm may be the
increasing number of local/regional food initiatives
that started with CSAs, farmers markets, commu-
nity gardens and all sorts of organic gardens, farms
and small food processing enterprises, com-
munity kitchens and direct relationships
between food providers, restaurants, and
institutional food services. These can
greatly reduce the parasite load in local
food systems even while they can be
seen as the foundation stones and build-
ing blocks of a new ecologically sound,
THE RAM’S HORN PAGE 2
because it is a comprehensive summary of the Harper
regime’s agricultural (agribusiness) policy and offers a
thesaurus of its customary jingoistic ideologically heavy
language. We have inserted our own headline, but have
added emphases and edited the statement slightly for
length.
FEEDING THE PARASITES
Government of Canada press release, 9/12/13
“Today, the Government of Canada introduced a new bill
that will stimulate investment and innovation in Cana-
da’s agriculture sector and give Canadian farmers more
tools to compete and thrive in world markets and at
home.
The Agricultural Growth Act will increase farmers’
access to new crop varieties, enhance trade opportunities
and the safety of agricultural products, reduce red tape
and contribute to Canada’s overall economic growth.
“Our government is committed to supporting Cana-
da’s farmers and our world-class agriculture industry so
they can remain competitive in world markets,” said
Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz. “Armed with the latest
science, tools and practices, our agriculture sector will
continue to be an important driver of Canada’s economy.”
Among the key changes being proposed in this bill
are amendments to the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act to align
with the International Union for the Protection of New
Varieties of Plants (UPOV ’91) which would update Cana-
da’s legislation from the outdated UPOV ’78 frame-
work. The amendments would include Farmer’s Privilege
which allows farmers to use seeds from the crops they
grow.
Strengthening the intellectual property rights for
plant breeding in Canada will encourage investment in
Canadian research and development. That will give Cana-
dian farmers more access to new and innovative seed
varieties, which could enhance crop yield, improve dis-
ease and drought resistance, and meet specific global
trade demands.
To help Canadian farmers benefit from the latest
scientific research from around the world, the bill also
provides the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
with the authority to consider foreign reviews, data and
analyses during the approval or registration of new agri-
cultural products in Canada, allowing for a more effective
approvals process. . .
The Act includes a new licensing and registration
regime for animal feed and fertilizer operators and estab-
lishments, increased monetary penalties for violations,
stronger controls for agricultural products at the border and
requirements for more stringent record keeping to en-
hance safety. . . .
These amendments follow extensive consultations
with producers and industry and will be cost-neutral for the
industry.
Backgrounder
Agricultural Growth Act: Supporting Canada’s agriculture
industry through effective government
The Government is committed to supporting Cana-
da’s farmers and our world-class agriculture industry,
to ensure they remain competitive on world markets and
serve the needs of Canadians.
The Agricultural Growth Act is a bill designed to
modernize and strengthen federal agriculture legislation,
support innovation in the Canadian agriculture industry
and enhance global market opportunities. The bill pro-
poses changes to the suite of statutes that the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) uses to regulate our agri-
cultural sector:
- Plant Breeders’ Rights Act (PBR Act)
- Feeds Act
- Fertilizers Act
- Seeds Act
- Health of Animals Act
- Plant Protection Act
- Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary
Penalties Act
Supporting innovation
The proposed amendments will encourage innova-
tion and research in Canada’s agricultural sector. Some
examples include:
1. Strengthening intellectual property rights for plant
varieties in Canada under the PBR Act to:
- Encourage increased investment in plant breeding in
Canada
- Motivate international breeders to protect and sell their
varieties here
- Align current statute with the 1991 Convention of
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of
Plants (UPOV 91).
- Provide Canadian farmers with access to the latest
innovative varieties that have been bred to enhance crop
yields, improve disease and drought resistance and meet
specific international market demands
2. Expanding the authorities in the Feeds Act, Fertilizers
Act, Health of Animals Act and Seeds Act to include
international scientific research when approving new agri-
cultural products in order to:

