The agricultural industry is one of the biggest users of water, energy, and chemicals on the planet. Overall it poses one of the biggest threats to global biodiversity, which is why it deserves significant attention from the environmental community.
But when it comes to defining what is meant by "sustainable agriculture," there is a lot of confusion. Many people think "organic," or "local," or "non-GMO," or even "biodynamic." It will come as little surprise that economists don't think of the issue in this way; they primarily examine the basic conditions for the efficient use of resources in the agricultural sector.
The following outline is the beginning of what a move toward a sustainable agricultural system would entail:
1. Ending the full range of agricultural subsidies
It is impossible to even begin to work on a sustainable agricultural system when prices for agricultural goods are severely distorted by counterproductive government policies. The system of agricultural subsidies that exists in (mostly) the developed world is an anachronism that is an affront to any notion of sustainability. Farmers in rich countries are provided with a price floor for their products which leads them to produce more than they otherwise would; this leads them to farm marginal land and convert an excess of natural systems to food systems. The combined effect lowers the world price, thereby hurting farmers whose governments do not subsidize them (while helping the poor consumers of the world; more on this later). Most of these farmers are wealthy, making the current agricultural subsidy system inherently regressive, which runs counter to the social dimension of sustainability.
Eliminating agricultural subsidies should be a primary goal of all environmentalists, but the opposition to subsidies should not end there. Farmers receive many other types of subsidies in the forms of lower-priced water and energy. The water subsidies are particularly egregious in many parts of the country where water is a relatively scarce commodity and the value of water for environmental, industrial, and residential purposes is much greater than that for agriculture. For example, in any reasonable and rational water allocation scheme, water would not be used to grow alfalfa in the desert of California at a time when many of California's rivers go dry, leading to the decimation of wildlife populations.
We all receive the energy subsidies that farmers do; mostly in the form of under-priced fossil fuels, which act as a passive subsidy. Since the price of carbon is not included the price of oil and natural gas these energy sources are cheaper than they should be in a well-functioning market that takes into account external costs.
If we phased out all of the direct payments to farmers and the water subsidies, and we accurately priced fossil fuels, the agricultural landscape would change dramatically, and in a much more sustainable direction. Farmers would be forced to use resources much more efficiently. The prices of resource-intensive products would also rise significantly, which would also lead to large shifts in consumer behavior (e.g. meat and dairy would be a lot more expensive relative to legumes, grains, and vegetables).
In addition, the issue of food miles would be at least partially solved by the fact that food would cost a lot more to ship, and thereby, demand would likely decrease for long-distance imports, causing a shift to more locally-grown foods. One downside to this is that countries that rely on food exports for foreign exchange might be harmed; this could partially be minimized by a move to high-value and specialty crops for which consumers would be willing to pay a premium.
2. Supporting the World Trade Organization
The WTO plays an extremely constructive role in moving toward agricultural sustainability. Its mission is to move the world toward a system free of subsidies, as well tariffs on agricultural goods, which provide another layer of price distortion. Unfortunately, the Doha Round is currently in its last throes because of the inability to agree on cuts in agricultural subsidies and tariffs. The power of the farm lobbies and large agribusiness throughout the world is disproportionate to its economic power, and until that can be curbed, it will continue to hamper efforts to move toward a sustainable agricultural system.
3. Providing access to food
As Amartya Sen brilliantly demonstrated in his landmark work Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (and subsequent work), access to food is essentially an issue of access to money and resources that can be traded for food, not the absolute quantity of food produced in society. Put simply, in our international system, those with money have access to food.
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.
4. Additional thoughts
- The excellent international system of seed banks aids the cause of agricultural sustainability since all nations have access to the world's shared genetic inheritance. Seed banks also provide an insurance system against the loss of agricultural biodiversity.
- The issue as to whether GMOs are moving agricultural systems toward or away from sustainability is quite contentious. If, as the evidence appears to indicate, the overwhelming majority of GMO varieties are safe and do not present serious ecological or health risks, it seems that their potential to make plants more draught-resistant, productive, or nutritious makes them an asset for sustainability rather than a liability.
- The issue of agricultural pesticides remains a serious concern, especially for consumers and vulnerable populations such as farm workers, pregnant mothers, and children. Much more research is needed to understand and evaluate both the individual and synergistic effects of these chemicals to which we are all exposed at increasing rates. Those that are the most toxic should be banned or severely curtailed while more benign substitutes should be developed for even those that pose less risk. This is one area where a more "command and control" approach is warranted, as opposed to "market-based" mechanisms, due to the uncertainty and our poor state of knowledge with respect to the effects of prolonged exposure to these compounds.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
PermieWriter Posted 8:35 am
29 Jul 2008
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
Permalink
JMG Posted 9:45 am
29 Jul 2008
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
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 10:13 am
29 Jul 2008
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
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
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
Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
chanceslade Posted 10:54 am
29 Jul 2008
Reduces tillage requirements (fuel use)
Yields are not reduced
Seems like an environmental friendly technology to me.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 10:58 am
29 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:35 am
29 Jul 2008
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.
Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 1:54 pm
29 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 4:27 pm
29 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:10 pm
29 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
justlou Posted 8:59 pm
29 Jul 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:32 pm
29 Jul 2008
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
Permalink
justlou Posted 12:24 am
30 Jul 2008
Permalink
davidzet Posted 12:51 am
30 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:58 am
30 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:00 am
30 Jul 2008
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
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:04 am
30 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:51 am
30 Jul 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:50 am
30 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:19 am
30 Jul 2008
What I have outlined here is just a start, and by no means comprehensive
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.
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.
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.
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.
Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:46 am
30 Jul 2008
"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.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:01 am
30 Jul 2008
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
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 4:20 am
30 Jul 2008
Straight-up free market boosterism could explain it -- but then, that contradicts the highly interventionist biofuel policy. Any other ideas?
Victual Reality
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:28 am
30 Jul 2008
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.
Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:32 am
30 Jul 2008
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.....
Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 4:41 am
30 Jul 2008
On the other hand, those plants might well be valuable elsewhere. I know little of the ecology of, say, Florida. Maybe Scotch broom isn't a horrible invasive there. If an online store wants to sell Scotch broom seed online, they should certainly post warnings about the dangers, but not sell it at all? That seems like a stretch. Locally appropriate techniques, including plants. That's the key.
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:24 am
30 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:30 am
30 Jul 2008
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".
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:54 am
30 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:22 am
30 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:42 am
30 Jul 2008
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?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:43 am
30 Jul 2008
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:58 am
30 Jul 2008
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!!!!!!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 10:02 am
30 Jul 2008
Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:12 pm
30 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:38 pm
30 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
MarkHC Posted 3:54 pm
30 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:25 pm
30 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:49 pm
30 Jul 2008
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
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:49 pm
30 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:56 pm
30 Jul 2008
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
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:00 pm
30 Jul 2008
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
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:41 pm
30 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:13 pm
30 Jul 2008
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.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:32 am
31 Jul 2008
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.
Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
moyesii Posted 2:09 am
02 Aug 2008
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.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:16 am
02 Aug 2008
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:22 am
02 Aug 2008
Or is that the wrong terminology?
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:04 am
02 Aug 2008
-David Ahlport
Permalink
moyesii Posted 5:03 am
02 Aug 2008
Therefore, the problems do lie in the institution itself and its illusions of a multilateral process of negotiations.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 7:59 am
02 Aug 2008
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?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:13 am
02 Aug 2008
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
Permalink
chanceslade Posted 1:45 pm
03 Aug 2008
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:53 am
04 Aug 2008
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?
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
The WTO is trying to make markets freer because they are not free now- that's the whole point
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
Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 11:15 pm
04 Aug 2008
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.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:35 pm
04 Aug 2008
"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?
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:32 am
05 Aug 2008
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.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:20 am
05 Aug 2008
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. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:48 am
05 Aug 2008
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.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:13 am
05 Aug 2008
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
moyesii Posted 12:58 pm
05 Aug 2008
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.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:17 pm
05 Aug 2008
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.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:40 am
06 Aug 2008
Like Ron said, you are 100% wrong that the WTO restricts testing of GMOs (can you tell me where people get this misinformation?)
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).
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:24 am
06 Aug 2008
Can you provide a direct link to the full text of Article XX? I'm usually pretty good at finding stuff via the internet, but all can find regarding Article XX are discussions about it and portions of it. I'm even having trouble at the WTO website. Probably right in front of me. Sorry to have to ask.
Once again, I appreciate your patience in dealing with folks like me. It occurred to me that I probably sound just like several of the anti-GMO people I've encounter... I'll shut up now.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:42 am
06 Aug 2008
Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures:
(a) necessary to protect public morals;
(b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health;
(c) relating to the importations or exportations of gold or silver;
(d) necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, including those relating to customs enforcement, the enforcement of monopolies operated under paragraph 4 of Article II and Article XVII, the protection of patents, trade marks and copyrights, and the prevention of deceptive practices;
(e) relating to the products of prison labour;
(f) imposed for the protection of national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value;
(g) relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such measures are made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption;
(h) undertaken in pursuance of obligations under any intergovernmental commodity agreement which conforms to criteria submitted to the CONTRACTING PARTIES and not disapproved by them or which is itself so submitted and not so disapproved;*
(i) involving restrictions on exports of domestic materials necessary to ensure essential quantities of such materials to a domestic processing industry during periods when the domestic price of such materials is held below the world price as part of a governmental stabilization plan; Provided that such restrictions shall not operate to increase the exports of or the protection afforded to such domestic industry, and shall not depart from the provisions of this Agreement relating to non-discrimination;
(j) essential to the acquisition or distribution of products in general or local short supply; Provided that any such measures shall be consistent with the principle that all contracting parties are entitled to an equitable share of the international supply of such products, and that any such measures, which are inconsistent with the other provisions of the Agreement shall be discontinued as soon as the conditions giving rise to them have ceased to exist. The CONTRACTING PARTIES shall review the need for this sub-paragraph not later than 30 June 1960.
The sub-paragraphs for the environment are (b) and (g).
CONTRACTING PARTIES = WTO Member economies.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:14 am
06 Aug 2008
One has to assume, however, reasonable enforcement. We don't have to worry about some sort of "conservative" court appointed by neo-fascists declaring that protection of a species, even a common one, is a measure "applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries"? Do we? I mean, we've never had that sort of problem in the U.S. ... "conservative" justices undermining the U.S. Constitution by ruling in a manner that favors the aristocracy in the name of protecting our freedom or economy or whatever? No need to worry.......
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 8:33 am
06 Aug 2008
The people who are assigned to WTO panels go through a pretty rigorous selection process. Normally they are nominated by the Secretariat for their knowledge of international trade law, and of the particular industry or product in dispute. Both the complaining and the complained-about countries can reject a panel member. (I was one of 20 people nominated for a panel once, but I never got to the next step, as the two countries "settled out of court".)
The risk of countries trumping up arbitrary rules, citing environmental reasons, to protect their industries is real.
A few years ago I worked on a case study relating to a pesticide that had been registered for use in Germany -- not a particularly dangerous one, but one that had gone out of use. As was standard practice, when it came up for re-registration, no company bothered to ask for a minimum residue limit (MRL). So the new limit was set to zero -- i.e., the limit of detection. Then the growers of paprika (green peppers) and a couple of other vegetable growers came along and asked for an MRL. That one was set at 50 times the limit of detection.
Then, one day, a German importer of tea from India tipped off a newspaper that they might want to test a competitor's tea for residues of that pesticide. They found residues significantly above zero. The shipment was turned away, and the next thing the tea industry in Darjeeling found was it had lost a market. Producers eventually found a way to keep the residue limits down, but they legitimately asked: Why were German growers allowed to have residues 50 times the maximum allowed in tea, when all of a vegetable is consumed, but 80-90% of the pesticide residue in tea stays with the discarded leaves?
