A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER OF FOOD SYSTEM ANALYSIS No.

286, January 2012

ISSN 0827-4053

Who Pays the Harper, Calls the Tune

by Brewster Kneen
Corporate control over the industrial food system, at
While we have certainly been vocal about corpo-
every level, has been a prime subject of The Ram’s Horn
rate control, we probably have not been clear enough
for many years. We’ve long warned of dependency on
about the danger of believing in the democratic charac-
transnational corporations for our food supply, whether
ter of our governments and assuming their good will.
in the form of Cargill as trader and processor or Monsanto
One of the hardest challenges facing us now may be to
as owner of all major crop seeds. The control corpora-
recognize the undemocratic, not to say totalitarian,
tions strive for, is, of course, to ensure stability, profits
character of our current federal government. We really
and a rising share price. And corporate profits, remem-
do want to believe we live in a democracy, where citizens
ber, are what is extracted from the food chain after all
play an active role in political life, defining and advocat-
legitimate costs have
ing policies and contributing to decision-making.
been met – in other
words, a tax on food
Today, however, under the Harper regime, such
collected by the corpora-
participation in the country’s political life is neither
tions involved. Farmers
solicited nor welcome, and what is supposed to be our
are, by and large, not in
major democratic structure, the House of Commons,
a position to collect such
has been almost totally marginalized, both by the su-
a tax. It is hard enough
preme leader and by the passivity of Parliament itself.
to cover costs, unless
Despite the efforts of some hardworking and active
you are a subsistence
MPs, Parliament has simply refused to function as a
farmer not sub-
vital voice of the people. I know that I have no voice as
merged in what is
a citizen: I do not receive intelligent responses to my
called The Economy.
letters to my MP (John Baird) or anyone else (some-
times they are acknowledged, but nothing more); the
outcomes of government ‘consultations’ are readily avail-
able in the pre-meeting documents, regardless of what
participants might say. The voices Parliament hears
best are those of the lobbyists for the oil industry and
the corporate elite that ‘occupy’ the Prime Minister’s
Office.

The announcement at the very end of December

that the Harper regime plans to spend $8.6 million to
install barricades on Parliament Hill for ‘security’ rea-
sons is an expression of its attitude toward the public:
YOU ARE A THREAT, STAY AWAY. According to
Public Works, the installation of bollards (following the
example of the US Embassy fortifications) is to stop
the public from driving a vehicle, like a tank, into
Parliament. On second thought, maybe the Prime
Minister understands the public attitude he is
generating.
. . . continued next page
THE RAM’S HORN PAGE 2
In our last issue we explored the question of state
sovereignty, pointing out that there is a very explicit
500 year history of corporate sovereignty over national
or state sovereignty, at least in regard to economies and
trade. Obviously this has implications for the concept of
food sovereignty. It is difficult, if not impossible, to
achieve food sovereignty without building an alterna-
tive to corporate sovereignty in food processing and
distribution.
Since writing that last issue, we have done a lot of
reading and thinking about the significance of the latest
trade agreement to command our attention, the Trans
Pacific Partnership, in preparation for a lecture in
Japan. (see www.ramshorn.ca) As I thought about the
potential impact of the TPP for both Canada and Japan,
I realized that even I have not been clear enough about
the fact that all trade agreements are agreements for
corporations made by their patron states. There is NO
benefit to the people; the benefits go to the corporations
which essentially write the agreements and treaties.
This corporate governance is sold to the public as ‘a good
thing’ because we have been led to believe that economic
growth is essential for any successful society and that
economic growth is best achieved by ensuring corporate
welfare. This is why an economy is measured by corpo-
rate profit and share value (price on stock exchange)
rather than health and welfare of the population.
So an economy is healthy if Loblaw’s, Sobey’s,
Monsanto, Cargill, BASF, Metro, Kraft, Potash Corp,
Viterra and so on are showing increased or at least
steady profits, regardless of the nutritional status of
everyone in the market – or not in the market due to
lack of ‘purchasing power’.
Now let’s throw in a trade deal, such as the TPP.
If Japan were to be one of the countries agreeing to it,
along with Canada, the USA and New Zealand, Japan
could look forward to New Zealand becoming Japan’s
sole source of dairy products, accompanied by the disap-
pearance of any domestic dairy farms. Japan could also
look forward to the wiping out of domestic rice produc-
tion since there could be no protection of its ancient rice
culture, and Texas and California could supply all the
cheap rice the Japanese could eat. Of course it is not
New Zealand, California and Texas that actually sup-
ply the foods, but corporations that source it in these
locations – as long as it is profitable for them to do so.
Japan might be able to pay for this imported food
by producing and selling automobiles – except that
Honda is leading the way to out-sourcing automobile
production with its plans to shift production of its FIT
model for the global market to China. This might be
good for Honda corporation, but certainly not for the
Japanese workers.
As for the benefit to Canada as a ‘partner’ in the
TPP, Canadian beef and pork might find a good market
in Japan, so the trade deal could increase exports, such
as oil, beef, pork, canola, etc.; but who would be the real
beneficiaries? The corporations responsible for the Ca-
nadian food system are largely headquartered outside
of Canada, and their profits go to head office, whether
that is Cargill in Minnesota or ADM in Illinois, Monsanto
in St. Louis, Missouri, Syngenta in Switzerland,
Carrefour in France or Nestlé in Switzerland.
The TPP is supposed to set ‘a new standard’ for
trade deals. One of its top demands is ‘national treat-
ment’, which means that foreign corporations are to be
treated as nationals, that is, the same as any corpora-
tion of the host country. For example, Monsanto, or
Cargill, would have to be treated as Japanese compa-
nies in Japan. This is also a core element of the proposed
CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agree-
ment which Canada is working on with Europe. Tied
with this is the rule that all government procurement
contracts must be open to foreign corporations without
discrimination. This would mean no preference for local
sources of food for school food programs, hospitals or
seniors residences – and much more. The ramifications
of this for local food movements everywhere are
mindboggling.

