Email List
Most Popular This Week
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
Popular content
Today's Top News
WTO Calls On US to Cut Farm Subsidies
GENEVA - The World Trade Organization called on the United States on Wednesday to cut its farm subsidies, saying that they were so "considerable" that they could affect market prices.
A farmer picks cotton on a farm on the outskirts of Hami, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region September 26, 2010. (REUTERS/Stringer) In a report analysing Washington's policies since 2007, the trade body said that while promoting its exports, the United States should also reduce "distorting measures ... including ... support for agriculture."
The WTO noted that support granted to the sector under the multi-billion-dollar 2008 Farm Act are mostly "linked to prices and or production."
Thanks to this support, "producers of cereals, oilseeds, and cotton are effectively insulated from market prices while sugar and dairy have market price support programmes," said the WTO.
"The large size of the agriculture sector means that the absolute amount of support is considerable, varies from one year to another depending on prices, and can affect world prices," it added.
Brazil also hit out against the US' farm policies during the WTO's examination of Washington's trade policies every two years.
"Agriculture accounts for only 0.8 percent of US GDP and it employs just 1.4 percent of its labour force," noted Roberto Azevedo, Brazil's envoy to the WTO.
"Nevertheless, this sector displays a considerable arsenal of trade-restrictive and distorting measures."
Azevedo pointed out that most of the subsidies are concentrated on crops such as cotton soybeans and rice.
"When prices drop, those subsidies will be in place again precisely at the moment when they will provoke the largest distortions and most damage to producers elsewhere," he charged.
Washington's subsidies to its agriculture sector is a key sticking point holding up long-stalled Doha negotiations for a new global free trade deal.
Its support for cotton producers has been judged illegal by the WTO, in a complaint brought by Brazil.
Brazil however agreed to not apply reprisals after both countries decided to wait for the new Farm bill in 2012 to see what modifications would be made.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
16 Comments so far
Show AllI can't find anything on AFP for this. And WTO released a report today, the Trade Policy Review for the USA. And I've just read the executive summary of this report. While the WTO does say that the US has large farm subsides, it does not in anyway criticize this. In fact it views it as a good thing.
http://www.farmpolicy.com/?p=803
The link above contains an article that makes it clear that the appeals court of the WTO did indeed rule against the US in this case. It is important to note that this was a three-judge panel that rules on WTO matters, not the entire bureaucratic machinery, which, because of funding and historical reasons, is largely controlled by the US.
Now and then a court ruling goes against the powers-that-be. Whether the ruling can be sustained in reality obviously remains to be seen. Rulings can act as causes to be rallied 'round, however. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Of course, CD readers could call their congresspeople to demand that the US not try to subvert the ruling...
The US subverted a number of like rulinsg under NAFTA with their dispute with Canada over softwood lumber.
From what I see many of these rulings from the WTO are in fact driven by the US Government itself. They then use these "rulings" to implement policies at home using the "WTO Rulings" to indicate they really have no choice.
At the end of the day.
The Government of the United States of America cares little for treaties. They will honor them or break them dependent on whether it in their best interests and or will advance a given policy.
The Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the bombings of Countries the world over are evidence of that.
Once the trans-nationals have established sufficient agricultural infrastructure in more accommodating regions around the globe, they'll have no problem pulling the plug on US operations. They are rapidly depleting soil and water tables to the point that industrial horticultural techniques will no longer be economically feasible here, anyway.
As they stand now, US farm subsidies really amount to corporate welfare and perform little service to those of genuine need.
Wait for it...
There's going to be a very hard fall, and having converted so much arable land to near mono-culture, we'll be landing without a net.
A likely scenario.
Cargill is one of the single largest holders of Agricultural land in the World. They have bought vast tracts of land in Africa , Asia and latin America.
Goldman Sachs also has invested a lot of money in "Land" as they see it as a commodity wherein the price can only rise and a means to preserving wealth.
So these guys want to increase the "Value" of their investments overseas but those lands can not compete with "Subsidized Agriculture" in the USA. So pull the plug and make it look like it a WTO ruling.
If people think this would not happen again to the Softwood lumber dispute.
Canadian firms won ruling after ruling against the US Lumber lobby wherein it was determined that Canada was NOT subsidizing its softwood lumber exports. The US at the prompting if the Lobby groups in the USA simply refused to honor the rulings.
Instead of fight Canada backed down and agreed to Voluntary limits in exports. This closed down Mills and saw the Stock Price of Canadian Lumber Companies drop.
All the while under the "Byrd Amendment" the US Government had applied a tariff to Canadian Imports and were GIVING THIS money to US Lumber firms.
When the Stock prices of the Canadian firms dropped...US firms used that extracted money to buy up Canadian firms.
These same firms (Weyhauser was one) then switched sides suggesting there was no subsidies.
These "Captains of Industry" are sleaze balls and corrupt to the extreme.
Let us not forget that Koch Industries owns Georgia Pacific
Cut farm subsidies (welfare payments) to the large agri-business monopolies! Increase farm aid to the struggling organic, buy local farmers!
To Americans "free trade" is the right to dump our taxpayer subsidized products in foreign markets.
Thereby driving their farmers out of business. That way we can use famine as a WMD anytime we choose.
We all know that U.S. agricultural subsidies have long been a part of our foreign policy, despite protestations over the decades that we would never use "food as a weapon."
Hogslop.
On the other hand, this article is so full of contradictions as to be nearly useless. AFP obviously has little if any handle on the incredible complexity of U.S. agricultural subsidies, to say nothing of subsidies by other countries.
Example from the article, straight up:
<"The large size of the agriculture sector means that the absolute amount of support is considerable, varies from one year to another depending on prices, and can affect world prices," it added.