- Create a regulatory environment that benefits from the
latest scientific research by allowing international reviews,
data and analysis to be considered along with information
from ongoing Canadian studies
- Support a more effective approvals process so that
Canadian farmers can benefit from the latest scientific
research from around the world
- Reduce administrative burden and red tape
Modernizing and strengthening
The proposed amendments to the Feeds Act, Ferti-
lizers Act, Health of Animals Act, Seeds Act and Plant
Protection Act will reduce red tape and improve how
Government carries out its business with the Canadian
agriculture industry. Some examples include:
1. Modernizing business processes to:
- Enable more efficient and effective processes across
all agricultural commodities
- Increase consistency across the suite of CFIA agricul-
tural statutes
2. Strengthening inspector authorities to:
- Provide the CFIA with stronger tools to fulfill its man-
date to protect Canada’s plant and animal resource base
- Allow CFIA to order non-compliant agricultural prod-
ucts immediately out of Canada, which will also reassure
our farmers and consumers that imported agricultural
products meet CFIA requirements
Enhancing global market opportunities
The proposed amendments will enhance trade and
grow Canada’s economy. Some examples include:
PUBLIC
BIO-
SITY
D ER
IV
L
SMAL
ME RS
FAR
THE RAM’S HORN PAGE 3
1. Revising the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act (PBR Act) to
support Canada’s agriculture industry accessing the latest
international plant varieties will:
- Level the playing field for Canadian farmers on the
global stage
- Allow Canadian farmers to access varieties that are in
global demand
- Stimulate productivity for the sector, which benefits
farmers and grows Canada’s economy
- Provide Canada’s plant breeding industry with a
more stable, modern intellectual property environ-
ment that is in line with international partners
2. Amending the Feeds Act and Fertilizers Act to allow for
licensing and registration of fertilizer and animal feed
operators and facilities that import or sell products across
provincial or international borders in order to:
- Align Canadian legislation with that of key international
trading partners
- Help our feed and fertilizer industries maintain their
export markets
- Provide a more effective and timely approach to
assuring products meet Canada’s stringent safety and
other standards”
“If the Act receives Royal Assent, some of the changes
would come into force almost immediately, while others
would be phased in or require regulatory amendments.
Before any changes are implemented, the gov-
ernment is committed to full consultations to deter-
mine how best to move forward.”

THE HARPER GOVERNMENT’S IDEA OF A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
THE RAM’S HORN PAGE 4

weed management scientist Thomas Mueller, but over-

Reactions Regarding Seeds use had a cost as it selected for resistant weeds. Among
“This legislation will fundamentally restructure agri- the biggest concerns is a family of weeds that includes
culture in ways that will profoundly affect farmers, waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). . . A 2008 to 2009
their rural communities and the food system they survey of waterhemp in 41 Missouri counties revealed
supply,” stated Jan Slomp, NFU National President. glyphosate resistance in 69%. Surveys of weeds from
“Amending the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act to align with some 500 sites throughout Iowa in 2011 and 2012
the requirements of UPOV ‘91 (the International Union revealed glyphosate resistance in approximately 64% of
for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants) instead of waterhemp samples.
UPOV ’78 will devastate farmers’ ability to save, sell
and reuse seed. At the same time, greater corporate A survey conducted last year in Missouri shows
control over every aspect related to seed will mean that weeds resistant to multiple herbicides with com-
farmers pay much higher seed prices.” pletely different biological modes of action are also on
the rise. Of weed populations sampled in Missouri,
43% are now resistant to two different herbi-
Terry Boehm, NFU past president, stated, cides; 6% are resistant to three herbicides; and
“UPOV ‘91 isn’t about innovation. It’s about re- 0.5% are resistant to four separate herbicides.
stricting what farmers can do with seed and In Iowa, 89% of waterhemp populations sam-
giving seed companies powerful new tools to pled now resistant to two or more herbi-
extract money from farmers. . . . cides, 25% resistant to three, and 10%
resistant to five separate herbicide
The cascading right would allow classes.
seed corporations to collect royalties at
any point in the food system, but most For cotton grown in the South,
likely when farmers sell their crop. This the cost of using herbicides has climbed
means that the seed companies would gener- THIS IS HOW BADLY WE from between $50 and $75 per hectare a
ate revenue on a farmer’s entire production NEED “MODERNIZATION” few years ago to about $370 per hectare
rather than just on the seed purchased to grow today. For soybeans in Illinois, the jump has
the crop.” – NFU, 10/12/13 been from about $25 to $160 per hectare. And in the
South it is contributing to a massive shift away from
Even the conservative Western Producer farm growing cotton; over the past few years, the area planted
paper stated that: “the shifting of power toward seed with cotton has declined by 70% in Arkansas and by 60%
companies comes at the same time that the federal in Tennessee. – Science Vol 341, 20/9/13
government is pulling away from public research. As
more and more public varieties are deregistered over
the years and with no new public varieties coming on
stream, farmers will have fewer and fewer public, Approving Contamination
royalty free seed choices. The added costs of protected
Canada is leading efforts to get an international agree-
seed will become almost unavoidable for most conven-
ment that would see countries accept small amounts of
tional farmers.” – WP editorial, 5/11/13
unapproved genetically modified (GM) crops in their
imports. The International Grain Trade Coalition cred-
its Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz for leading the
Weeds charge. The IGTC proposes allowing grain shipments to
contain unapproved traits of up to five per cent. Ritz
“For years, because most herbicides could not kill all said he’s optimistic an international low-level-presence
weeds, farmers had to continually rotate their crops and policy will be achieved. “I think the world is coming to
rotate herbicides to prevent resistant weeds from tak- the realization that if you’re going to have food security
ing over their fields. That picture changed in the 1990s and sustainability you’re going to have to start to look
with the commercialization of transgenic crops resist- at biotechnology and that means a good low-level policy,”
ant to Monsanto’s Roundup. Now weeds resistant to he said. – ManitobaCooperator, 27/11/13
glyphosate are present in the vast majority of soybean,
cotton, and corn farms in the US. Perhaps even worse, Dennis Stephens, ex-staff of the Canada Grains
weeds that can shrug off multiple other herbicides are Council and now secretary of the International Grain
on the rise. Trade Coalition, told an Ottawa grain symposium spon-
sored by those two organizations that a ‘tsunami’ of new
“We trained a generation of farmers that weed GM traits will be approved within years and could
control was very easy,” says University of Tennessee create chilling chaos if importing countries maintain a