Still, it seems hard for the real significance of that
to sink into our minds and consciousness. So much
effort continues to be applied to advocating for food
policies to national governments and global agencies by
traditional charities and aid agencies, as if national
governments were actually the parties responsible for
policy. Small victories, such as the agreement by CIDA
(Canadian International Development Agency) to focus
on smallholder agriculture in disadvantaged countries,
has led some mainline agencies, environmental organi-
zations and aid and development NGOs to work closely
with governments. Others, sometimes using the lan-
guage of “public-private partnerships”, work hand in
hand with major corporations, providing them with a
‘socially responsible’ cover, such as describing their
activities as ‘humanitarian’ or ‘environmentally friendly’
– for example, the Roundtable on Responsible Soy in
which WWF and Cargill are in the same bed. In these
constructs, the NGOs and environmental organizations
actually distract the public from the structural issues,
such as the monocropping on a major scale of geneti-
cally engineered soy (as in Argentina) for biofuel pro-
duction. Forests and farms in Malaysia and Thailand
are destroyed to make way for oil palm plantations to
produce palm oil under the rules of The Roundtable on
Sustainable Palm Oil – which includes OXFAM and
Pesticide Action Network (Asia-Pacific) as members.
All this leaves us with an interesting question: are
there levels of government, such as municipal, regional
district, or provincial, with which the food movement
can work without compromise to establish desirable
food policies, despite the hostility of the Federal Gov-
ernment and its partnership with the corporate sector?
Who would be allies in such an endeavour?
Greening McDonald’s
We received an invitation, indirectly, from Agriculture
and Agri-food Canada’s Agri-Environment Services
Branch, to attend a talk by Mr. Jeffrey Fitzpatrick-
Stillwell, Manager of Sustainability and Government
Relations for McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Lim-
ited. “Mr. Fitzpatrick-Stillwell will discuss McDonald’s
new comprehensive Sustainable Land Management
Commitment which was developed in partnership with
the World Wildlife Fund, which
summarizes their commit-
ment to work with suppli-
ers toward the goal of en-
suring that agricultural
raw materials for their
products originate from
legal and sustainably
managed land resources.”
THE RAM’S HORN PAGE 3
Cargill’s growing food business in India is concen-
trating its corporate responsibility efforts on mal-
nutrition and its underlying causes through a
series of projects called “Nourishing India. . . . a
multi-pronged program that addresses food inse-
curity in India. It comprises multiple initiatives
addressing micronutrient deficiency, distribution
and delivery. In addition to partnering with CARE
and WFP, programs include fortifying edible oil,
partnering on food bank networks and school
feeding programs.” – www.cargill.com/connec-
tions/nourishing-india-plan-for-empowerment/
index.jsp
Cargill donated a shipload of rice worth $5 million
to the World Food Program of the UN for distribu-
tion in northeastern Kenya. The World Food Pro-
gram raised the money to ship the rice to Mom-
basa. Cargill CEO Greg Page said this illustrated
Cargill’s “unique ability to source and move food
to where it is needed”. – cargill.com
Importing Low Wages
Target Corporation, as it readies its move into Canada
with the makeover of its recently purchased Zellers
chain, is battling with the unionized Zellers staff. At
stake is Target’s low-cost operating model, which relies
on competitive compensation and flexibility in schedul-
ing and assigning tasks. A move to unionize workers
could hurt that model. In other words, Zellers wants to
force its future Canadian employees to match the wages
and working conditions of the workers producing its
goods in China, Haiti, or India.
Sobey’s wholesale division, TRA, recently signed a
long-term distribution agreement with Target for the
supply of select food and grocery products to its yet-to-
be opened Canadian stores. (Only a small percentage of
Sobey’s labour force is unionized.)
Revolving Door Revolves Again
In late June, 2011, Stephen Yarrow quietly slipped from
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to CropLife
Canada, the trade association “representing the devel-
opers, manufacturers and distributors of plant science
technologies” – becoming the organization’s Vice-Presi-
dent, Plant Biotechnology. Early in his career Yarrow
worked for Allelix Crop Technologies before joining
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and then moving to
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency when it was
hived off from AAFC in 1997.
THE RAM’S HORN PAGE 4
Haiti: An “Unnatural Disaster”
“. . . To place blame solely on the earthquake is to miss the
political and historical underpinnings of poverty in Haiti.
The damage was far worse than it should have been because
Port-au-Prince was home to hundreds of thousands of slum
dwellers whose fragile shanty homes folded like cards. The
slums existed in part because the collapse of the farming
sector led rural poor to the city in search of nonexistent jobs.
The farming sector collapse, in turn, was caused by factors
including U.S. free trade and food aid policies that flooded
Haiti’s market with cheap imported food for decades. . . .
From the outset, grassroots organizations have been
marginalized and excluded from the most important deci-
sions about Haiti’s future, with key meetings held almost
exclusively in the capital or outside the country entirely and
in English or French instead of Kreyol. Capacity building for
Haitian institutions has been ignored by donors who have
thrown up their hands at the idea of creating a robust,
functional government. Instead, they prefer aid projects
with outcomes measured in days or weeks, not months and
years. This might be the easy choice for donors, but it’s not
the right choice for Haiti.”
– Two Years After the Earthquake, Dr. Joia Mukherjee and
Ruth Messinger, Huffington Post, 12/1/12
Haiti Can Be Rich Again
by Laurent Dubois, author of “Haiti: The Aftershocks of
History, and Deborah Jenson, author of “Beyond the
Slave Narrative”
. . . For most of the 19th century, Haiti was a site of
agricultural innovation, productivity and economic success.
In the wake of the earthquake two years ago, many have
talked about the need to lay foundations for a better future.
To do that, Haiti should look to the past, and the system of
small farms and the decentralized economy that once pro-
vided Haitians with dignity, autonomy and wealth.
The slave revolution that ended with Haiti’s creation in
1804 led to what the sociologist Jean Casimir dubbed a
“counter-plantation” system. As slaves, the islanders had
harvested and processed sugar cane, but fed themselves by
cultivating their own tiny gardens, for which they developed
sophisticated techniques of inter-cropping — a kind of
sustainable agriculture that involved planting a variety of
crops close together. Once free, Haitians drew on that
knowledge to raise livestock and grow fruits, root vegeta-
bles, and even coffee for export to the global market. In
establishing their own small farms, they forestalled any
possibility of a return to the large plantations that had defined
the days of slavery.
This system of agricultural self-reliance provided a
better quality of life than that of African descendants any-
where else in the Americas. . . . Haiti’s economy was
decentralized, organized around 11 largely autonomous
regions, each with its own port. There was plenty of conflict
in the country, largely over control of the central govern-
ment, and heavy taxes on exports, as well as the power of
foreign merchants, sapped the profits of farmers. Yet the
regional economies thrived, and a decentralized political
and military system assured many Haitians a great deal of
control over their destiny.
In the 20th century, however, this system came under
increasing pressure. Outsiders, along with many in the
Haitian elite, saw small farms as a barrier to progress. When
the United States occupied Haiti, from 1915 to 1934, it
worked to centralize the economy in Port-au-Prince. It
pushed through a re-writing of the Haitian Constitution to
allow foreigners to own land, which the country’s founders
had banned for fear of re-enslavement, and worked to
replace small farms with large plantations owned by foreign
corporations. Many farmers saw their land expropriated.
In the teens, when the countryside erupted in a revolt
against the occupation and the use of forced labour to build
roads, the United States created a newly centralized gendar-
merie to suppress the insurrection. Violence and economic
decline in the countryside forced many Haitians to flee to the
cities or to plantations in neighbouring Cuba and the Do-
minican Republic. In the years since, the countryside has
continued to experience environmental and economic deg-
radation as well as exodus, while the big cities, especially
Port-au-Prince, have become overcrowded. Today, about
half of Haiti’s food is imported.
The flow of ideas and money to Haiti that followed the
earthquake provides an opportunity to restore the system of
small farms that was a pillar of Haitian society after inde-
pendence. . . . Municipal governments should construct
properly equipped marketplaces for the women who sell
rural produce. The Haitian state should develop trade poli-
cies aimed at protecting the agricultural sector, and take the
lead in fixing roads and ports, confronting deforestation and
improving systems of water management. Foreign organiza-
tions working in the country can help simply by making it a
policy to buy food and other goods from local producers.
The return on the investment in the rural economy
would be self-reliance, the alleviation of dangerous over-
crowding in cities and, most important, a path toward ending
Haiti’s now chronic problems of malnutrition and food
insecurity. As Haitians look to rebuild in 2012, the best
blueprints will come from their own proud and vibrant
history. – NYT, 8/1/12

Orange Juice Concentration
Many years ago, Cathleen made me a little pottery cup
in which I drink my daily morning glass of (from
concentrate) orange juice. But when I tried to find the
small cans of concentrate yesterday in a big Loblaw’s
store, there were only two cartons of them, and the cans
have been shrunk by several ounces while the price
remains the same. On the other hand, there was a great
long cooler of the more expensive, not-from-concentrate
juice. Naturally, it made me want to do more research
on the orange juice business.
Brazil is by far the world’s largest producer of
oranges, having surpassed Florida a few years ago, and
now accounts for about half the global orange juice
production. Brazil also allows farmers to use a fungi-
cide, carbendazim, on oranges that is not permitted in
the USA. Now the US FDA is considering a ban on
imported Brazilian oranges. Coca-Cola Co, which pro-
duces Simply Orange and Minute Maid, found the
unapproved fungicide in the orange juice. Both brands
were said to contain juice from Brazil.
More than one-third of the orange juice concen-
trate that enters the U.S. moves through Port Newark,
and 96 percent of that comes from
Brazil, according to the Port Au-
thority of New York and New
Jersey. Most orange juice is a
blend of domestic and imported
orange juice. Brazilian juice is
more tart, and arrives in con-
centrate, so it is often cut with
the sweeter domestic juice. Or-
ange juice is big business in
the U.S., with nearly 4 million
gallons consumed in 2009, ac-
cording to the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. The biggest
brands are Coca-Cola’s Minute
Maid, and Tropicana, owned by
Pepsico. Together, Coke and Pepsi
control nearly two-thirds of the domes-
tic market.
What is not mentioned in these accounts, and
what I can find no trace of on Cargill’s websites, includ-
ing for Brazil, is any mention of Cargill’s involvement in
Brazilian orange juice, which I covered in detail in
Invisible Giant. It is a chapter of Cargill’s history that
seems to have been completely deleted, including from
their corporate timeline. So I contacted Cargill through
their website and asked about orange juice. The reply:
“Good Morning. Thank you for your interest in Cargill
products. I am afraid Cargill does not produce Orange
Juice.” – B.K.
THE RAM’S HORN PAGE 5
“A Lack of Acceptance”
The German chemical giant BASF says it is moving its
transgenic plant operations from Europe to the United
States because of widespread opposition to the technol-
ogy. The company plans to move its plant-science head-
quarters from Limburgerhof, Germany, to Raleigh,
North Carolina, and says that it will no longer develop
plants solely for cultivation in Europe. Stefan
Marcinowski, a member of the BASF board of executive
directors, cited “a lack of acceptance for this technology
in many parts of Europe – from the majority of consum-
ers, farmers and politicians.” The company instead
plans to focus on plant biotechnology markets in the
Americas and Asia.
Only one other genetically modified crop, a breed
of maize (corn) developed by Monsanto that produces
the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insect toxin, is approved
for cultivation in Europe. However, Monsanto has long
stopped developing GM crops to grow in Europe, and
BASF had been the only company still pursuing ap-
proval on the continent. – Nature News, UK, 16/1/12
The two biggest acquirers of West Australian
(WA) grown canola are saying the strongest message
coming from their biggest customers in Europe is “we
are prepared to pay more for non-genetically modified
canola with a ‘sustainable’ accreditation”. In
November there was up to a $40 difference
between the prices (per tonne) on offer for
WA’s GM and Non-GM canola. Europe’s
Renewable Energy Directive and their
new sustainability requirements are driv-
ing the price difference. Customers in
Europe want sustainable canola and they
also want non-GM canola. Even though
the main buyers want the canola for their
biofuel industries, they also want to use the
by-products for animal and human consumption
and in Europe those markets demand non-GM pro-
duce. If there were to be a big shift to GM in WA then
the WA price will drop to the Canadian level because
Canada is the biggest exporter of GM canola.
– Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 16/11/11
Imports of US corn gluten feed to the European
Union have been virtually stopped because of concern
they might contain unapproved genetically modified
organisms. The EU imported about 1 million tonnes of
corn gluten feed in the Sept. 2010/Oct. 2011 crop season,
according to Oil World estimates. This is small com-