Finally, should we always look to governments, as opposed to society itself, to enforce rules relating to consumer preferences? Turkey, a country populated by people predominantly of the Muslim faith, does not ban imports of pork. It is simply not an issue, because the people in the country would not buy pigmeat, just as few people in the United States would buy horsemeat.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 8:41 am
06 Aug 2008
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:19 am
06 Aug 2008
Ah... but sometimes the comparison is appropriate.
The suggestion that the comparison is inevitable during a sufficiently long discussion does not mean the comparison is always absurd.
Sorry, but the behavior of a particular political party and a few international organizations borders on fascism and it is important for folks to realize this sooner rather than later.
That said... I admit I myself inappropriate used the term in this thread....
http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html
My apologies.
But I still view the current Republican party as a bunch of fascists and I'm suspicious of any organizations -- such as the WTO -- they embrace. Again, I sound like one of those wacky anti-GMO people who view anything Monsanto has an interest in as inherently evil. So embarrassing... I ought to be ashamed.
Permalink
moyesii Posted 9:51 am
06 Aug 2008
I think it's hokey that you would try to woo public sentiment by claiming that the traditional, small farmers have been great businessmen, Jason. What world do you live on? Millions of family farmers have been forced out of their lands and livelihoods by agribusiness and its predatory contractors, and all you can say is that they're smart?
Ron, I don't see any point to your tea story.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 9:57 am
06 Aug 2008
I can say with pretty strong confidence that a world in which we have an organization (however imperfect) whose goal is to make trade rules uniform and scientifically-based and to decrease all sorts of distortionary tariffs and subsidies and quotas is a good thing- I have back this up with theory and with empirics or even very simple thought-experiments as laid out in this piece.
So the job of those who think the WTO is terrible (please stop the use of the word fascist- it's ridiculous) is to start with a theory as to why the world would but better off without it. And sorry, something in the vain of "well once the corporations stop ruling the world..." is not a theory- how would the goals of environmentalism be better served in a world without the WTO? Or the converse, tell me exactly how the WTO makes the world worse? And this needs to be based on facts, not simple assertions.
I'm waiting....
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:00 am
06 Aug 2008
Only McCain has pledged to reform and reduce agricultural subsidies.
Obama is a veritable "Corn Man" from Illinois who is in the back pocket of Big Corn.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 10:30 am
06 Aug 2008
But you are right on this one. McCain has been much better on ag subsidies than pretty much any Democrat. I'll give him credit for that.
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:23 am
06 Aug 2008
They have evidence to back their beliefs or at least they think they do. The WTO is telling us that we can't get local laws requiring labeling of GMOs, creating environmental protections or enforcing labor standards. They claim that all of this is so that we can have cheaper products.
The result seen around the world is more expensive food, job losses, labor standards racing for the bottom, increased pollution, environmental degradation and reduced food quality. The consent of the governed is being withdrawn; no mandate of heaven anymore.
I just have trouble believing that any economist is acting in my interest and that goes double for any economist's employer.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:58 am
06 Aug 2008
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:13 pm
06 Aug 2008
I think the first thing to understand about fascism is that it is about dictatorship, it is anti-democratic. So, for corporations to be fascist, they would have to be anti-democratic -- not necessarily a stretch, but an empirical question.
The second thing to note, and where it gets very fuzzy, is that the dictatorship helps corporations defeat and destroy unions and any suggestion of worker power. The reason this is somewhat problematic is that some scholars have shown that the Soviet Union atomized worker's movements much more thoroughly than Pinochet's Chile, certainly on of the closest to a fascist regime since World War II.
The main difference between fascism, and communism, seems to be that in a classic Soviet-style country, the government owns all the means of production, while in a fascist state the corporations retain some autonomy. Indeed, in Japan during WWII, the huge zaibatsu conglomerates probably sabotaged the war effort at some point in an attempt to save themselves. On the other hand, by the time Hitler went down, the government had pretty much taken over the economy.
So when the US government cozies up with the corporations, and starts brushing away civil liberties, it looks like we're going in that direction, or at least one could argue that we may be going in that direction. However, much as I am skeptical of the WTO, and while I think we need to be very vigilant of the WTO and WTO trade talks, they hardly get near a classic definition of fascism.
However, that doesn't mean that corporations are off the hook -- they can still wreak great damage, and even destroy ecosystems and whole groups of people in countries that they exploit. You might throw the term "imperialism" at them, or just good ol' "exploitation", but fascist they are not....yet.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:13 pm
06 Aug 2008
The WTO is a human-created institution, and therefore imperfect. The same could be said for the U.S. Congress. Yet when people complain about stupid or unfair laws enacted by Congress, or by any Parliamentary body, they don't normally can for the abolition of the institution, but rather -- and rightfully -- blame the people who voted for the laws.
The main differences between the WTO and a parliament is that: (a) the Members are countries themselves, ultimately represented by Trade Ministers (or, in the U.S. case, by the U.S. Trade Representative), not elected representatives; and (b) the WTO Agreements have to be ratified by real parliaments to have any force. In the U.S. case, that means the U.S. Senate (a body which, for many years after the country was founded was elected by state representatives, not the general public). Another difference is that WTO Agreements (their "laws") are approved through consensus, not by majority voting. That is why, as the Membership of the WTO has swelled, embracing more and more developing countries, the ability to reach consensus in negotiating rounds has become more difficult.
There is a quasi-judicial side to the WTO as well, and that comes in for equal or even more criticism (especially from environmental groups) than the WTO as a rule-making body. That quasi-judicial side works through the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM), which involves a jury of peers (the bespoke dispute panels) and an appellate body. Like any court, the people who sit in judgement are human and therefore fallible. But, ultimately, they are bound by the international law.
Many environmentalists dislike the WTO because of rulings through the DSM that they have interpreted as antithetical to their views of how the world should work. But often forgotten are the rulings that have strengthened the environmental laws of countries, such as the 2000 ruling upholding France's ban on imports of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's findings.