zero-tolerance policy for GM. “What is scaring us is the
sheer projections of numbers of new events (GM traits)
that are going to be commercialized over the next five
years.”
The International Grain Trade Coalition was
formed in 2001 “to advise governments on implementa-
tion of the Biosafety Protocol to protect global diversity
while meeting the needs of the world’s food, feed and
processing industries” In 2002 its mandate was broad-
ened “to include advice to governments on the commer-
cial requirements and economics of the world’s food,
feed and processing industries”.
The IGTC scope was refined in 2006 “to focus
existence on the goal of avoiding disruptions in the
international trade of grain, oilseeds, pulses and de-
rived products”.
“Low Level Presence work of the Global Adventi-
tious Presence Coalition (GAPC) is a current priority.”
– igtcglobal.com/files/news
Farm journalist Barry Wilson, who should know
better, refers to the adventitious presence of GE grains
in food imports, referring to Europe, as “inadvertent”.
(WP, 28/11/13) However, there is nothing inadvertent
about Monsanto’s deliberate strategy of contaminating
all foods with GE so as to gain the upper hand once and
for all – by simply eliminating any alternative. This is
the essential reason for Monsanto’s aggressive push,
along with Syngenta and Dow and BASF, to advance
the spread of genetically engineered foods world-wide.
The treadmill continues
Agriculture Canada researchers in
Saskatoon have developed hairy
canola plants that repel flea beetles
and have already field-tested GM
germplasm available for plant
breeders to use in developing com-
mercial varieties of hairy canola. This
trait might not be commercialized, however, because
the seed industry is primarily interested in “block-
buster GM traits,” according to Pat Flaten, research
manager with SaskCanola, who thinks commercializa-
tion of a GM trait requires $40 to $100 million. Stephen
Yarrow of CropLife Canada thinks those estimates are
low. “I’ve heard numbers up to $150 million and up to 13
years to get a trait through the system. – WP, 28/11/13
Meanwhile, Monsanto and Dow are working to get
new lines of soybeans licensed to deal with the rapidly
growing herbicide tolerance of weeds that Roundup
(glyphosate) used to control. Monsanto is working hard
THE RAM’S HORN PAGE 5
to get older and more powerful herbicides licensed for
use on GE crops such as their Genuity Roundup Ready
2 Xtend soybeans, tolerant to both glyphosate and
dicamba, while Dow AgroSciences is working to get 2,4-
D tolerant soybeans licensed. – WP, 28/11/13
Fertilizer Fibs
Farmers have been over-using potash (potassium) as a
result of poor soil testing. Current soil testing practices
miss potassium because it tests only the fraction of
potassium that is called ‘exchangeable’. The assump-
tion that this is the fraction that feeds the plant is
simply not valid, say soil scientists. There are other
forms of potassium that do feed the plants.
– WP, 28/11/13
In response to falling prices and reduced demand
for its fertilizer, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan is
laying off 1,000 of its global workforce and shutting
down mines in New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and
Florida. One does have to wonder, however, if the
potash producers were not behind the use of inadequate
and misleading soil testing as a means to artificially
boost sales of their product.
It’s the Bees’ Knees
Bee pollination improves crop quality, shelf life and
commercial value (abstract)
“Pollination improves the yield of most crop spe-
cies and contributes to one-third of global crop
production. In this study, exclusion experiments
with strawberries showed bee pollination to im-
prove fruit quality, quantity and market value
compared with wind and self-pollination. Bee-
pollinated fruits were heavier, had less malfor-
mations and reached higher commercial
grades. They had increased redness and re-
duced sugar–acid–ratios and were firmer, thus
improving the commercially important shelf life.
Longer shelf life reduced fruit loss by at least 11%. This
is accounting for $0.32 billion of the $1.44 billion pro-
vided by bee pollination to the total value of $2.90 billion
made with strawberry selling in the European Union in
2009. The fruit quality and yield effects are driven by
the pollination-mediated production of hormonal growth
regulators, which occur in several pollination-depend-
