Global Policy Forum

By Steve Sprinkel

The fires burn in Europe, as the public controversy continues over genetically modified agriculture, but the flames flicker along the Minnesota-South Dakota border. Farm leaders and state legislators attending the USDA-USTR World Trade Organization Listening Sessions in St. Paul came out smoking on 7 June in an event attended by both Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura and North Dakota Governor Ed Schafer.

Afflicted by poor commodity prices, overseas disaffection for genetically modified crops and the un-abated trend towards corporate consolidation and the vertical control of agricultural products, northern farmers spoke openly of the pain and distrust they face every day.

"I think that if we had been told five years ago that this new technology would bring us so much grief, we would never have supported it," said one North Dakota grain producer. "People call this another Farm Crisis, but I feel like I have been in the middle of a crisis for most of my farming career, and I don't know how I can wish the present system on the next generation."

Farmers, farm leaders, and agriculture sector representatives-from corn growers to barley malters to union leaders- met in Minnesota and told a tale of regional and international farm crisis woe to officials from the USDA, the US Department of State and the office of the US Trade Representative.

The event was hosted by Minnesota Department of Agriculture Commissioner Gene Hugoson. Neighboring state officials including South Dakota's Darrel Cruea and North Dakota's Roger Johnson were in attendance. The Iowa Department of Agriculture, host of the upcoming July 12th Listening Session, wisely sent an observer to help plan for the Des Moines Session.

After a day mostly spent listening to agricultural public and private sector representatives reading from the same script ( "level the playing field, defend the GMOs with "sound science" and end-foreign- subsidies) the South Dakota contingent closed the meeting on an entirely different note. Supported by fiery South Dakota State Senator Frank Kloucek and Minnesota State Representative Ted Winter, grain and livestock producers Bob Thullner and Mark Ukert underscored the affects and causes of the farm crisis, blaming the multinational corporate seed and chemical sector for betraying rural communities, and the US government for failing to diligently review the scientific, economic and sociological consequences of agricultural biotechnology.

Many afternoon presenters asked why the US government was so strenuously defending biotechnology policy when it has exposed farmers to much turmoil. Instead of questioning the affects the new crops have had on rural communities, officials continue to support the products manufactured by a few politically powerful corporations. Although biotechnology remains center-stage in this and other farm and food conferences, attendees also discussed trade policy affected by foreign currency valuations, foreign nation subsidies, and grain storage policy.

Jesting in an acerbic Midwestern manner, Larry Green, a Minnesota farmer, thanked the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service for defending his banana production- Mr. Green reported that he and his wife have four ornamental banana trees on their summer porch. The US recently won a WTO test case against the United Kingdom and other countries over a US complaint that European policies were detrimental to fair trade- and the exports of US based companies operating in Central and South America. Many viewed the WTO banana case as a preamble to much larger issues, including the long-standing export impasse over hormone-grown beef and the much-to-be contested acceptance of genetically engineered agriculture. In summarizing the WTO banana decision, Jodi Slocum, a Wisconsin organic grower representing Farmer to Farmer, an international rural communities-oriented non-governmental organization, reminded the audience that the US government is openly caught in an obviously defective compromise when it prohibits the domestic application of materials that are nonetheless manufactured in the US and exported for use overseas, on the very products that the EU community did not want on fruit imported to member countries.

South Dakota legislator Kloucek is calling for the USDA to appoint National Farmers Union President Leland Swenson to the US delegation attending the World Trade Organization Ministerial meetings in Seattle, Washington in November. Kloucek, aided by Dave Frederickson of the Minnesota Farmers Union, farmers Thullner, Ukert and other upper Midwest region producers, said that farmers need to be represented at the highest level since the policies that are implemented affect farmers more fundamentally than the chemical and seed companies that they now view as monopolistic transnational entities responsible to no one. However much the crisis confronting US family farms was described, Jim Schroeder , USDA Deputy Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, reminded farmers and their supporters that the World Trade Organization meetings this fall will most likely ignore "ag- sector consolidation, poor commodity prices, monetary policy, and GMO labeling." The discussions instead will be confined to the criteria and protocols laid out in the 1994 Uruguay Round that lead to the formation of the 134 member World Trade Organization.

Responsible parties must therefore address their concerns according to the WTO agreement. Although limiting, the WTO agreement is not an entirely closed-loop endeavor. In order to reverse or amend WTO rules, current concepts within the Agricultural Provisions section need to be addressed. Among those Provisions, Most Favored Nation Status, which exempts the EU and the NAFTA under a special agreement, is potentially at risk since these continental treaties benefit traders and not producers. Dispute Settlement within the WTO also is one area that is much in need of clarification, particularly in the criteria used to empanel the three-member Dispute Settlement Body. Generally speaking, the public needs to go to school on the WTO and determine how it can be made more realistically democratic.

Internal Support may be the WTO Agricultural Provision that offers GE antagonists the best avenue to debate, define and confine the new technology. According to the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Internal Support covers " Government policies ( which) have significant consequences beyond a country's borders. Such policies can impose costs on other countries and world markets by encouraging overproduction or inducing production of specific commodities." The explosive market-share of GMO crops can here be cited as an example of "inducing production of specific commodities". GMO technology has long been advertised for its now dubious yield potentials, and in particular, the planting of herbicide resistant crops has lead to a swift increase in total world acreage planted to them, in areas where they were never grown before. Overproduction is a result. Over supply and lower prices can in this context be addressed.

Internal Support is broken into two categories, named "amber" and " green", ostensibly identifying them as "caution" and " permitted". Amber policies include "price supports (and) input subsidies". In this category, one can more cogently argue that US government participation in the development and commercialization of genetically engineered crops and farm in-puts is at least questionable under WTO, and represents a conflict of interest that the developing world in particular must be wary of. The US government has invested many billions in the development of the technology, co-owns a number of patents approved for its protection, and has openly supported and defended biotechnology politically at the expense of less controversial agricultural production systems, both in terms of cash outlays and in public sector enterprise, i.e., the awesome efforts of the US State Department, US Trade Representative and USDA to assure an unobstructed market for products co-financed by government.

The St. Paul Listening Session was the second US event held in preparation to the Seattle WTO Ministerial. As you will note by refering the WTO website, the Ministerials are tantamount to the writing or adoption of state constitutions.

Upcoming Listening Sessions:

June 16, 1999 - Memphis, Tennessee (Agri-Center International)
Contact: Joe Gaines (615) 837-5160
States: Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Arkansas

June 24, 1999 - Indianapolis, Indiana (Indiana State Fair)
Contact: Julia Wickard (317) 232-8778
States: Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, West Virginia

June 29, 1999 - Sacramento, California (California Department of Food and Agriculture)
Contact: Marjorie Beazer (916) 654-0462
States: California, Hawaii, Arizona

June 30, 1999 - Pullman, Washington (To be determined)
Contact: Lisa Schumaker (360) 902-1926
States: Washington, Idho, Oregon, Alaska

July 8, 1999 - Austin, Texas (The Texas State Capitol)
Contact: Dawn DeBerry (512) 475-1615
States: Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico

July 12, 1999 - Des Moines, Iowa (To be determined)
Contact: Joan Kiernan (515) 281-5323
States: Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska

July 19, 1999 - Burlington, Vermont (To be determined)
Contact: Theresa Doyle (802) 828-2430
States: Vermont, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island

July 23, 1999 - Bozeman, Montana (To be determined)
Contact: Montana Department of Agriculture (406) 444-3144
States: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Utah

July 23, 1999 - Newark, Delaware (University of Delaware)
Contact: Brenda Minor (302) 739-4811
States: Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.