Those who are under the impression that the WTO is a creation of the Bush Administration need to read up on their history. The WTO was created out of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) -- one of the so-called Breton Woods institutions created after the Second World War. Recall that a Democratic president (Truman) was in office then. The GATT and the WTO have continued to be supported by all U.S. Administrations since then -- albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm.
Pangolin's impression of the WTO is, unfortunately a common one. S/he writes:
The WTO is telling us that we can't get local laws requiring labeling of GMOs, creating environmental protections or enforcing labor standards. They claim that all of this is so that we can have cheaper products.
The result seen around the world is more expensive food, job losses, labor standards racing for the bottom, increased pollution, environmental degradation and reduced food quality. The consent of the governed is being withdrawn; no mandate of heaven anymore.
I would be surprised that the WTO would prevent any country labelling products containing GMOs, as long as the regulation were applied consistently. But if somebody has better information on that, I'm all ears.
It certainly does not prevent the enactment of local laws requiring creating environmental protections or enforcing labor standards. What it frowns upon is countries imposing their own labor standards on other countries through trade laws. Why? Because doing so would bring trade to a halt. France has all kinds of labor laws, including relating to the employment of teenagers in even part-time jobs that would be unacceptable to most people in the United States. Should France be able to ban imports of U.S. maple syrup because U.S. laws allow 15-year olds to work part time after school to earn some extra pocket money?
In any case, the WTO is not the world's forum for establishing minimum labor standards. That is the International Labour Organization. A lot of countries that fear the incorporation of labor standards into trade agreements find it rather rich that some of the same countries that want to impose such standards are the very same ones that have an extremely poor record in ratifying the various ILO conventions. If they are so keen on the protection of workers, why do they eschew committing to those very same standards for themselves?
As for the WTO being responsible for "more expensive food, job losses, labor standards racing for the bottom, increased pollution, environmental degradation and reduced food quality", give me a break. The recent rise in the price of food is a result of lack of reform of individual countries' farm (and biofuel) policies, not the WTO's attempt to reform those same policies. Many job losses are more do to technological change than trade. And, in any case, it has long been a policy of most industrialized nations (including the United States) to apply low tariffs to manufactured goods -- WTO or no WTO. NAFTA, for example, is just one of the many bi-lateral or regional free-trade agreements to which the United States is a party. Regarding labor standards, see my comment above. Please provide some evidence of increased pollution and environmental degradation that can be attributed to something that the WTO did.
And as for reduced food quality, do you mean the tendency for food to become more standardized and less tasty? How much of that do you blame the WTO for, as opposed to the rise in power of large agri-food corporations, and the apathy of U.S. consumers. (The quality of food in Italy, where people still demand -- through their purchasing decisions -- food that is fresh and tasty is, by comparison, still of high quality.)
Finally, in answer to Moyesii ("Ron, I don't see any point to your tea story"), my point was that rules passed by countries in the name of protecting the health of consumers (or the environment) are not always applied according to scientific principles, nor even in this case a consistent notion of "precaution". The German minimum residue limit (MRL) for the pesticide that Indian tea growers use on their tea plants allowed for far lower concentrations (well below the U.S. EPA's limits) than the concentrations that they allowed in produce grown in their own country. And, to add insult to injury, for any given amount of residue (micrograms per kilogram), a consumer was likely to ingest more eating the treated vegetable than ingesting treated tea, as most of the pesticide residue stays with the tea leaves and is discarded, not ingested.
Fortunately, this case led eventually to the creation of a special group in the FAO tasked to create an international set of pesticide residue limits for tea. But it has been a long slog, and one that has left a bitter taste in the minds of Indians, who feel that the North has been applying a double standard.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:05 pm
06 Aug 2008
"Yet when people complain about stupid or unfair laws enacted by Congress, or by any Parliamentary body, they don't normally can call for the abolition of the institution, but rather -- and rightfully -- blame the people who voted for the laws."
"France has all kinds of labor laws, including relating to restrictions on the employment of teenagers in even part-time jobs that would be unacceptable to most people in the United States."
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:10 am
07 Aug 2008
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
moyesii Posted 12:14 pm
07 Aug 2008
You still haven't substantiated your thesis that the WTO contributes to sustainable agriculture, despite your claims that you've done so. You've thrown around some tenuous theories and zero empirical evidence, and it all stands on the unlikely condition that agricultural subsidies are phased out. Everything you've stated is a hypothetical. The real world situation is that there have been massive protests, discontent, and rural upheaval around the world under the WTO system.
Ron, in regards to the tea case: Germany has some of the strongest regulations on pesticides in the world -- it has banned many pesticides that are commonly used in America and other countries -- so I don't think it's inconsistent for them to be stringent on pesticides found on imports. Perhaps the case was a matter of the type or class of pesticide found on the tea rather than the quantity.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:22 pm
07 Aug 2008
The Uruguay Round led to decreased agricultural subsidies- particularly export subsidies that are now WTO illegal- these are the worst form of subsidies
The Uruguay Round greatly diminished ag tariffs in developed countries, this increasing market access for developing countries
The WTO Court has ruled against U.S. distortions of ag trade in cotton, which is a huge victory for West Africa and Brazil (but just the beginning)
The Urguay Round diminished (though not eliminated) escalating tariffs, which are the worst form of trade protectionism against developing countries ag sectors
The Doha Round was to substantially cut ag subsidies and tariffs even more, as well as fishery subsidies which are destroying the world's oceans
So here's a list of readily available facts- so far all you have presented are misinformation and the fact that lots of misinformed people love to blame the WTO for things that they don't even understand.
Seriously, I am sure you mean well so don't take my word for it- investigate the issues yourself in detail- don't only read the leftwing anti-globalization crowd. Talk to serious trade policy people, serious environmental organizations, serious academics with real credentials and you may come to believe that the way the mainstream portrays the WTO is a caricature and that we could make a lot of progress if people got their facts straight. Blogs like Grist are just the beginning.....