pared to 24 million tonnes of soymeal and 13 million of
soybeans imported for animal use. – Reuters, 21/12/11
THE RAM’S HORN PAGE 6
In Their Own Words
Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the
Harper government, spoke recently about his plans to
protect organics through GMO cross-contamination, as
reported in Hansard:
“Mr. Speaker, there is nothing secret about doing
consultations with industry. We are continuing to dis-
cuss with industry the best way to move forward on low
level presence [of GMO contamination]. Of course,
globally, everyone was at zero. With the efficacy of
scientific testing, it has gone beyond that now. Zero is no
longer zero.
“There is a global movement to move toward 1%,
which of course will not hurt organics. It is actually
there to protect organics to make sure we all ship in the
same containers and we all ship on the same ocean-
going freight. It is a matter of making sure that organics
are protected when there is a crossover like that. We are
doing the right thing. We are consulting with everybody
who is involved and we will gazette the answers in due
course.”
Kraft Foods (2010 revenue of $49.2 billion) has
been measuring its impact on climate change, land and
water use. It has found that the bulk of its environmen-
tal footprint originates on the farms that grow ingredi-
ents for the company’s products. “While the company
does not own farms, the survey supports the work of its
sustainable agriculture efforts on key commodities to
improve crop yields, reduce environmental impacts and
improve the lives of many of the farm workers and their
families. In addition, Kraft Foods continues to build
upon previous success around energy, carbon dioxide,
water, waste and packaging reductions.”
Kraft has found that more than 90% of the carbon
footprint is outside its plants and offices, nearly 60 % is
from farm commodities, about 12% of the carbon foot-
print is from transportation and distribution of prod-
ucts from stores to consumers’ homes, and about 5 % of
the carbon footprint is from consumers, mostly in food
preparation.
In the next few years Kraft hopes to cut 80 million
km from its transportation network; eliminate 50,000
metric tons of packaging material; reduce energy use in
manufacturing plants by 15% and reduce water con-
sumption in manufacturing plants by 15%.
– 14/12/11, Kraft press release
All of which can contribute to Kraft’s public image
as well as increased profitability.
Unsustainable . . .
“We have trashed a quarter of the Earth’s land surface,
according to the first global survey of land resources by
the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, which
blames the damage on unsustainable farming. Food
production grew 150% between 1961 and 2009 through
intensive farming that damaged soil and depleted wa-
ter supplies.” – New Scientist 3/12/11
ADM plans to build Canada’s largest biodiesel plant to
supply the biodiesel mandate of the federal govern-
ment. The plant, to be built in Lloydminster, Alberta,
will crush canola and increase ADM’s North American
biodiesel production by 50%. – OC 15/11/11
Or Sustainable
A totally different, and much more exciting, approach is
described in “Agroecologically efficient agricultural
systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food
sovereignty”, a recent article by Miguel A. Altieri,
Fernando Funes-Monzote and Paulo Petersen, pub-
lished in the official journal of INRA, the French agri-
cultural research organization. If you would like a copy
of the excellent article (PDF, in English), let us know
and we will forward it to you.
From the introduction:
The growing push toward industrialization and globaliza-
tion with its emphasis on export crops including transgenic
crops such as soybeans for cattle feed for countries such as
China, Europe, USA, and the rapidly increasing demand for
biofuel crops (sugar cane, maize, soybean, oil palm, euca-
lyptus, etc.) are increasingly reshaping the agriculture and
food supply of many developing nations, with yet unknown
economic, social and ecological impacts and risks.
Despite these unfolding trends, the peasant or small
farm sector that comprises myriad of ecologically based
agricultural styles, offers promising models for promoting
biodiversity, sustaining yield without agrochemicals, and
conserving ecological integrity while accounting for no less
than 50% of the agricultural output for domestic consump-
tion in most countries.
The realization of the contribution of peasant agricul-
ture to food security in the midst of scenarios of climate
change, economic and energy crisis led to the concepts of
food sovereignty and agroecologically based production
systems to gain much worldwide attention in the last two
decades.

Two recent major international reports (IAASTD 2009;
de Schutter 2010) state that in order to feed nine billion
people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient
farming systems and recommend for a fundamental shift
towards agroecology as a way to boost food production and
improve the situation of the poorest. Both reports based on
broad consultations with scientists and extensive literature
reviews contend that small-scale farmers can double food
production within 10 years in critical regions by using
agroecological methods already available. The food chal-
lenge will be met using environmentally friendly and so-
cially equitable technologies and methods, in a world with
a shrinking arable land base (which is also being diverted to
produce biofuels), with less and more expensive petroleum,
increasingly limited supplies of water and nitrogen, and
within a scenario of a rapidly changing climate, social
unrest, and economic uncertainty.
The only agricultural system that will be able to
confront future challenges is one that will exhibit high levels
of diversity, productivity, and efficiency.
Resistance
The stubborn and unprecedented growth of the food
movement in Canada could be compared with the growth
of Palmer amaranth as weeds in a field of monoculture
canola. Or Johnsongrass in a field of Monsanto’s pat-
ented transgenic soybeans genetically engineered to
tolerate the company’s glyphosate herbicide (Roundup).
Johnsongrass is the fifth glyphosate-resistant weed
discovered in Arkansas. The others: horseweed (also
known as marestail), common ragweed, giant ragweed
and Palmer amaranth, a pigweed. In Georgia this weed
infests cotton and soybean.
THE RAM’S HORN PAGE 7
Monsanto – Again
Year after year, issue after issue, we find ourselves, to
our dismay and even boredom, reporting on Monsanto.
We wish that corporate persona would just go away and
leave us all alone. But it is way too late for that, the
damage is done, and continues to be done by that
horrible, lying corporation. It all started long before
biotech and rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hor-
mone), going back to Monsanto’s earlier history as a
chemical company and its murderous Agent Orange.
The company continues to deny doing any harm, but it
should be charged with crimes against humanity and
Mother Nature, convicted and dismembered.
Seen on Facebook: I’ll believe corporations
are persons when Texas executes one.
False Advertising, India
Monsanto has suffered yet another setback with the advertis-
ing regulator finding claims made by it about benefits of
genetically modified (GM) cotton to be baseless. The com-
pany, in a series of newspaper advertisements issued in
August, 2011, had claimed that GM cotton technology had
boosted the income of Indian cotton farmers by over Rs.31,500
crore. (1 crore =10 million) The Advertising Standards
Council of India (ASCI) has found that the claim has not been
substantiated and has asked the seed company to drop this
claim. . .
According to their decision, the claim made in the
advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code,
which deals with ensuring “truthfulness and honesty of
representation and claims made by advertisements and to
safeguard against misleading advertisements”.
The ad had claimed that its Bt cotton seeds had “helped
create Rs.31,500 crore additional value for 60 lakh ( 1 lakh
= 100,000) cotton farmers” by reducing pesticide use and
increasing yield. The figure of monetary claims was appar-
ently sourced from reports of a GM industry lobby, ISAAA.
ASCI found the claim to be unsubstantiated.
The monetary benefits GM cotton has brought to
farmers in cotton-growing states since it was introduced in
2002 is often cited as the success story of GM crops in the
country, and is used to justify introduction of the technology
in food crops. With the advertising council finding this very
claim to be unsubstantiated, supporters of GM crops may be
on the defensive once again.
– India Today, 14/1/12, GM Watch, UK 12/1/12
THE RAM’S HORN PAGE 8

