I'm a bit surprised to hear the WTO cited as good for farming. My understanding is that the organization has encouraged a lot of big, cash crop practices that has undermined local food security and led to disaster for farmers, particularly in developing nations.

GMOs do sound amazing, don't they? It's too bad the reality doesn't live up to the promise. Bigger yields, fewer pesticides and herbicides... the bigger yields have never happened and the chemical reductions backfire in a few years. Monsanto, etc. need to spend a lot more lab time before they come up with viable transgenic crops that don't endanger natural fecundity or the farmers who plant them.

Eat what you grow, grow what you eat

In other words, if poverty is the problem (not the supply of food), then don't tamper with genes because (a) the supply of food wasn't the problem; and (b) it makes poverty worse.

The 5% Project Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.

1. The WTO doesn't dictate farm policy- it dictates trade policy and only if all nations agree- it is the MOST democratic of all international institutions

2. I'm not saying that GMOs are a godsend but they might be- since they don't pose a serious risk it seems like opposition based on purely ideological grounds doesn't make sense- if they don't deliver people won't buy them

3. No one is forcing anyone to buy GMO seeds- if people think they are superior to other types they can buy them; if not, they don't have to. Since they are being used in virtually every country on tens of millions of acres it seems that most farmers are perfectly fine with them as are most consumers since virtually all food has some GMO in it these days, unless it's organic or specifically non-GMO

Seems like an environmental friendly technology to me.

Established in 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a powerful new global commerce agency, which transformed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) into an enforceable global commerce code. The WTO is one of the main mechanisms of corporate globalization.

Under the WTO's system of corporate-managed trade, economic efficiency, reflected in short-run corporate profits, dominates other values. Decisions affecting the economy are to be confined to the private sector, while social and environmental costs are borne by the public.

The WTO and GATT Uruguay Round Agreements have functioned principally to pry open markets for the benefit of transnational corporations at the expense of national and local economies; workers, farmers, indigenous peoples, women and other social groups; health and safety; the environment; and animal welfare. In addition, the WTO system, rules and procedures are undemocratic, un-transparent and non-accountable and have operated to marginalize the majority of the world's people.

There were efforts to decrease fishing subsidies, which are destroying the world's oceans, in the current round of the WTO but now that it has collapsed we'll have to sit by while the oceans are decimated, with companies being paid by governments to overfish. If environmentalists could educate themselves about the WTO it would be of great benefit.

Ask yourself this question: without the WTO do you think perverse subsidies have a greater or lesser chance of being eliminated?

The answer is clear.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

When government representatives show up to WTO meetings and defend a particular position, they may very well support corporate interests at the expense of the public good. But why should we expect more enlightened positions from governments in an international forum than what they demonstrate at home?

What the WTO does allow countries to do, however, is to agree with other countries to undertake actions collectively (like phasing out subsidies that encourage over-fishing), and use those collective benefits as an argument for their own parliaments to go along with the deal.

In short, blame your own country's domestic politics for short-sighted behavior, not the WTO.

These are only my personal opinions.

The current food, energy and financial crises were caused by a terrible mode of production and consumption which promoted by developed countries--and also by international regime like the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and through free trade agreements (FTA), both bilateral and regional.

The fact is WTO will only exacerbate the current global crises. The resume of WTO negotiation will not solve the basic problems in Indonesia, or poverty and inequality of development process. Concluding the Doha Round will not solve the problem of agricultural market. Even worse, it will destruct other sector such as manufacture sector. Furthermore, WTO negotiation will undermine people's access towards service--especially public service.

The current Doha package is a bad deal. It serves the private interests of the biggest corporations around the world, most of them headquartered in the developed world. WTO negotiations have been failed in 2006, and in many occasion since 13 years ago. Therefore, it is not the solution for today's food, climate, financial and energy crises. It is time for a new approach to the multilateral trading system that focuses on policies that promote people-centered ecologically sustainable development

Of course, trade between countries and blocks of countries will continue (though diminished due to the end of cheap oil), but the end of the "one-size-fits-all" neoliberal project will open us possibilities for countries to persue their own independent development strategies.

And in my view, disagreements between nations about resource management are better handled via the U.N., where interests other than monetary can be handled.

The WTO is the enforcement mechanism of corporate globalization.  There is nothing good or democratic about it, and your claims to the contrary are laughable.  Decisions about challenges are made in secret by a secret panel.  Maybe that's your idea of democracy, which would explain why things are so screwed up.

In discussing this topic, once this fallacy is presented as obviously true.  There is none.

Why would anyone accept a statement like this?  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

With WTO out of the picture, big countries pursue MUCH MORE imbalanced bilateral agreements that introduce more distortions than the WTO would.

GMOs are NOT forced on people/farmers. I am aware of the Indian farmer suicides (and I blame salesmen for that), but there is HUGE GMO demand from farmers in developing countries. The biggest blockage to GMOs comes from Europeans -- and their fears are being strokked by funding from -- guess who -- european companies that manufacture pesticides!

@Woverine -- Chill! We're only on 12 comments and you've already validated Godwin's law. Let's talk more facts and less emotion.

Bottom Line: Ending subsidies and freeing trade will do more for sustainablility than a fleet of hybrids or millions of victory gardens.

As for GMOS and pesticides, which I think are not worth the effort ("c'est pas le peine"?), we should be encouraging permaculture/biointensive types of agriculture.

GMOs and pesticies/herbicides are designed to work together.  Whoops.  It all escapes into the wild, these invasive frankenplants destroying ecosystems wily-nily.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Resilience is a situation where your output is not maximized, but you are able to survive "spikes", or extreme perturbations to the normal functioning of the system -- a forest fire, for instance.  In the same way, for instance, the rise in oil prices throws the entire food system into something resembling chaos, whereas, for instance, if most grains were grown near population centers, there would be much less suffering.

So I think we can have both markets and victory gardens.

The agricultural subsidies should be eliminated. Once we have a clear picture of the level-ground, we should start adding the checks and balances that are required for food security (not just for the USA or for any single country, but for the world as a whole).

Next door to the USA is Haiti, where the population is being forced to eat mud-bricks. Isn't this a shame on our collective humanity ?

We don't need GM foods to avoid something as bad as this. Basic planning, guarenteed supply of water, fertilizers and electricity, and better education of the farmers would increase the world food yields enormously. (atleast by 2-4 times). An important factor is also the access of micro-credit to farmers.  

All the high-talk of GM foods can come later on.


Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.

1. What I have outlined here is just a start, and by no means comprehensive

2. But the point is that the root of the problem is misplaced prices caused by both passive and active subsidies for food, water, and energy- I don't see anyone contesting that, so the question is: how do we eliminate these types of subsidies? Obviously, it's very hard to do as the collapse of the Doha Round (which was just trying to eliminate a very small portion of subsidies and tariffs) proves. But at least the WTO was trying to accomplish this. As I also mentioned the WTO is also the only international forum where there is a move towards reducing fishing subsidies. Without the WTO the situation will get only worse as countries will not be constrained almost at all.

3. Interestingly, one of the only sensible things the Bush Administration ever proposed was severely restricting ag subsidies by capping individual payments at $250,000 (they are now over $1 million), but this was opposed by both Republicans and leading Democrats in the pockets of agribusiness in farm states that have electoral sway. This is why it is so important for environmentalists to understand the details of this issue; the Democrats are as bad or worse than the Republicans on this one. I'm a big Obama supporter but McCain has a much better record on opposing these subsidies than Obama.

4. Anyone who thinks that corporatism will be weakened now that the WTO is losing power and credibility simply doesn't understand history or power relations. Corporatism thrives in a protectionist climate where regional and national monopolies are much easier to maintain. The best thing from the standpoint of state-run financial monopolies in Asia is to make sure that they do not face outside competition. The best thing for telecom monopolies in Mexico that gouge consumers hundreds of percent is to make sure they have no competition. They best thing for U.S. agribusiness is to keep the welfare rolling and bloc any efforts to decrease subsidies.

5. As to GMOs, I am neither a huge fan or opponent; I think they hold promise and that they should be thoroughly researched and perhaps some great developments will come from that effort. I have read many pieces trying to assess their ecological risk and the consensus is that they are safe and do not pose a greater risk than conventional genetic manipulation- and like I said, we are all consuming large quantities of GMOs unless we are eating 100% organic food all the time everywhere we go.

"GMOs and pesticies/herbicides are designed to work together.  Whoops.  It all escapes into the wild, these invasive frankenplants destroying ecosystems wily-nily."

Not all GMOs increase the use of chemicals. I've pointed it out before, including specific examples, and I will continue to point it out.

Regarding invasive frankenplants...

I've spent about ten years trying to eliminate sweet clover, thistles, wild parsnip, crown vetch, and honey suckle from a 2-acre prairie remnant.

Fools are are still selling and planting sweet clover seed, a very invasive plant that is tricky to eliminate using fire; I've had to resort to mowing, which can harm native birds. Clover also changes the soil chemistry, which works against native forbs.

Organic farmers once advocated planting crown vetch to enrich soil. Fools are still selling the seed; I don't know who's planting it, but I've had to resort to using a herbicide to tackle that weed. The clonal patches expand several feet each year, eliminating ALL the native plants they engulf, leaving a vast monoculture that provides food for a tiny fraction of wildlife for only a few weeks each year.

Those planting sweet clover and other aggressive nitrogen-fixing crops should be sent to prison for destroying rare natural habitat.

Finally, garden centers still sell exotic honeysuckle bushes and a host of other invasive species!!! I cut several of the 8-foot beasts down last weekend. The soil underneath was absolutely bare, except for hundreds of tiny honeysuckles waiting for their own chance to dominate the space. Before the arrival of the honeysuckle bushes, there was a diverse array of native forbs, grasses, and shrubs on that spot. My experience suggests that the native plants are gone, even the seed bank severely depleted. It will take years of removing new waves of weeds, burning, and seeding the area to restore it to its previous biological diversity.

Genetically modified corn, soybeans, or alfalfa, which my neighbors surely plant, are not a threat to the prairie remnant I'm trying to save.

You should be more worried about companies like this one...

http://www.groworganic.com/item_SCL610_Crownvetch_Seed__R ...

Peaceful Valley? They're selling organic crown vetch seed!!! Their name should be "Destroyed the Valley". They should be shut down, boycotted, banned. I hope anti-GMO folks go to THEIR website and demand they stop selling invasive plant seed. I hope a few Grist contributors are willing to condemn businesses like Peaceful Valley for continuing to profit from proven environmentally destructive behavior. There's no need to wonder about the threat of crown vetch. It is well documented. How can you allow a company to distribute such seed to farmers?

google: crown vetch seed organic

Straight-up free market boosterism could explain it -- but then, that contradicts the highly interventionist biofuel policy. Any other ideas?

Victual Reality

The environmental community needs to be more outcome-based and spend less time fetishizing about this process or the other that some group has defined and get to root causes of problems.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

You rightly point out that they then chose to subsidize biofuels, which contradicts this position so what gives? I don't know, maybe two different camps or they see the biofuels subsidies as more temporary.

Trying to figure out what makes the Bush Administration tick makes my head hurt.....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

Genetic engineering is Nazi science because its roots can be traced to that science.  The Nazi scientists were trying to engineer a "better" human race, whatever that is, and genetic engineers are trying to engineer "better" plants, whatever those are.  Both attempts are rooted in the idea that humans can and should fix nature's mistakes, which is a fatal mistake itself.  One cannot support genetic engineering or anything like it if one has proper love and respect for nature, which is infinitely wiser than all humans put together.

Jason,

The root of the problem is not "misplaced prices" as you claim, unless the problem you're talking about is some economic problem.  The root of the problem is people transporting produce over long distances when it should be produced and sold locally.  Your post was supposed to be about creating a sustainable agricultural system regarding international trade.  While I believe that's an oxymoron for reasons I won't go into here unless you want me to, there's absolutely nothing sustainable about transporting food over long distances.

By your reasoning, any sort of plant breeding for certain traits, discarding the "inferior" plants, or clonally propagating desirable plants like apples, grapes, garlic, potatoes, various flowering plants of interest, or just dividing perennials would be "Nazi science".

One of our tools is genetic engineering. It is not an extension of "Nazi" science. It is an extension of selective breeding of plants that started when we first collected plants of interest and, unintentionally or intentionally, spread their seeds wherever we traveled. That turned into carefully planned breeding of plants. Then we discovered we could move the genes from plant to plant. The first tool for this was a naturally occurring bacterium that moves genes from plant to plant. We've also used naturally occurring viruses that move genes from plant to plant. Now we've found a way to do it without using bacteria or viruses. It is all evolution.

I find it arrogant to suggest that human beings are somehow not natural. I find it arrogant to suggest that we can stop being human, to discard our brains and technology, when we've been an integral part of nature for so long. We altered ecosystems the moment we crawled down from the trees. We are natural products of evolution. We belong on this planet, at this time in history. Who among us is wise enough to declare us a "mistake" or an abomination that does not belong here and should not continue to play a role in the Earth's biosphere?

This does not permit us to rape and pillage the Earth's resources. We've evolved the capacity to recognize when our destructive behavior has gone to far. We can recognize when our population might crash. We can recognize when we are soiling our nests, putting to much pressure on our food supply, or spreading disease among us. And we should use our brains, tools, various resources, social networks, et cetera to change course before we go extinct. It is natural. It is the result of evolution.

Use of reason and technology to find ways for human beings to live in harmony with the REST of the natural world is the most appropriate way to show respect for nature.

Despising one's species and throwing away perfectly useful tools, products of millions of years of evolution and natural selection, shows great disrespect for nature.

Your post is a typical anti-environmental rant.  First, you pervert the meaning of "natural."  Natural means "of humans" as opposed to "of nature."  Your definition renders the word meaningless, because under your definition everything is natural.

Contrary to the lies and propaganda in support of this Nazi science, genetic engineering is substantially and significantly different than plant breeding and other methods that were used previously.  Genetic engineering forces genes of one species into another species.  This is not only completely unnatural, it is violent and disrespectful manipulation of nature and life.

The human race fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the Earth.  This is a fact, not my opinion.  The only issues here are whether that's OK and, if not, what to do about it.  Personally, I think that evolving animals that have to depend on their overdeveloped intellects and self consciousness, along with opposable thumbs and abilities to walk and stand upright, was a major mistake, because that species becoming a cancer on the Earth is a logical conclusion.  But it doesn't have to be this way.  There have been and still are hunter-gatherers who live in harmony with their surroundings and the planet.  The problem is that the vast majority of humans do not.

Here you declare nature made a major mistake...

"Personally, I think that evolving animals that have to depend on their overdeveloped intellects and self consciousness, along with opposable thumbs and abilities to walk and stand upright, was a major mistake, because that species becoming a cancer on the Earth is a logical conclusion."

Who is wiser? Nature or you?

Was the evolution of photosynthesis another of nature's "mistakes"? Do you view photosynthetic bacteria and plants as a "cancer" that spread across the planet wiping out the original inhabitants?

Should nature have anticipated that photosynthesis, like the opposable thumb, would result in such horror?

Photosynthesis... Nazi militarism, killing other organisms to create more living space for its own kind!!!!!!

I'm weary of the propagation of lies that suggest scientists enganged in certain areas of research cannot possibly care about the environment. Or that economists cannot possibly care about the environment. Or that a corporation cannot possibly care about the environment. Shouldn't we look at the results of their specific activity?

I also find it difficult to let remarks suggesting that human beings are not natural inhabitants of this planet, that we should abandon the use of reason, and that we should abandon technology at some arbitrary stage of development slide by. Where would we draw the line? Should we eliminate tribes of chimpanzees once they've figured out how to make and use pointed sticks for hunting?!

However, I suppose it is equally absurd to try to employ reason to persuade someone who doesn't view reason as a useful product of evolution. And it is absurd to defend science and technology from someone who critizes both via one of the major products of science and technology.... I see your point.

Just because an Indonesian NGO says that "a terrible mode of production and consumption" was "promoted by developed countries--and also by international regime like the WTO" doesn't mean it is true.

The WTO does not promote any mode of production, much less mode of consumption, of agriculture. That is the job of the FAO, regional and multilateral development banks, and national overseas development agencies.

What the WTO does (through its collective membership) is to set rules relating to trade. That means, primarily, import tariffs and subsidies. The Agreement on Agriculture sets targets for reductions only of the most production-distorting subsidies. It gives a full green light to (i.e., does not constrain) income payments for farmers, expenditure on infrastructure for agriculture, payments for environmental stewardship, and so forth.

Again, all I can say is that I agree with Jason. The WTO at least provides developing countries with some leverage. In the absence of the WTO, developing countries wanting access for their products in the North would find themselves in a much weaker bargaining position.

These are only my personal opinions.

For details check out http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/GeneticRoulette/He ...

You might also want to follow the money from agricultural subsides and see just how much goes back to the bio-tech agri-business oligarchs.

Recent research indicates a far more significant change in the pattern of expressed of genes when two varieties of a plant are crossed via traditional breeding vs. when a single gene is added to a plant. Given the large number of different genes being mixed by traditional breeding, it is difficult to predict whether new genes might be turned on in the progeny or nutritionally important genes be turned off.

Potato and celery plants created by traditional breeding are tested for toxic compounds. Cross two "safe" potato varieties or two "safe" celery varieties and you can find yourself growing a poisonous plant. Why aren't ALL new plants -- created by traditional breeding, various new methods, or genetic engineering -- tested for human safety? Why the focus just on GMOs.