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:51 pm
07 Aug 2008
So negotiate tarrifs, fine. But international electronic currency trading and banking, setting interest rates, and these other internal cost of production factors are the points of real manipulation. The tools of international monopoly gaming.
Of the corporate feudal invisible hand that rules global and now local economics. That control is the problem. Elected government of, by, and for we the people ought to regulate these spheres of influence, taking them out from under corporatist control.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:11 pm
07 Aug 2008
I wrote a case study on the tea case, among others. (See starting at page 67, here.) It was not "a matter of the type or class of pesticide found on the tea rather than the quantity." As I thought I made clear, we are talking about the exact same pesticide: Tetradifon (1,2,4-trichloro-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-sulfonyl benzene). The German authorities set a MRL of 0.500 mg/kg for bell peppers (paprikas), tomatoes and citrus fruit, but left it 0.050 mg/kg for all other crops and crop products -- i.e., including tea. As the tea producers pointed out, this discrimination did not make sense, as more of the pesticide was likely to be consumed eating peppers and tomatoes than through drinking tea, as most of the pesticide in tea stays in the leaf, which is discarded after the tea is steeped.
This was not a case necessarily of an environmental measure being used for trade protection (Germany is not a tea producer), but it does show that some environmental policies can be implemented in a ham-handed way that creates unnecessary barriers to trade. Hence the foresight of the drafters of GATT Article XX in including the proviso, "Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, ... "
By the way, you accuse Jason of not having "substantiated your thesis that the WTO contributes to sustainable agriculture", but I cannot see that you have substantiated your antitheses. As I have written, promoting sustainable agriculture is not a mission that has been given to the WTO, nor should it be. That is the job of the FAO and other bodies. But, indirectly, the rules it has set (such as the provisions in the "Green Box" of its Agreement on Agriculture) have given countries wide latitude to promote sustainable agriculture, including organic agriculture.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
moyesii Posted 9:52 pm
07 Aug 2008
There might be different pesticide limits for certain crops due to differences in production methods. Furthermore, studies have shown varying levels of pesticide residues on different food items. Tea is generally found to contain high levels of pesticide and requires large amounts of pesticides for production, while tomatoes not so much. This might be a valid case of comparing apples and oranges.
Jason's thesis is that the WTO contributes to sustainable ag. That's the point of his article. But the prevailing viewpoint, as Jason points out, is that WTO has not been overall beneficial to developing countries and undermines environmental protection laws. Therefore, it's incumbent on Jason to make a case for the opposite, which he hasn't done yet.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 11:20 pm
07 Aug 2008
To suggest that, instead, the WTO panel should have supported the continued heavy subsidization of what were already very wealthy farmers is, in my view, an astonishing position to take. You would find few in the developing world who would agree with you. You are in effect advocating an approach to protecting the environment in Africa and elsewhere that requires keeping local farmers poor through unfair trade policies that artificially depress world prices.
With regard to pesticides, you seem to have missed my point. It may very well me that "Tea is generally found to contain high levels of pesticides and requires large amounts of pesticides for production, while tomatoes not so much" ... for some tomato production in the world. But many tomato producers in Europe use pesticides quite heavily. In any case, what matters here is not how much is used, but the residues that can be measured in the final product. The German MRL did not target tea, per se, but merely made an exception for (mainly locally grown) bell peppers, tomatoes and imported citrus fruits, allowing residues (not application rates) 10 times higher in those products than all other products, including tea.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:32 pm
07 Aug 2008
International treaty leads to elimination of government support for Mexican farmers in interest of free trade.
U.S. growers flood Mexican market with U.S. corn.
Price Mexican farmers can get for corn plumets.
Mexican farmers go out business and flock to U.S. to find jobs.
Americans find it increasingly difficult to find jobs for a variety of reasons, but blame immigrants.
Influx of immigrants provides right-wing nuts with campaign issue.
Right-wing nuts blame immigrants, environmental protection, and high taxes for loss of jobs.
Right-wing nuts get elected and find ways around envirnomental protection, cut taxes, reduce funds available for environmental protection, get us stuck in treasury-draining quagmire in Iraq, refuse to paricpate in global organizations to protect environment (though they really like global organizations that protect corporate interests), find ways to convince other countries (especially developing nations) to follow same path.
We all spiral to the bottom together, wiping out biodiversity around the globe.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:00 am
08 Aug 2008
One important difference between RTAs and the WTO Agreements is that RTAs hardly ever attempt to discipline subsidies. The reason they do not is that, unlike tariffs, which can be lowered preferentially for your RTA partner(s), subsidies cannot be reduced preferentially. Eliminate your production subsidies as a favor to another country, and you eliminate the subsidies for all your trading partners.
So in the case of NAFTA and corn, tariffs were lowered but subsidies were not. In that kind of situation, the country with deeper pockets invariably "wins".
Nobody here claimed that all trade agreements are perfect.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:09 am
08 Aug 2008
When someone says regional deals don't work because everyone has to be involved to make it work, I hear echoes of the suggestion that communism didn't work because not all nations embraced communism.
If our representatives can't negotiate an effective regional agreement, why should we trust them to negotiate an effective global agreement?
I guess economists are going to have to find a better marketing team for the WTO.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:19 am
08 Aug 2008
I'm a firm believer in the notion that different U.S. states were supposed to have the freedom to try different solutions to common problems and, in the free market of ideas, all states would converge on the most effective solution. Same applies to different nations.
Granted, global agreements, such as arms control treaties, are very important. But I view micromanagement of the global economy somewhat dangerous. Like an ecological system benefits from biodiversity, the global economy benefits from economic diversity.
Just a theory. Feel free to rip it apart. I'm open to acquiring a better understanding of this topic... though it is not likely to become an obsession. I'm not clinging to my particular views here. I just want to be an informed voter.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 1:23 am
08 Aug 2008
Similar bilateral FTAs, such as between Australia and NZ, have been relatively controversial.