as enthusiastically, there are only two glyphosate-

Glyphosate: Resistance
A weed resistant to a widely used chemical to protect
crops has spread for the first time to Western Canada.
Kochia weed turned up in three fields in Southern
Alberta last August, despite the use of glyphosate, and
Canadian government scientists have now confirmed
that it is resistant to the farm chemical. Kochia has
previously been confirmed in Kansas, Colorado and
Nebraska, and suspected cases are under investigation
in North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana. The
southern Alberta case is unique because it does not
appear to have developed in a field where farmers
regularly grew Roundup Ready crops. The super-weed’s
spread is “a big deal” for the future of seeding canola,
which is Canada’s second-largest crop after spring
wheat. – Reuters, 11/1/12
In Australia, annual ryegrass, barnyard, windmill and
liverseed grasses, and fleabane have all developed
glyphosate-resistant populations. In the United States,
the blanket spread of crops genetically modified to be
glyphosate resistant and a lax rotation system means
that 21 glyphosate-resistant weeds are found across 8.5
million hectares of farmland. Across the border in
Canada, where GM crops have been used for as long and
resistant weeds – and the resistant fleabane announced
this year may have come north out of the US.
– The Land, Australia, 8/9/11
and Persistence
Glyphosate, also known by its tradename Roundup, is
commonly found in rain and rivers in agricultural areas
in the Mississippi River watershed, according to two
new US Geological Survey studies released in August
2011. Glyphosate is used in almost all agricultural and
urban areas of the United States, with its greatest use
is in the Mississippi River basin, where most applica-
tions are for weed control on genetically-modified corn,
soybeans and cotton. Overall, agricultural use of
glyphosate has increased from less than 11,000 tons in
1992 to more than 88,000 tons in 2007. “Though
glyphosate is the mostly widely used herbicide in the
world, we know very little about its long term effects to
the environment,” says Paul Capel, USGS chemist and
an author on this study. The degradation product of
glyphosate, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA),
which has a longer environmental lifetime, was also
frequently detected in streams and rain.
– US Geological Survey, 29/8/11

Subscriptions:
Canada, $25(regular), $50 (patron)
United States: US$25, CDN $27
Published by Brewster and Cathleen Kneen outside North America: $28 (airmail)
phone/fax: (613) 828-6047
email: brewster@ramshorn.ca 2746 Cassels Street
www.ramshorn.ca Ottawa ON, K2B 6N7, Canada
cheques payable to The Ram’s Horn

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