ent crops. Thus, our comprehensive findings should be
transferable to a wide range of crops and demonstrate
bee pollination to be a hitherto underestimated but vital
and economically important determinant of fruit qual-
ity.” – Proceedings of the Royal Society, UK
THE RAM’S HORN PAGE 6
Ketchup
In 1909, Henry John Heinz decided that Leamington,
Ontario, was the best place possible to grow tomatoes.
Now it will be interesting to see if the Heinz name
survives, at least in Leamington, now that Berkshire
Hathaway, the ownership (i.e. ‘investment’) vehicle of
Warren Buffett, bought Heinz last June for $28 billion
– a bit more than your monthly grocery bill! Along with
its partner, Brazilian hedge fund 3G Capital, the new
version of Heinz decided to save some bucks and close
the plant (along with two other Heinz plants in the
USA). The Leamington plant employed 740 people at
about $25 per hour, and had been in business for 104
years making ketchup.
A Heinz spokesman explained: “Our
decision to consolidate manufacturing
across North America is a critical step in
our plan to ensure we were operating as
efficiently and effectively as possible to
become more competitive in a challeng-
ing environment and to accelerate the
company’s future growth.”
“Tomatoes are harvested ripe and
don’t travel well, so if there is no process-
ing plant, there’s no tomato growing. . .
Around the time NAFTA was negotiated
(1993), Heinz asked Leamington area
farmers to get globally competitive by bringing up
yields, which required them spending millions on better
machinery and irrigation that are not required for other
crops. . . ‘The closing is because of the new, modern ways
of making money’.” – GM 16/11/13
Not to be overlooked, Kellogg Co. is closing a
cereal-making plant in London, Ontario, creating an-
other 550 unemployed.
The closure of the Heinz ketchup plant is the latest
of several Canadian food processing plants bought and
then closed by investors that move production to other
countries in pursuit of higher profits. The trend bodes
ill for Canadians who want to eat food that is grown and
processed within our borders, and is a direct result of
the federal government’s policy drive to expand agri-
food exports at the expense of Canadian food sover-
eignty.
“Since 1989, Heinz’s Leamington plant has shut
down the pickle line, its peach, baked bean, soups and
vegetable canning lines, the frozen vegetable product
line and its vinegar operation. From hundreds of prod-
ucts now all that is left is baby food and tomato product
lines. Even so, the plant was still very profitable,” said
Mike Tremblay, Essex County Local NFU-O President.
“The new owners want even higher profits, and free
trade deals just make it easier for processors to pick up
and move, leaving our farmers with no market for their
tomatoes and other vegetables, and putting hundreds of
local people out of work.”
Canada’s produce growers work hand-in-hand with
the processors. Although the growing season is short,
producers can provide fruit and vegetables year-round
as long as there are companies to can, freeze and
package what we produce for longer-term storage. A
viable food processing sector and farmers with the
capacity to produce enough of the foods necessary for a
balanced diet are critical parts of a successful food
system.
“It is ironic that as
Canadians are becoming
more interested in buying
locally-produced food, our
supermarkets have less access to products that are
actually grown in Canada,” said John Sutherland, NFU
Ontario President. “According to Statistics Canada, the
total area used to grow vegetables declined by 13.5%
between 2006 and 2011, due primarily to the loss of
processing capacity. The only way to reverse this prob-
lem is to refocus Canada’s food policy to promote food
sovereignty instead of commodity exports.”
In recent years, the CanGro fruit, tomato and
vegetable plant in Exeter, north of London, ON and its
peach plant at St. Davids in the Niagara region, along
with the Bick’s pickle plant in Dunnville, ON were
purchased by US-based multinational corporations and
then closed. The local farmers who grew vegetables for
them have either quit, now export produce for lower
prices or have switched to growing crops such as
soybeans, corn and wheat. Increasingly, grocery stores
are buying food that used to be grown in Canada from
companies that have shifted production to lower-cost
processing facilities in India, Brazil, United States,
Mexico and elsewhere. – NFU, 20/11/13