Trade economics also suffers for being inspired by a simple and elegant, but counter-intuitive and not always easy-to-grasp concept: comparative advantage.
By the way, I did not say that "regional deals don't work because everyone has to be involved to make it work", I merely pointed out that where there are large discrepancies in per capita GDP among the trading partners, and subsidies are an issue, the RTA may end up hurting the non-subsidized or less-subsidized industry in the poorer country.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 1:25 am
08 Aug 2008
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 1:45 am
08 Aug 2008
Indeed, when the confederation of American colonies became the United States, they essentially started a process of regional economic integration. Yet, within any state, governments were free to levy taxes and spend as they wish (as long as their spending did not violate the Federal Constitution's "Commerce Clause", which to some extent acts like a check on subsidies favoring domestic over neighboring state industries).
Meanwhile, as the number of FTAs and RTAs grows, interest in learning about best practices has grown with them. So your notion of them as localized experiments in trade liberalization is not an excentric one.
The main problem with RTAs and FTAs is trade diversion: the creation and entrenchment of inefficient trade flows. For example, because of trade barriers it may make sense for a country like Spain to buy some product from Poland (another EU member), even though in the absence of the trade barrier it would make much more sense for Spain to procure the same good from nearby Morocco. In the Americas it is possible that the reduction of trade barriers between the United States and several Latin American countries (through separate FTAs) may mean that it is cheaper for neighboring Latin American countries to trade via the USA or Canada than directly with each other.
The other main problem, as I mentioned, is subsidies, which are not ameanable to control under FTAs or RTAs.
That said, I respect and somewhat share your nervousness at any attempt to micromanage the global economy. But I do think that that nervousness is also why trade negotiators go over every draft agreement with a very fine-toothed comb.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:35 am
08 Aug 2008
wiscidea- let me respond to your contentions about NAFTA:
International treaty leads to elimination of government support for Mexican farmers in interest of free trade.
FALSE: NAFTA included a trade liberalization agreement that included a move towards complete removal of corn tariffs over 15 years. The Mexcian government accelerated this in order to lower the price of yellow corn for the meat industry and contain inflation.
U.S. growers flood Mexican market with U.S. corn.
Only partially true: The Mexican government accelerated the tariff reductions and it was yellow corn that increased, not white corn.
Price Mexican farmers can get for corn plumets.
Only partially true: Again, yellow corn prices fell a lot to the benefit of certain sectors of the Mexican economy (I don't think what the Mexican government did was good, but it wasn't NAFTA's fault). Also, remember, the poorest of the poor in Mexico are subsistence farmers who don't sell their corn so the price doesn't affect them directly.
Mexican farmers go out business and flock to U.S. to find jobs.
FALSE: The areas of subsistence agriculture that are not areas of export are where most Mexicans who come illegally to the U.S. come from.
Americans find it increasingly difficult to find jobs for a variety of reasons, but blame immigrants.
FALSE: The influx of illegal Mexican immigrants is basically a wash for America as they don't compete for most types of jobs- see here: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/07/20080729_a_main ... and their contribution to the U.S. economy is basically a wash because they lower the price of goods and contribute to the tax base.
Influx of immigrants provides right-wing nuts with campaign issue.
FALSE: rightwing nuts will ALWAYS blame someone- whether immigrants, gays, liberals- they don't need NAFTA for that.
We all spiral to the bottom together, wiping out biodiversity around the globe.
FALSE: go work for Obama and the Democrats to turn this around
Moral of the story: maybe this needs a while new post, but the tale of NAFTA is one of misinformation and a lot of fault on the part of the Mexican government, which is a highly regressive regime that loves exporting its poor to America. Doesn't make for nice anti-globalization soundbites, but the facts rarely do....
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
moyesii Posted 1:41 pm
08 Aug 2008
Regarding the WTO judgment on cotton subsidies, my point was that the end result (GMO proliferation) was the intended goal, not an unintended outcome. Anyway, not all agricultural subsides are bad. For example, many sustainable ag advocates are in favor of limited subsidies, such as for specialty crops. So even on that level there is a fundamental, irreconcilable conflict between the WTO free trade agenda and agricultural sustainability.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:18 pm
08 Aug 2008
They are mutually exclusive states of being.
It seems certain individuals, craving the career status that comes from promoting and justifying "free" trade, will never see that.
The underlying assumption of their world view is that corporate power rules and governments are basically just figureheads for the expression of that power. They labor under the self delusion and mass delusion that this is a self fulfilling prophesy.
Under the present US government and international orgs like the WTO and World Bank that delusion seems to be turning into reality. Mother earth help us all resist that! Please, amen..and amen.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:02 pm
08 Aug 2008
Responding to your points:
Regarding the MRLs: every nation has a right to determine its own domestic policies, regardless of their impact on trade. The welfare of a nation's citizens, their health, and the environment should take precedence over expansion of trade, ...
I agree, and so do the economies that are Members of the WTO. Rules relating to the application of MRLs come under the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. The SPS Agreement does not in any way prevent countries from adopting MRLs or other measures to protect food safety, but it insists that they be science-based, and encourages countries to relate them, where possible, to internationally agreed standards (such as those developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission).
The pesticide dispute that I described in earlier comments, by the way, never became a formal dispute at the WTO, and Germany was never asked by the WTO to change its MRL. I mentioned it only to show that countries sometimes set MRLs in ways that are not even-handed and appear to reflect commercial rather than health-related concerns (in that case being relatively more favourable to growers of bell peppers and tomatoes).
By the way, I should also point out that membership of a country in the WTO is voluntary. It is like a club. By joining the WTO, it can influence the club's rules, but it also agrees to abide by those rules. If it finds that the rules are unfair, it can leave.
... which only benefits a few players by relaxing regulations in order to open up borders to unsafe, unsustainable products such as GMOs and irradiated foods, which have been zapped with scary doses of ionic radiation, because shipping live produce around the world contributes to the spread of invasive pests (which doesn't really help sustainable agriculture or the environment in general).