There have also been problems due to the transfer of new foods from one culture to another. Populations never exposed to an unusual fruit might be allergic to it, though the locals who grew up with the food are perfectly fine. Do we test every exotic fruit to make sure any person who picks it up at the grocery store will not have an allergic reaction to it? Shouldn't this be routine?

I don't think human safety is ensured by banning GMOs or sending only GMOs through rigorous testing regimes. We should call for thorough testing of all new food, even via traditional breeding or imported from cultures where it is generally recognized as safe.

Organic farming build the soil ecosystem to act as a living carbon sink, the praies were 20 to 30 feet thick with organic carbon rich soil when they were first plowed.  The fertility was gone in 10 years, then chemical fertilizer burned the remaining organic matter out.

Pesticides and herbicides mimic hormones creating a danger to wildlife and humans.  Frogs and fish are developing sexual abnormalities from these hormone mimicking compounds.

Organic food tastes better, much better.  The living soil ecosystem creates flavor you just can't get with inert chemical ag soil.  Those missing flavors make people eat more to try and satisfy their hunger, helping the obesity epidemic along.  

Chem tomatoes?  you need a ton of salad dressing, salt, and spices to choke them down.  why would kids ever eat their vegetables when they taste like wet paper?

Stuff that in your "free" market reusable cloth bag, Jason.  Hehey.  Or do you only address economic arguments?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Furthermore, restoration of some of the threatened ecosystems in Wisconsin is compatible with or actually benefits from the existence of dairy farms. Most of my neighbors' cows spend a significant amount of time grazing outside, which preserves some habitat for grassland birds. Folks are also experimenting by using oak savanna as pasture land.

Agricultural policy should promote various ag industries where the resources for supporting those industries are naturally available and native ecosystems might actually benefit.

That would be helpfull all around.  Maybe we are wrong to oppose all GMO, I just haven't seen any evidence of it.

I worry about the unforseen effects of GMOs leaking into the biosphere.  Does anyone study this at all, as a wise precaution?  I doubt that universtities engaged in gMO research would do it or that GMO companies would fund it.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Divert subsidies from chemical ag to biodigestion based energy and organic fertilizer production.  Better for farmers, the soil, and the GHG balance.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

You Nazi science supporters can rant all you want, but it's exactly your attitude that's destroying the Earth.  You lack the wisdom to just leave natural systems alone and instead think that humans are so smart that they should manipulate every inch of our planet.  Well, we can all see where that idiocy is leading us, which is to extinction.  Technology is not the solution, it's the problem.

I agree, we screwed up. But instead of sitting in a corner and cry our heart out, why don't we just get up and set things right ?

Humans are special. Whether you like it or not, we are orders of magnitude superior to any other life form. We are blessed with a capacity to understand, to reason and to transmit that knowledge. Nothing else in nature is capable of doing that.

If at all there is anything that can set things right, it is "us". It is not only because it is our fault, but also because we are the only thing capable of accepting that duty.

Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.

People like amazingdrx want to go on tirades against economists and markets and I guess shame people into buying organic food at local markets.

Economists, on the other hand, want to eliminate the perverse distortions that make it so that a burger or taco at a fastfood restaurant is actually cheaper than local, healthy food, when it's true social costs are really much higher.

Everything I have laid out above would shift the prices and hence the market into a situation in which there would be much greater incentives to eat healthy local food. Which by the way is what I do since I eat pretty much a 100% organic diet from 3 farmers markets and it's 100% vegan.

For some people it's too much to imagine that an economist could actually hold these two things in his head simultaneously: 1. a rational assessment of our agricultural problems and 2. a desire for tasty local food.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

The primary purpose of the WTO is to increase access of multinationals and rich countries to developing countries' markets. For example, seed patent laws are forced upon countries by WTO rules, which destroy local seed supplies and create monopolies over seed and food systems. Seed banks are indeed important, but there is little actual benefit to biodiversity when only the patented (GMO) seed varieties are being cultivated and the farmers lose access to their traditional varieties, which become lost somewhere in a vault for storage. Countries such as India have a right to protect their sustainable and traditional agricultural practices and seedstock from corporations such as Monsanto, which ultimately wants to sell more of its Roundup herbicide, on which its Roundup Ready GMO seeds are dependent. How any technology, which increases dependence on agrichemicals and destroys biodiversity, can be called sustainable is beyond me.

These trade policies do not encourage free trade, but forced trade; and they are also responsible for imposing Western diets in developing nations, thus increasing world consumption of animal products and processed foods (not sustainable), and therefore increasing rates of lifestyle diseases, which will increase dependence on pharmaceuticals (certainly not sustainable).

The WTO rules force countries like South Korea to open up their markets to American beef, which is more likely to carry the infectious agents that cause BSE (mad cow disease). American beef sells in Korea for half the price of locally raised Korean beef, and this can be considered neither sustainable nor fair trade. And in order to make global agriculture more sustainable and eliminate these price distortions, you'd have to do a lot more than simply eliminate agricultural subsidies. You'd also have to address worker exploitation and poor environmental regulation for starters.

For an example of how all these factors come into play, please read a recent
NY Times op-ed on U.S. consumption of bananas. Here's an excerpt:

"That bananas have long been the cheapest fruit at the grocery store is astonishing. They're grown thousands of miles away, they must be transported in cooled containers and even then they survive no more than two weeks after they're cut off the tree... Once bananas had become widely popular, the companies kept costs low by exercising iron-fisted control over the Latin American countries where the fruit was grown. Workers could not be allowed such basic rights as health care, decent wages or the right to congregate."

American consumers are also the victims of current global trade policies, which allow cheap (and sometimes unsafe) imported foods to enter our markets. Until the FDA does a better job of regulating and inspecting these imported products for contamination -- which is unlikely, given recent trends -- these products will continue to outcompete our local markets, thereby harming consumers, sustainable farmers, and the environment.

Or is that the wrong terminology?

-David Ahlport

Therefore, the problems do lie in the institution itself and its illusions of a multilateral process of negotiations.

This means that for those who are undernourished, the best option is to provide them with economic opportunities so that they can earn income or provide them with land and resources to grow their own food. While the latter course is attractive since it promotes a degree of self-sufficiently, it may limit people's ability to climb the economic ladder; those who spend a large portion of their time engaged in subsistence work may not have the time to engage in economic activities that provide them with surplus and a route to a middle-class life.

One problem with this analysis is that if you take away the rug under people's feet -- locally-protected agriculture -- they may not be a position to climb up the economic ladder. Here is Raj Patel on Democracy Now

One of the most disturbing examples is Haiti, which is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and which has been forced by successive US governments to embrace the ideals of international trade. Even before the World Trade Organization was founded, Haiti was being forced to adopt its policies.

And Haiti actually stands for a number of other countries in the Western Hemisphere, in Sub-Saharan Africa, in Asia, that have been forced to liberalize their economies and are now hostage to the international price rises. And in Haiti, the consequences were that the government was not allowed to support its rice producers. It wasn't allowed to invest in agriculture. So, in the 1980s, Haiti produced the majority of its own rice, and now in Haiti almost all the rice comes from the United States. And that's the sort of singular consequence of the intersection between free trade and--or so-called free trade and development policy in developing countries.

What do you tell people eating the mud bricks? Just wait, economic development is just around the corner? How did Sen address this point?

Not really Jason.  I just want an aknowledgement  that these markets are far from free. And that just maybe they need re-regulation to stop the insider trading corruption, lobbyist driven subsidies to prop up status quo gas guzzling GHG spewing, agriposionous industries, and obstruction of more efficent, cost effective renewable energy and organic ag government policy.

If you tout the efficiency of free markets to solve our many deadly serious problems, you ought to spend some effort to research just how widespread corruption has actually made real free markets impossible.

I'm not demanding anything, I'm just trying to get a progressive, environmentalist economist (which you obviously are) to join in the good fight.  Come on in for the big win with us buddy.  That's all I'm asking, hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

1. I am not opposed or against GMOs- if they don't work fine, then no one will buy them- why oppose something that may hold promise?

2. Haiti's problems are legion and agricultural production is probably the least of their worries- the day they have the wealth to be net importers of food will be a great day in their history

3. The WTO is trying to make markets freer because they are not free now- that's the whole point

4. Free market does not mean unregulated- it means no subsidies and tariffs- regulation for the environment is accepted by 99.9% of economists from the most liberal to the most conservative

The WTO rules encourage socially and environmentally destructive practices such as the commercial shrimp farms that proliferated across poor countries to supply Western demand for cheap shrimp and resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of acres of mangroves.

I see: it is not consumers in importing countries, nor officials in the exporting countries who are to blame for the expansion of shrimp farming, but the WTO. Note you say that the WTO rules encourage socially and environmentally destructive practices. Besides the absurdity of any claim that the WTO rules would ever encourage any production method, would those shrimp farms have been any less likely to have been developed in the absence of the WTO? Don't forget that if a country develops a taste for shrimp, it does not need the WTO to reduce its import tariffs to zero.

Would you make the WTO into an environmental regulating body as well? I can tell you, many seasoned environmentalists would not welcome such an expansion of the WTO's remit.

The WTO deals mainly with the rules of trade. Its rules relating to the environment mainly stem from its core principle -- a priciple that would be considered liberal in any other area of human activity: non-discrimination. That is, apply the same rules to products from other countries as you do to your own, and do not discriminate arbitrarily among your trading partners.

These are only my personal opinions.

"That is, apply the same rules to products from other countries as you do to your own, and do not discriminate arbitrarily among your trading partners."

I read that a local school  board that wished to purchase local apple juice, purchase "dolphin-safe" tuna, and form other purchasing policies around their concern for the environment were essentially violating world trade agreements. According the article -- I wish I kept a file of this stuff -- organizations can only discriminate on the basis of inherent qualities and costs of products, not the means of production or where it comes from, regardless of how solid their reasoning might be. This is an absurd degree of regulation.

Shouldn't a truly free market permit buyers to incorporate other values, say, their concern for their neighobrs, local environment, and severely threatened species, into their purchasing decisions? As long as they are consistent? I mean, it wouldn't be right to say we'll buy any tuna from an American company, but only "dolphin-safe" tuna from abroad. However, why can we decide to purchase apple juice produced only so far away from our homes? Or why can't we decide to buy only the "dolphin-safe" tuna?

Trade agreements must incorporate means of buyers living according to their own  values, independent of cold, often short-sighted, economic calculations.

Is there any indication that this sort of stuff really happens?

I read that a local school  board that wished to purchase local apple juice, purchase "dolphin-safe" tuna, and form other purchasing policies around their concern for the environment were essentially violating world trade agreements. According the article -- I wish I kept a file of this stuff -- organizations can only discriminate on the basis of inherent qualities and costs of products, not the means of production or where it comes from, regardless of how solid their reasoning might be. This is an absurd degree of regulation.

Yes, Wiscidea, I wish you did keep a reference to that article. Because I wonder if it is correct. Public procurement -- the rules governing the purchasing of goods by governments and their agencies -- allow for a lot more specifications than the rules relating to trade measures affecting importers at large. All over the world, for example, governments specify that they will only buy recycled paper, or only serve organic food in their cafeterias, etc.

Private organizations and individuals can, of course, make their decisions on any basis. So, indeed, "a truly free market permit buyers to incorporate other values, say, their concern for their neighobrs, local environment, and severely threatened species, into their purchasing decisions." But don't confuse the freedom of individual consumers with the rules governing what national governments can do when regulating trade.

By the way, in respect of tunas and dolphins, if you read the whole history of that case, the WTO did not reject the right of the USA to create the labelling requirement, but ruled on the way that it implemented and enforced the requirement. In the end, the US Government worked with Latin American fishing nations and helped them to substantially reduce their dolphin bycatch.

These are only my personal opinions.

With respect to the dolphin case that was ruled against the U.S. one of the issues was that dolphins were not endangered- this was not spelled out in the WTO ruling, but was likely why the WTO sided with Mexico. I think it was a bad ruling- never said the WTO was perfect- but I can understand the logic since if we extended protections to even non-endangered animals it would make for a much greater list of potential bans and the WTO didn't want to set this precedent.

For those interested read Article XX of the GATT which outlines under what circumstances countries can restrict trade based on environmental and health claims. They are actually pretty broad.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

Humans are not endangered, so I can't discriminate against a product if the reason is that the harvest or manufacture of the product threatens human lives?

Give me a break. If a person, organization, importer, government decides to discriminate against a product because it harms a sentient or simply beautiful organism, it really shouldn't matter whether someone rules that there are plenty of those creatures out there! That is absurd and a strike against the WTO and international trade agreements.

Why not a race for the highest common denominator? Why the race for the lowest common denominator or lowest ethical or moral principles?

That status -- abundant, threatened, endangered, et cetera -- of an affected creature is irrelevant to whether a person's or government's decision to purchase certain items should be respected... as long as those folks are consistent.

On GMOs, Jason writes, "[I]f they don't work fine, then no one will buy them- why oppose something that may hold promise?" But I think that Jason must be feigning naivety on this issue.

First of all, history shows that agribusiness practices are a trap for both consumers and producers, and there is no easy turning back once they've got a foothold. American consumers have already been duped into buying GMO products, which are now ubiquitous although the average consumer wouldn't know that. Despite surveys that indicate that the majority of Americans would not knowingly buy GMO foods, the biotech industry has been allowed to sneak these products into our food supply, and has resisted efforts to require labels on GMO products. Therefore, it has become difficult for consumers NOT to buy GMO products, since the majority of Americans are unaware of these issues. For many, it's too unfathomable how industrial agriculture has become so insidious. (For another example, see Monsanto's efforts to restrict rBGH labels on dairy products.)

Furthermore, it's not so easy for the farmers themselves to break free of their contractual chains once they've started down the path of GMOs. Just look at the vertically integrated poultry industry in the US for an example of what's going to happen with GMOs. Farmers were promised more efficient poultry production, and they signed into contracts that required huge investments in growing houses and other equipment. Upon signing, they immediately went into debt, and were at the mercy of these corporate contractors. When many of these industrial poultry farms turned out not to be profitable, many farmers went bankrupt and lost their livelihoods.

Similarly, the WTO restricts testing and regulation of GMO technology, since it deems those as barriers to free trade, and therefore it has been the perfect vehicle through which biotech corporations are trying to force GMOs onto developing countries. Since GMOs are patented, the farmers are required to go into debt in order to invest in these seeds (and the chemicals on which they are dependent), which do not live up to the promise of increased yields. Furthermore, because of the terminator technology built into these GMO seeds, every year the farmers are forced to purchase a new supply, and because of the seed patents, they are not allowed to save seeds from the previous yield anyway. But seed saving and sharing is one of the fundamental practices of sustainable agriculture...

The farmers have gone into debt, and many have been forced off their lands. And just as there has been an epidemic of suicides among America's family farmers, thousands of Indian farmers have committed suicide, because of the debts that they could not repay to Monsanto. GMO agriculture, just like factory farming, concentrates industry into the hands of a few players by forcing small, sustainable farmers out of business, which also leads to loss of biodiversity since many heirloom varieties are taken out of cultivation as a result.

And once you unleash GMOs into the environment, other crops become contaminated. There is evidence that GMO pollution is leading to the creation of superweeds, which is strikingly parallel to factory farming's contribution to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

So, to bring this discussion back on topic: Does the WTO -- in practice -- contribute to sustainable agriculture? There is no evidence to support that it has or that it will.

Similarly, the WTO restricts testing and regulation of GMO technology, since it deems those as barriers to free trade, ...

The WTO certainly does not restrict countries from testing for GMO markers. And plenty of countries regulate GMO technology. What the WTO Panel and Appellate Body has ruled on is what it considered to be the inconsistent application of the European Commission's rules. One may disagree with the way that the Panel reached its decision (and here is a good article summarizing some of the legal objections), but a sweeping statement such as "the WTO restricts testing and regulation of GMO technology" is an exaggeration.

You then conclude

Does the WTO -- in practice -- contribute to sustainable agriculture? There is no evidence to support that it has or that it will.

In answer to your first question, only indirectly. After all, it is not a body charged with agricultural extension, nor does it fund development projects. It is a rule-making body concerned with activities of governments that affect trade. But, indirectly, the rules it has adopted -- such as those relating to the subsidization of "green box" payments under the Agreement on Agriculture -- have given governments wide latitude to promote sustainable agriculture.

On the other hand, it is tempting but wrong to equate total isolation from the world market as equivalent to promoting sustainable agriculture. In 1993 and 1994 I worked on a study of Turkey's agricultural policies. I was astonished at how much damage they were causing to the country's own environment. For example, it had a self-sufficiency policy for all major food grains. That, combined with the way it was subsidizing production, encouraged its farmers to plow up highly erodible grasslands on steep slopes. The result was attrocious levels of soil erosion.

More open trade has meant that it could ease off from such unsustainable production and produce crops more suited to its topography and climate, and import more of its wheat from countries with an environmental as well as an economic comparative advantage.

These are only my personal opinions.

1. Like Ron said, you are 100% wrong that the WTO restricts testing of GMOs (can you tell me where people get this misinformation?)

2. You call me naive for thinking that people have the intelligence to determine whether GMOs are better for their farms or not? Maybe you think people are dunb and gullible, but I think that farmers are some of the smartest people on Earth, and while everyone makes mistakes, they will not buy products over long periods of time that are bad for their business (they may experiment and lose once or twice but you can say that with all technology).