Protection Racket
Right now Canada ranks as “one of the most difficult
places in the world to register a generic pesticide,”
according to a group of “generic crop protection compa-
nies” that want the Pest Management Regulatory Agency
(PMRA) to improve the process of registering generic
pesticides – pesticides the patent on which has expired
so that they are no longer “protected” by the Protection
of Proprietary Interests in Pesticides (PPIP) regula-
tion.
Farmers of North America (FNA) members sup-
port the ten year exclusive period given to basic regis-
trants after an innovative product is registered. They
also believe that the original registrants deserve to be
fairly paid for relevant and legitimate data, but what
has happened, however, says FNA, “is that the PMRA
handed basic registrants the tools to control the proc-
ess. These are the very companies that will do almost
anything to keep a generic product out of the market.”
That’s BASF, Syngenta, Dow, Monsanto, needless to
say.
FNA is a member based farm business alliance
with the single mission of “Maximizing Farm Profitabil-
ity.” – www.fna.ca – Farmers of North America, 6/12/13
Spin the Revolving Door
Stephen Yarrow, not so long ago a senior bureaucrat in
the CFIA responsible for biotech policy and regulation
and now vice-president of plant biotechnology for
CropLife Canada says the regulatory process to
commercialize GE traits is excessive: the regula-
tors “are being unduly influenced by non-gov-
ernmental organizations stirring up fears in
consumers’ minds.” (WP 28/11/13) Yarrow
should know: his organization is a top non-
governmental corporate lobbyist organization
for the agro-toxin and biotech industries.
Ted Menzies, a former Con-
servative MP, resigned his south-
ern Alberta seat in the House of
Commons to become president
and CEO of CropLife Canada. From
1974-2003 Menzies and his wife oper-
ated a 5000 acre farm growing a
wide variety of crops. Menzies
was involved in a variety of
right-wing lobby organiza-
tions, including the Canadian
Agri-Food Trade Alliance, Grain Growers of Canada
and Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.
THE RAM’S HORN PAGE 7
Hawaii Update
Large biotech companies like Syngenta, Monsanto, Pio-
neer, Dow and BASF have farms on Oahu, Kauai and
Molokai, but they’ve never operated on Hawaii’s Big
Island – and now they never will.
The Big Island (Hawaii Island, the largest of the
archipelago’s islands) Mayor Billy Kenoi signed Bill 113
into law on Dec. 5th prohibiting biotech companies from
operating on the Big Island and banning farmers from
growing any new genetically altered crops. The law goes
into effect immediately and includes fines of $1,000 per
day for noncompliance, but the bill exempts the island’s
GMO papaya industry.
Kenoi said that the new law signals the county’s
desire to encourage community-based farming and
ranching, as opposed to playing host to global
agribusiness corporations. None of the biotech compa-
nies that have taken up root in Hawaii in recent years,
such as Monsanto, Syngenta and Pioneer, operate on
Big Island. The new law makes sure that remains the
case. The majority of Hawaii’s farming industry op-
posed the bill, though farmers who already grow GMO
crops are exempted from the new ban. That includes the
Big Island Dairy and papaya growers who largely rely
on modified varieties that are resistant to the ringspot
virus. In 2008, the county adopted a more limited
genetically modified organism bill that banned geneti-
cally modified coffee and taro.
– Huffington Post, Star Advertiser, 9/12/13
Maui County Councilwoman Elle
Cochran introduced a bill on Dec. 6
that would require companies to
disclose when they use pesticides
and genetically modified organ-
isms (GMOs) on the island.
The bill is modeled after a
measure approved on the island
of Kauai in November that con-
trols the planting of biotech
crops and the use of pesticides
by agrichemical companies. The
Kauai bill requires large agricul-
tural companies to disclose pesticides
and GMOs, as well as establish buffer
zones around schools, homes and hos-
pitals. Similarly, the Maui bill tar-
gets companies that use more than
five pounds or 15 gallons of re-
stricted use pesticides annually.
– Reuters, 9/12/13
THE RAM’S HORN PAGE 8