You are railing here against trends in agriculture generally, not showing a cause and effect link to WTO rules. I imagine that you have the EC -- Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products case in mind, on which I am not competent to comment, other than to say that what was at issue -- as in many WTO disputes -- was not the European Community's right to regulate, but how it applied those regulations.
What regulations is the WTO "relaxing", and how? And are you suggesting that without the WTO there would be no international trade, no shipping live produce around the world? You mean to sy that all those clipper ships that used to race between the Far East and the United States in the 19th century were just carrying passengers?
Again, I stress: the WTO is a forum of trading nations established to create common rules for trade. Trade occurred before the WTO came into being and it will exist if the WTO were to be abolished. Yes, its members believe in the progressive lowering of trade barriers, but not at the expense of food safety or the spread of invasive species. They have also, I might add, applied the principle of "special and differential treatment", which effectively means that developing countries are given more time to reduce their tariffs and subsidies (and by lesser percentages) than industrialized economies like the United States and the EU.
True enough, shipping live produce around the world contributes to the spread of invasive pests. But the spread of exotic species (European hares to Australia, Australian possums to New Zealand, water hyacinths to the United States, etc., etc.) began long before the creation of the GATT and the WTO, and not all of it by any means a result of trade. The SPS Agreement contains language that addresses members' concerns over keeping out foreign pests and diseases. But, again, it asks countries to be transparent in their rules, and fair to trading partners. So, for example, it asks that importers restrict trade only from risky parts of countries, rather than whole countries. See Article 6.
By relaxing environmental regulations, the WTO has also contributed to the spread of factory farms in developing countries and has increased the risk of a global flu pandemic, which is now considered the greatest threat in the U.K., but has particularly impacted developing countries. Factory farms are a major incubator for bird flu and other superbugs, and the unregulated proliferation coincides with the spread of bird flu, which has decimated traditional backyard poultry farming in countries such as Nigeria, destroying thousands of livelihoods.
You are asserting the claim that the WTO has "relaxed environmental regulations", particularly in a way that has directly encouraged "the spread of factory farms in developing countries". You seem to be railing against the spread of industrial agriculture and accusing the WTO as an accomplice, yet provide no evidence. Do you blame the spread of industrial agriculture in the United States and Canada on the WTO, too?
By the way, importing countries acted swiftly to ban imports of poultry from countries in which bird flu was discovered. I don't recall the WTO forcing any of those countries to relax those measures.
Regarding the WTO judgment on cotton subsidies, my point was that the end result (GMO proliferation) was the intended goal, not an unintended outcome.
This is a ridiculous, unsubstantiated accusation. I know the people involved in helping the countries that were complainants in this dispute (of which the WTO was only the arbitrator), and their primary motivation was to help developing countries -- countries whose incomes from cotton exports was being reduced by subsidized production in the USA -- to level the playing field.
Anyway, not all agricultural subsides are bad.
Which is why the WTO Agreement on Agriculture created the "Green Box" -- a category for subsidies that do not distort trade. A large and growing percentage of subsidies provided by countries now fall into this category, and are not limited by any reduction commitments. These subsidies include government expenditure on R&D, to reward farmers for environmental stewardship, to augment farm incomes (as long as the levels of support are not tied to production), and so forth.
For example, many sustainable ag advocates are in favor of limited subsidies, such as for specialty crops. So even on that level there is a fundamental, irreconcilable conflict between the WTO free trade agenda and agricultural sustainability.
Again, you seem to be talking out of your hat. Please look at Annex 2, which enumerates all of the forms of domestic support (i.e., subsidies) that are not subject to reduction commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture before you assert such a claim. Even limited subsidies benefiting specific crops are exempt from reduction commitments if they fall under within the de minimis levels (5% of the Member's total value of production of a basic agricultural product during the relevant year, or 10% in the case of developing countries).
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:07 pm
08 Aug 2008
We have a serious problem, corporatists who pretend to be environmentalists.
They are mutually exclusive states of being. It seems certain individuals, craving the career status that comes from promoting and justifying "free" trade, will never see that.
The underlying assumption of their world view is that corporate power rules and governments are basically just figureheads for the expression of that power. They labor under the self delusion and mass delusion that this is a self fulfilling prophesy.
Some of us here are trying to be helpful -- to explain how international institutions work -- and all you do is snipe from the sidelines and attribute nefarious motives.
Thanks a lot.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
moyesii Posted 10:20 pm
08 Aug 2008
You seem to have great faith in the infallibility of the WTO's codified agreements and rules. But just as it's difficult to prove causation (the act of one thing happening from another) from correlation (the occurrence of two things simultaneously), there is often little connection between the existence of rules established in the books and actual adherence to the law, especially among non-democratic bodies and given the known level of corruption anywhere that large amounts of money are at stake.
But I admire the religious zeal and salesman's determination with which you defend the WTO and tout your expert knowledge. It reminds me of certain people who like to toss around passages from the bible. Unfortunately, we know that both rules and scripture are often arbitrarily interpreted, which is why it's dangerous to have a non-democratic international governing body to be overriding domestically-set regulations. The WTO model is too ungainly to adequately address the deep social and economic inequalities among the poor and rich nations, and has been more likely to exacerbate them, which is why the Doha talks collapsed anyway.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 11:00 pm
08 Aug 2008
Denial of emergent and convergent global threats by informed leaders and delaying tactics by their many minions are threatening life as we know it and the integrity of Earth today.
We are not seeing colleagues speak out loudly, clearly and often to report that The Human Species' Population Bomb is Exploding NOW, as I did in 2005.
http://www.fragilecologies.com/mar22_05.html
The deafening silence of too many reputable scientists and the shrill voices of many too many political hacks and ideologues are symptomatic of deeply distressing problems. Top rank scientists in many places are either being subjected to venal pressures and, in some cases, driven out of "politically incorrect" areas of research or else their positions and programs are cut out of the government's budget. Low rank scientists, willing to subscribe to whatsoever is politically convenient and economically expedient, remain in place.
By recklessly funding such entities like the Department of Defense and related `defense' activities for the sake of winning military battles in distant lands, we are losing "the war" against environmental degradation, biodiversity extirpation, and the preservation of Earth as a fit place for human habitation by our children and coming generations.
How could my single, admittedly not-so-great generation of wrong-headed leading elders have become so terribly misdirected? These self-proclaimed "masters of the universe" have vanquished moral authority, but not the designated enemies. Perhaps wanton greed, acquisition of too much power, and idolatry of endless wealth accumulation and economic growth-mania of many too many leaders have something to do with my `religious' generation's adamant pursuit of so many unfortunate errands perpetrated by a confederacy of fools.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:05 am
09 Aug 2008
Why not call for reform of global trade and investment, that is presently directed exclusively by and for corporate power?
The stronger the defense of the status quo, the greater the resistance. It drives more and more of us into the radical camp.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:04 am
09 Aug 2008
I have spent, literally, hours preparing point-by-point responses to broad, unsubstantiated points made by other commentators, including references to the actual text in WTO agreements. Instead of gratitude, I am accused of being evangelical -- a zealot salesman.
I guess some of you would have preferred me to to polemics with polemics. Would it have made you feel better if I had ranted some slogan instead, would it have confirmed the view you seem to have of me?
I guess the subtley of specific responses is lost on most readers. I can't recall anywhere in my comments defending exploitation of the environment, claiming that current trade is "free" (if it were, the world would not need a WTO), or championing large corporations.
Laws are made by humans, and no body of laws is perfect. There are always unintended consequences. But one has to ask which situation would be better: a world of trade with rules, or one without? One in which Brazil and India have as much of a vote as the United States, or one in which only economic and military might counts?
John Schneider refers to "Mass starvation, wars with corporate bottomline considerations behind them, eco-destruction on massive scale", I suppose implying a link with the WTO. Try living in a world without a forum for easing trade frictions, because that is exactly what existed in the lead-up to the Second World War.
Starvation? That's really rich. The World Bank issues a report drawing a link between production-related subsidies (i.e., measures antithetical to trade economists) for bofuels and sharply escallating food costs for people in developing countries and instead of discussing how to reform the policies you guys shoot the messanger.
If you have some specific recommendations on how to make the world's trading system better, I'm all ears. But all I've seen from Moyesii and some others (I appreciate, by contrast, Wiscidea's openness) is broad assertions that, in my opinion, comingle the effects of trade itself, the effects of trade rules, and the march (not always beneficial, I would be the first to admit) of technology. All I was trying to do was correct some misconceptions about the WTO's trade rules.
Those trade rules, I will observe, have proved to be flexible enough to allow for a pathbreaking draft agreement on disciplining subsidies to fishing -- subsidies that have been an important causal factor in the over-expolitation of the world's fisheries. I gather it would surprise a lot of people here that one of the most influencial voices in that debate has been an environmental NGO, the World Wildlife Fund, working with a collection of nations (including the United States) that style themselves the "Friends of Fish". But the WTO and -- its members and its Secretariat -- are only out to rape the earth, so I doubt many commentators here will believe me.
That is one of the draft agreements, by the way, that is now in limbo, thanks to the failure of the Doha Round.
But clearly I am wasting my breath and my time. So, good luck, and thanks for all the fish.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:22 am
09 Aug 2008
I have talked about compromise with nuclear, fuel farming, and clean coal interests. Compromises environmentalists strictly opposed to those interests can live with.
There needs to be compromise with government now. On the part of multinational corporate interests. The baking, trading, and investment systems run under almost no regulation.
Define a possible compromise from the international corporate point of view, and maybe we could see if we think the planet can live with it.
The environmentalist activist side has an idea of the sort of regulation that we would like to see, in terms of real free market, human rights, labor, and eco considerations, to cook up a compromise from this side.
Sorry if it is offensive to some, many old style democrats (like the congress) might still kowtow, we Obamanauts follow his example.
We do not do cowering.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:08 am
09 Aug 2008
Just ignore the haters--they are like McCain: they have no ideas or anything of substance so all they can put forth is character attacks and misinformation. Either way, I appreciate your contributions; it's hard trying to get a rational and serious dialogue going on the web and I applaud your efforts.
P.S. Moyesii- no serious social scientist mistakes correlation with causation: again, you have no idea what you're talking about and it shows.
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 5:19 am
09 Aug 2008
None of these issues are going to go away, and now with peak oil on top of global warming and eco-destruction, we're going to need to come up with adeqaute responses on the fly. So I look at Grist really as a chalkboard on which we can bounce ideas around. I don't think it's a matter of "winning arguments" or gaining adherents to a particular point of view.
No one knows the impact of their work, but your work on biofuels has been stellar, I think. The WTO will survive, but I think it will need an overhaul. And I see now that many developing countries are abandoning fuel subsidies in favor of direct payments to the poor, something you have brought up before.
Thanks again for all your efforts here. Gotta run...
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:17 am
09 Aug 2008
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 12:33 am
10 Aug 2008
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:18 am
10 Aug 2008
It has to be frustrating replying to shoot from the hip blog comments with rigorous academic research. Many experts in their fields just skip the infighting, probably a wise choice to remain above the fray.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Russ Posted 1:33 am
10 Aug 2008
It has to be frustrating replying to shoot from the hip blog comments with rigorous academic research. Many experts in their fields just skip the infighting, probably a wise choice to remain above the fray.
Actually, Joe often does descend to the fray at his own blog, http://climateprogress.org/.
I agree with you that it would be worthwhile if Ron wanted to contribute more articles.
Permalink
Live Asset Posted 5:52 am
25 Aug 2008
blog about it!
Live Asset Insurance
~we protect your crops and trees when the government's crop insurance fails~
Permalink