Brazil also hit out against the US' farm policies during the WTO's examination of Washington's trade policies every two years.
"Agriculture accounts for only 0.8 percent of US GDP and it employs just 1.4 percent of its labour force," noted Roberto Azevedo, Brazil's envoy to the WTO.>
Can anyone make any sense of these three paragraphs as they appear together? For example, Brazil massively subsidizes its cane sugar production to produce ethanol, and does so more efficiently than does the U.S. in subsidizing its corn production to produce ethanol. (Of course one "externality" of Brazil's biofuels production is the destruction of the Amazon Rain Forest... One can only hope that Brazil's recent discovery of huge off-shore oil reserves will redirect their energies, so to speak...)
The article is really weak. No wonder it lacks a by-line.
The issues here, meanwhile, are of immense global importance. One small example: I am surrounded by thousands of acres of GM modified corn and beans that are going into the U.S. food system, while as far as I am concerned they are INEDIBLE. The dandelions and the pigweed growing in my back yard are fundamentally more nutritious.
Face it: food is a weapon.
-30-
"In order to control Nations one must Control oil, in order to control the people one must control the food supply" Henry Kissinger
Corporate FARMS and corporate Wall St. are gambling with the lives and the future of Earth.
However, I did read today that the WTO also said that the U.S cannot deny Chinese imports of chicken and chicken parts.
The state of chickenhood and Americans health was disarming enough, but now we are to eat chickens from China? Please tell us that this food will be labled.
China, the land that brought us poisoned pet food, tainted killer milk, anti-freeze in tooth paste...I won't eat chicken because who can anyone trust? Even in the U.S. we are being sickened and killed by those corporate hatcheries of the BAD EGG mentalities of greed.
Wall St. and Corporate farms, sad to say , treat the public as badly as they do the chickens. It would seem to be that they think of us too, as a bunch of dumb clucks!
Do you notice how all the 'free market' talk from the Wall Street lovers vanishes when the 'socialism for big agriculture' in the USA turns up? These anti-competitive practices are paid for by you and me for the benefit of some rich sugar or soy bean or corn producing pig.
He turns around and buys his congressman with part of the money. What a deal.
And the Republicans? And the Tea Party? And the Democrats?
Nobody here but just us chickens! What colossal hypocracy. Mightymite, hello?
The only party I have EVER heard attack these gross giveaways that cause untold poverty in neighboring countries are the Libertarians.
Did you know that these big ag firms with hundreds of thousands of acres pay next to nothing in property taxes? Oh but some guy with a 1,000 square foot mobile home will get hammered for his property taxes even on rented land. What a country.
And let's not get started on how Goldman Sachs games the futures on agricultural products for fun and profit. Yeah, they cause food riots and people starving in different parts of the globe every now and then. And to think we bailed this Goldman Sachs monster out.
peacekeepertwo; The IMF is not a Charity. This bank is part of the Wall Street System. Corporations fund Campaigns an Form US Policy. The US used to aid the world because it was morally correct. Morals have nothing to do With the way we give aid today.
Sssssh.. Obama don’t want you to know this..
I CAN CREATE 10 MILLION JOBS If USA Pulls out of NAFTA and WTO right now..
Here are my Job creation Computations:
Total USA Imports in 2006:
----------------------------------
$ 2,211.7 billion --- (Import number including all Oil Imports)
$ 309.4 billion less - (minus amount spent on Imported Crude Oil)
--------------------------------------------------
$ 1,902.3 billion X 22,800=43.37 million jobs lost from Imports. ==================================================
Total USA Exports in 2006:
----------------------------------
$ 1,451.7 Billion X 22,800=33.10 million jobs created from Exports.
If USA Pulls out of NAFTA and WTO right now:
USA could possibly lose 33.10 million Jobs from EXPORTS.
However, I am sure many countries will still import items from the USA because they will be forced to do so. That would of course create even more jobs gained than I have estimated.
USA would absolutely gain 43.37 million Jobs by closing the doors to International IMPORTS from China, India and Japan.
So, 43.37 minus 33.10 = 10.27 million NET JOBS GAIN.
My calculation means ABSOLUTELY 10.27 million Jobs gained if the rest of the world did not buy one single penny of USA EXPORTS.
SO MOTE IT BE. . . . .
BY: Harry Dingey
Sssssh.. Obama don’t want you to know this..
I CAN CREATE 10 MILLION JOBS If USA Pulls out of NAFTA and WTO right now..
Here are my Job creation Computations:
“Based on the U.S.Department of Commerce estimates that 22,800 jobs are created for every $1 billion in merchandise produced for Import or Export.”
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/9621.pdf
Total USA Imports in 2006:
----------------------------------
$ 2,211.7 billion --- (Import number including all Oil Imports)
$ 309.4 billion less - (minus amount spent on Imported Crude Oil)
--------------------------------------------------
$ 1,902.3 billion X 22,800=43.37 million jobs lost from Imports. ==================================================
Total USA Exports in 2006:
----------------------------------
$ 1,451.7 Billion X 22,800=33.10 million jobs created from Exports.
If USA Pulls out of NAFTA and WTO right now:
USA could possibly lose 33.10 million Jobs from EXPORTS.
However, I am sure many countries will still import items from the USA because they will be forced to do so. That would of course create even more jobs gained than I have estimated.
USA would absolutely gain 43.37 million Jobs by closing the doors to International IMPORTS from China, India and Japan.
So, 43.37 minus 33.10 = 10.27 million NET JOBS GAIN.
My calculation means ABSOLUTELY 10.27 million Jobs gained if the rest of the world did not buy one single penny of USA EXPORTS.
SO MOTE IT BE. . . . .
BY: Harry Dingey