This does not shift their focus, however, which is to

Food Security Technologies
Just in case you thought food security was a key piece
of food sovereignty, here is an item from the ASD Media
group on the markets for Food Security Technologies,
which the authors figure will be worth $404.3 billion
this year.
With a completely straight face, the report insists
that the food security technologies market has devel-
oped as a result of rising concerns about food security
issues around the world in the face of a constantly
increasing global population, and that food security
technologies can help to produce enough food for the
global population and provide access to food to the
people around the world. It is “a market where technolo-
gies such as agricultural biotechnologies, nanotech-
nologies, micro irrigation, fertilisers, chemical tools,
and other technologies with applications to the food
sector, are able to achieve a state when food systems
operate such that all people, at all times, have physical
and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious
food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for
an active and healthy life.”
The authors admit that “these technologies not
only have to ensure a balance between food availability
and safety requirements, but also to tackle the famine,
seasonal or chronic under-nutrition, micro-nutrient
deficiencies and nutrient-depleting illnesses, especially
in the least developed countries of Africa and Asia.”
identify in monetary terms the potential of the ‘tech-
nologies’ for the next ten years. As they say,
“What is the future of the food security technolo-
gies market? This comprehensive analysis contains
highly quantitative content delivering solid conclusions
benefiting your analysis and illustrates new opportuni-
ties and potential revenue streams helping you to re-
main competitive. This definitive report will benefit
your decision making and help to direct your future
business strategy. Avoid falling behind your competi-
tors, missing critical business opportunities or losing
industry influence.”
– ASDR Reports, 7/11/13, https://www.asdreports.com/
shopexd.asp?id=86003&desc=titlelink
Surprise! Bison Don’t Fatten
Bison are native inhabitants of the Prairies of western
Canada, accustomed to eating grass. In the meat busi-
ness they are considered as somewhat exotic and par-
ticularly lean, as might be expected. But “bison are
probably not as good at tolerating a high grain diet as
beef cattle” according to a University of Saskatchewan
researcher after conducting trials to compare beef bulls
with bison bulls on a high grain diet. “The biggest thing
we learned is we can’t raise bison like cattle and we saw
a big reduction in feed intake as we moved the bison to
high-grain diets.” – WP, 5/12/13

Subscriptions:
Canada, $25(regular), $50 (patron)
Published by Brewster and Cathleen Kneen United States: US$25, CDN $27
phone/fax: (613) 828-6047 outside North America: $28 (airmail)
email: brewster@ramshorn.ca
cheques payable to The Ram’s Horn
www.ramshorn.ca

If you would like a paper copy of The Ram’s Horn, please subscribe (see rates and
address above). You are also invited to suppport our work through a donation to
help cover costs of research, writing, and circulation of the print version for free
to people who cannot afford it, especially those in the ‘global south’.

The publishers of The Ram’s Horn do not claim copyright ‘protection’ for this material. It is in
the public domain to be freely used and built upon. We appreciate mention of the source.
Line drawings not otherwise identified are the work of Cathleen Kneen.

Published 8 times a year; subscriptions expire with the issue number on the label.