> Small sustainable farmers can compete quite favorably on
>cost of production if given an open and competitive market.
Food First says:
>"Free trade causes the prices farmers receive
>to drop through the floor", said Rosset," driving them into bankruptcy by
>the millions." Such low prices mean only the largest can survive,
>according to the study.
>The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture (AOA), to be
>negotiated in Seattle, USA, in November, 1999, is the weapon that could
>deal the final death blow to the world's small farmers, according to
>Rosset. "The U.S. Government negotiators," said Rosset, himself an
>American, "have as their goal for Seattle the complete liberalization of
>trade in farm products. . . . We must oppose trade agreements which
>place them in jeopardy."
Hmm. . . Does Greg's open and competitive market equate with the
WTO's free trade? Or are the definitions quite different? If the
latter, did Food First miss a trick by not making the distinction?
Seems to me they (we!) ought to be making Greg's point, which I think
was that "free trade" and "global corporate hegemony" are not quite
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: