|
|
 
|
Biofuel imports anger farmers
(Friday, Dec. 2, 2005 -- CropChoice news) -- 1. Free trade is becoming harder to swallow 1. Free trade is becoming harder to swallow For Immediate Release DES ARC, Ark., Dec. 1, 2005 -- Recent events involving imports and exports
of agricultural commodities are casting shadows on the wisdom of unfettered
free trade. The latest revelations include imported soy-diesel (or the palm
oil to produce it) when the intent of congress and farmers is to lessen our
dependence on foreign energy sources, flies in the face of logic. The Internal
Revenue Service has ruled that palm oil produced outside the U.S. is
eligible for tax credits intended to foster growth of the home grown fuel industry. This IRS ruling has raised hackles in the farm community and congress. This is a classic example of the free marketers having their philosophy biting
them in their derriere. "We think the evidence is building that contradicts the wisdom of free trade,
" says Harvey Joe Sanner, Executive Director of the Soybean Producers of
America. "First, it’s not free and it’s not fair. The recent squeaker vote
on the Central American Free Trade Agreement may be a sign that common sense
is finally returning to the trade debate. More free trade seems to lead to
more health risks and certain financial losses for American producers. We’ve
seen efforts such as Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) to promote safer foods be
attacked and stalled by the meat industry and some free market ‘farm’
organizations during valid fears of imported beef containing mad cow disease." "While mad cow is still a concern, we now have to contend with the threat of
Asian Bird Flu, added Sanner. "This disease has resulted in massive flocks
of poultry being destroyed in China. Health officials are very concerned
since the disease can be transferred to humans and the fear is that it might be
transferred from human to human." Sanner further stated, "We can’t count on the poultry industry folks for
any comfort. It was reported in the Des Moines Register that Mr. Richard Lobb,
an official with the National Chicken Council, said that, ‘Free trade
benefits our country and if this (the importation of Chinese chickens into the
U.S.) comes as a corollary to it, we just have to deal with it.’ I don’t know
about y’all but I can cut back on my drumstick consumption if necessary
instead of eating Chinese chicken at this time." "The very idea that we are told that we simply ‘have to deal with it’ in
the name of free trade is insulting," concluded Sanner. "The health of our
families can’t be sacrificed on the free trade altar. To propose that we would
risk importing poultry products or any food product, from a nation that has
an infected product highlights a lack of common sense, but of course, true
free marketers have never been endowed with common sense or concern for America’s producers. Importing infected cattle, chickens or palm oil are all bad
ideas. Someone in government should do something about this, and quick!" -30- 2. Biofuel imports anger farmers Tax break irks ag-state lawmakers For U.S. agriculture, the energy gold rush is on, and Minnesota's
pioneering biodiesel and ethanol producers are in the thick of it. But
suddenly, they have foreign competition. A ship loaded with South American biodiesel pulled into a Florida port
this month, and immediately qualified for a new U.S. biodiesel tax
break. For the homegrown biofuels industry, it was a shocking notice
that their domestic market had gone global. The American Soybean Association expressed outrage. Angry farm-state
politicians vowed to rewrite tax law. And it stunned soybean farmers,
who dreamed that biodiesel would become the next ethanol - a corn-fed
economic lifeline across Minnesota and beyond, which has turned crops
into homegrown fuel, rural jobs and farmer profits. Ethanol, too, is confronting import challenges. Latin American nations
reportedly are ramping up ethanol production for possible export.
Suddenly, U.S. farmers are nervous, just when it seemed that the
promised land for biofuels was in sight. "Why would we want to trade our farmers, our jobs, our communities, our
tax dollars and our energy security for another dependence on foreign
ethanol or biofuels?" said Minnesota Farmers Union President Doug
Peterson. Free-traders see it differently, arguing that farm fuels have enjoyed
years of government protection; they welcome the challenge to become
more competitive. The issue is passionately felt in rural Minnesota, a state so deeply
invested in farm-based fuels that industry leaders jokingly call it "the
Holy Land." Minnesota has more ethanol plants, more farmer-investors,
produces more biodiesel and buys more biodiesel than any other state. This autumn, the future of farm fuels looked white-hot: Crude oil prices
soared, corn and soybeans were cheap and abundant, a lucrative new tax
credit for biodiesel became law, and the polluting additive MTBE
continued its phase-out, further helping ethanol sales. Moreover,
Congress passed a new law requiring a big increase in ethanol use. It didn't take long for the biggest players in agribusiness to see
opportunity and jump in, first Archer Daniels Midland, then Cargill,
then CHS. But farmer groups were excited, too - so many, in fact, that
Joe Jobe of the National Biodiesel Board said this month that he'd
received "dozens, if not hundreds, of calls everyday saying we want to
build a biodiesel plant." Then came the competition: biodiesel from Ecuador, made from palm oil,
not soybeans. EarthFirst Americas, the U.S. importer, intends to import
45 million gallons in 2006, and more than 100 million the following
year, exceeding the 75 million gallons the entire U.S. biodiesel
industry will produce in 2005. Most galling to soybean growers, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that
the Ecuadorian biodiesel qualifies for the new $1 a gallon biodiesel
credit just passed by Congress. That means the U.S. biodiesel market is
wide open to all comers. "There's no protection there, apparently," warned U.S. Rep. Collin
Peterson, D-Minn. "What started last week with Ecuador, I think we're
going to see more of that." Gary Wertish, agricultural aide to U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., said
that Dayton is among lawmakers who think the IRS ruling is wrong. "One of the reasons the energy bill was passed was to lessen our
dependence on foreign oil," Wertish said. "It wouldn't be the intent of
Congress to apply tax credits for foreign-based biodiesel." Vern Eidman, a University of Minnesota economist who specializes in
biofuels, expected that biodiesel's moment had finally arrived. Then he
heard of the Ecuadorian shipments. "While it's hard to argue against competition, this may be a lot of
competition to go up against, particularly if their oils are much lower
in price than soybean oil," he said. At Florida-based EarthFirst, chief technical officer Peter Calvert saw
it otherwise. "I don't think the soy guys have that much to worry about, frankly," he
said, noting that his firm is delivering palm-oil biodiesel to
destinations like Florida, Texas and California, where soybeans are hard
to come by. "Where palm oil makes the most sense is where soy makes the
least." Besides, Calvert added, "The Energy Act was meant to diversify fuel
supplies, and that's what we're doing. ... It was not crafted as a farm
bill." Peterson, the congressman, sees a second threat, this one to the ethanol
industry. On his recent travels through Central America, Peterson was
concerned to see or hear about dehydrating plants under construction,
designed to remove water from Brazilian ethanol. Under trade rules, watery Brazilian ethanol shipped to the United States
must pay a hefty tax. But the if water is removed in Central America, a
substantial amount of ethanol can then be imported to the United States
with no import tax. Up to 7 percent of U.S. production, or about 280
million gallons next year, could arrive tax-free. Cargill has dabbled in this practice to a small degree, routing
Brazilian ethanol through a plant in El Salvador, to the ire of U.S.
farm groups. But with the passage of the Central American Free Trade
Agreement, or CAFTA, Peterson sees evidence of someone investing on a
much larger scale. Several Cargill officials denied they had any such activities, beyond
their El Salvador experiment. Lori Johnson, a Cargill spokeswoman, noted
that Cargill's El Salvador joint venture, "at full capacity, produces
about 60 million gallons a year, which is about five days of consumption
in the U.S." By contrast, she noted, Cargill is by far the largest investor in the
U.S. corn industry, and this month announced a huge expansion of its own
ethanol plant in Nebraska. Free-traders like to point out that the ethanol and biodiesel industries
didn't grow spontaneously; they were planned and encouraged by a web of
subsidies, incentives and government mandates. Some sustainable-energy
advocates, such as Mike Millikin, editor of the online Green Car
Congress, argue that shutting off imports is the wrong reaction to a
possible foreign threat. "With tariffs already in place and demand for ethanol booming, this just
seems like a way to continue to shield an industry that has been
shielded for 24 years," Millikin wrote. "Where's the competitive
pressure to come up with a better, more cost-effective means of
producing ethanol? ... The global market for ethanol is rapidly
increasing; let's get competitive. Let's go get some of that market for
ourselves." But the threat haunts some farm groups, which have seen ethanol deliver
profits, jobs and rural development. At the Minnesota Farmers Union's
recent annual meeting, union President Peterson told delegates: "Stop
foreign ethanol and biofuels, and stand up for energy security, stand up
for food security, stand up for rural America, and stand up for rural
Minnesota." Tom Webb can be reached at twebb@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5428. 3. A warning of trade suits over farming By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO CHICAGO, Nov. 29 - A failure by the United States and the European Union
to make significant progress toward reducing agricultural subsidies in
trade talks in Hong Kong could bring a legal challenges on both sides of
the Atlantic, trade and agricultural experts say. In a report to be released Wednesday, Oxfam International highlights
three American commodity crops vulnerable to lawsuits and eight
agricultural products in the European Union that could be sources of
cases. Several independent experts agree with Oxfam's assertion that complaints
could be brought against the United States' corn, rice and sorghum
programs, while the 25-country European Union could be challenged on
subsidies for tomatoes, tobacco, butter, wine and spirits, citrus juices
and processed fruits like canned peaches and pears. According to the report, the subsidies for the 11 crops and products
noted by Oxfam total $9.3 billion for the United States out of the
country's $19.5 billion in subsidy payments, and $4.2 billion for the
European Union out of $44.8 billion, on an annual basis. Oxfam, a nongovernmental advocacy group involved in world poverty
issues, has lobbied strenuously for rich countries to reduce
agricultural subsidies so that developing countries in Africa and
elsewhere can better compete and grow their economies. But several
outside experts agree that more cases are likely if meetings of the
World Trade Organization next month in Hong Kong do not produce a
substantial agreement toward reducing so-called trade-distorting
subsidies. Brazil's successful challenges to the European Union's sugar program and
parts of the United States' cotton program have opened the door for more
challenges before the W.T.O., trade experts say. The European Union
unveiled an overhauled sugar program last week that cuts support prices
36 percent. "Those cases point out some of the vulnerabilities that both the E.U.
and the U.S. have with some of their present farm programs," said
Clayton Yeutter, a former secretary of agriculture and United States
trade representative. If negotiations do not produce progress, "it would
not be surprising to see additional W.T.O. dispute settlement challenges
of this nature," he said.
The talks in Hong Kong are part of a round of trade discussions that
began in 2001 in Doha, Qatar. They were termed a "development round,"
meant to lift the world's poor nations out of poverty by giving their
farmers better access to developed world markets. American trade officials said on Tuesday that they could not comment on
the accuracy of the Oxfam estimates, but that the United States is
trying to eliminate the kinds of farm subsidies that could run afoul of
the W.T.O. rules. "The very subsidies that they're concerned about are the ones that we're
proposing to eliminate," said Christin T. Baker, a spokeswoman for the
United States trade representative, Rob Portman. Anthony Gooch, a spokesman for the European Commission in Washington,
said he could not comment on the Oxfam report until European officials
had a chance to study it. Officials from the United States, Europe and major developing countries,
like Brazil, are trying to salvage a framework before the talks in Hong
Kong. Mr. Portman will leave for Geneva on Thursday for talks that will
last until Sunday. In recent weeks, preparatory trade talks stalled after the European
Union failed to match an offer by the United States to lower some
trade-distorting subsidies by 60 percent over five years and eliminate
them by 2013. Oxfam and other advocates of reducing subsidies have
called even the American proposal inadequate and misleading. The United States and the European Union are still far apart on
agricultural trade barriers. The United States proposal calls for much
deeper cuts in farm tariffs than European officials have been willing to
support. And large developing countries are reluctant to make
commitments on opening markets for services and industrial goods unless
the wealthy countries do more to open their farm markets. In the last year, some countries have threatened legal action against
American farm programs. Uruguay has been preparing a challenge to
American rice subsidies, while Canadian corn growers have been clamoring
for their government to fight the sale of American corn in Canada at
prices they say are lower than the cost of production. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal concluded two weeks ago that
there was "a reasonable indication that the dumping and subsidizing of
unprocessed grain corn have caused injury to the domestic industry."
Mike Johanns, the United States agriculture secretary, and Mr. Portman
said in a joint response that "U.S. corn exports pose no threat to
Canadian corn growers." The United States corn program is more vulnerable than ever to a trade
challenge, trade experts say. Huge harvests the last two years and the
lowest prices since the late 1990's are resulting in record subsidy
payments to farmers. The United States paid $26.8 billion in corn
subsidies the last five years, the most for any single American farm
program. "If there were ever a time for another country to go after our corn
program, this is it," said Kenneth Cook, president of the Environmental
Working Group, a research organization based in Washington that has
criticized farm subsidies. "It is exactly the kind of conditions that
prompted Brazil to go after our cotton program." Eleven corn exporters, including Argentina, Ecuador and South Africa,
could have legitimate cases as well, the Oxfam report concluded. And in
the case of rice, Mexico, India and Thailand are among 13 countries that
could file cases against the United States. Without a formal suit,
Mexico has struggled to prevent rice from the United States from being
sold at what it says are unfair prices that are damaging Mexican
producers. A World Trade Organization panel ruled on Tuesday that Mexico
unfairly imposed antidumping tariffs on American rice in 2002. While the European Union also has programs laden with heavy subsidy
payments for farmers of traditional crops like sugar, it is at least as
vulnerable for programs designed to encourage the processing of fruits
and vegetables into finished products, trade experts said. The European
Union provides millions of euros in such subsidies. So far, no formal challenges on major crops have been filed since the
Brazilian won its cases in 2004 and this year. Pedro de Camargo Neto, a
former lead farm trade negotiator for Brazil, who led his country's
cotton and sugar cases, said he is surprised other countries have not
capitalized on the Brazilian precedents. Fear of retaliation could be part of the reason, Mr. Camargo said in a
telephone interview. "Governments are afraid to challenge the Empire." In one case, Walter Bastian, the United States deputy assistant
secretary of commerce, met with Uruguayan officials in August and
persuaded them to wait until after the Hong Kong meetings to file a rice
complaint. Most countries see trade negotiations as a faster road to agricultural
reform than litigation, which is costly and can drag on for years. But
the failure of the Doha talks will probably lead more developing
countries to use the W.T.O.'s dispute settlement process, said Gawain
Kripke, senior policy adviser for Oxfam. "This hasn't been in their
toolbox in the past," he said. "Brazil has shown that these cases are
winnable." 4. U.S., Brazil to reach second suspension agreement on cotton Inside US Trade The U.S. and Brazil are set to agree to a second suspension agreement
that would put off an arbitration proceeding for authorizing the level
and type of retaliation Brazil has requested to impose on the U.S. for
its failure to remove cotton subsidies that were found to have caused
serious prejudice to Brazilian producers. Brazil's request for over $1
billion in retaliation includes the controversial demand that it be
allowed to "cross-retaliate" against the U.S. by withholding commitments
in services and intellectual property rights instead of merely
increasing its tariffs on imports of U.S. goods. Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Peter Allgeier and Brazilian Ambassador
to the WTO Clodoaldo Hugueney signed a Nov. 22 joint letter to the
arbitration panel, formed just last week, asking that it suspend its
work until further notice, according to a copy of the letter. It does
not set any deadline for the arbitration panel to resume its work, but
says that either party may ask the panel to resume its work. If either Brazil or the U.S. decides to take this step, the letter,
reprinted below, states either party will notify the other 30 days in
advance of making the request. The letter does not refer to any explicit actions the U.S. has promised
to make in exchange for Brazil agreeing to suspend the arbitration
proceeding, but the Brazilian signature reflects U.S. commitments to
implement the decisions of the WTO panel, a government source said. This
would require the U.S. to enact changes to its farm programs that would
have the effect of eliminating cotton subsidies found to have caused
serious prejudice to Brazilian producers. The agreement follows an earlier deal reached last July that suspended
an arbitration proceeding on Brazil's request to retaliate against $3
billion in U.S. imports for the U.S. failure to withdraw cotton
subsidies found to be prohibited by the WTO panel. However, that
agreement was slightly different in that it said Brazil's request for
arbitration would be suspended until after a WTO compliance panel
determined whether U.S. actions had brought the U.S. into compliance
with the adverse WTO decision. This was necessary because the Bush Administration took steps to
eliminate the subsidies found to be prohibited by making changes to U.S.
export credit guarantee programs and by asking Congress to eliminate the
Step 2 cotton program, both of which were found to be prohibited
subsidies. In contrast, the U.S. has not taken any specific steps to
eliminate other subsidies found to have caused serious prejudice to
Brazilian producers, although the U.S. government has said the
elimination of Step 2 could go some way toward eliminating serious
prejudice. The original panel decision found that a variety of U.S. cotton
subsidies, some prohibited and some allowed under WTO rules, had caused
serious prejudice to Brazilian producers by lowering world market
prices. However, the panel did not specify the extent to which these
payments needed to be eliminated, reduced or changed to remove the
serious prejudice. Both the Senate and House have approved repealing Step 2 effective Aug.
1 as part of larger budget reconciliation packages, but they have yet to
approve a conference report. The U.S. has missed deadlines set by the WTO panel for eliminating the
prohibited subsidies and for removing the serious prejudice caused to
Brazilian producers. The deadline on the prohibited subsidies was July
1, while the deadline on serious prejudice was Sept. 21. However, the U.S. has said that if the Doha round of WTO talks on
agriculture locked in the commitments the U.S. has pledged to make in
reducing its allowable limits on trade-distorting domestic subsidies,
this would result in lower cotton subsidies that could remove the
serious prejudice. 5. For India, importing food is like importing joblessness By Devinder Sharma WTO Director General Pascal Lamy seems to be a firm believer in 'fear
psychosis.' Knowing well that none of his shrewd trading skills have
helped shift the focus of the ongoing negotiations from agriculture
subsidies to market access, he is now trying to inculcate fear among the
developing countries. "Developing countries would lose if the Doha Development Round fails,"
he warned African trade ministers last week at Arusha. "The US can
increase its trade-distorting domestic support (TDS) by $5 billion, the
EU by $25 billion and Japan by $5 billion." What he forgot to tell them
was the developing country agriculture in any case is doomed if the US $1 billion farm subsidies that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) pays to its agribusiness corporations and rich
farmers are not entirely scrapped. Fear psychosis is the latest strategy. Bribery and bait are the two
other planks of the 'negotiating' strategy that are being applied. Least
developing countries are being provided with an 'aid for trade' package,
expected to be in the range of US $ 400 million, in the name of
assistance to cope with adjustment costs, and also to provide necessary
infrastructure. Besides, the promise of a 'development package' contains
duty and quota-free access for LDC products, preference erosion; some
special and differential treatment proposals, and longer transition
periods on TRIPS and investment measures. All these allurements are not enough to minimise the devastating effect
subsidised agriculture has had on the developing countries. If the last
ten years of the WTO are any indication, a majority of the developing
countries have now turned into net food importer, thereby negatively
impacting food security and resulting in a massive loss of farm
livelihoods. On the other hand, while the negotiations continue, the
developed countries have managed to increase farm exports. Agricultural
exports from the European Union, for instance, have gone up by 26 per
cent. Every percentage point gained in exports adds $3 billion in export
sales and $750 million to agricultural income. For the developing countries, increase in agricultural imports means
further marginalisation of the farming community. In India, agricultural
imports have gone up by 300 per cent in the last ten years. While edible
oil imports have increased by 398 per cent, cotton imports have
multiplied by a whopping 13,153 per cent. Sugar, fruits and vegetables
and spices are some other commodities that have poured in unchecked. For
a country like India, importing food is like importing unemployment. In such a depressing socio-economic scenario, what should India do? What
strategies it needs to adopt at Hong Kong to ensure that the livelihoods
of its 600 million farmers remain protected? Let me provide some action
points: (Devinder Sharma is a New Delhi-based food and trade policy analyst) 6. French rally around farmers at WTO talks: Agricultural subsidies remain sticking point Noelle Knox MONTALET-LE-BOIS, France -- In the late afternoon November sun, Philippe Durand's small fields of young wheat are the picture of French country living. There's only one problem with this picture. Durand's 500-acre farm wouldn't survive without government subsidies and trade barriers. "I'd be finished," said Durand, 39, who works alone, growing wheat, rapeseed (the source of canola oil) and sugar beets on his farm about 35 miles west of Paris. And it's not just a problem for him. In fact, the international dispute over farm subsidies and market access could shatter any hopes of reaching a global trade agreement when the World Trade Organization meets in Hong Kong on Dec. 13-18. This round of trade negotiations is turning out to be a showdown between the United States, which is the world's largest agricultural producer, and France, which is No.2 and the voice for European farmers. And there is a parallel battle between rich countries and such emerging nations as Brazil, India and China. All sides have put offers on the table that the others claim are not enough. "We can't give everything without getting anything in return," says Christian Ligeard, head of international relations for the French Ministry of Agriculture. "We've said clearly to the (European trade) negotiator, if the package is only agriculture, we will say, 'No.'" For American farmers, who receive $23 billion in direct farm subsidies plus indirect support, the pain will depend on how deep U.S. negotiators agree to cut. But, in exchange, there could be deals for international services, such as banking and insurance, as well as for manufacturing sectors such as computers and cars. Also at risk is the WTO's reputation, damaged after trade negotiations in Mexico collapsed in 2003 following a failed trade summit in Seattle in 1999. Ironically, many French farmers today criticize the subsidies, claiming they make farmers less efficient by growing crops based on the financial assistance they will receive, instead of rotating crops to help replenish the soil, Durand says. "It's the subsidy that determines whether a certain crop is worth growing or not," he says. On farms north of the Loire Valley, he says by way of an example, you almost never see sunflowers anymore. That's because farmers are paid the same subsidy for sunflowers and rapeseed, and sunflowers need more sun and attract more hungry birds. "The subsidy is set arbitrarily by (EU lawmakers in) Brussels, without consideration to regional traditions. Because of that, the face of agriculture in France has changed. Because of that, the sunflower is scratched from the list, just like that," he says, flicking his hand. Durand admits he also cultivates his land to maximize his revenue (he earns $35,000 a year) and take advantage of subsidies. Because farmers are paid based on what they produce, they produced gluts of butter and milk. In January, the system will change and farmers will be paid a subsidy based on an average of what they produced the last three years. "It's absurd," Durand says. "In the fourth year, (the farmer) can work less and take less and less responsibility. He will be paid off historical amounts, not how he's working now." Free trade ideas challenged But free trade is getting a bad name in France, where unemployment is almost 10% and double that in immigrant quarters (where rioters recently torched cars and schools). Labor unions are being forced to give concessions in order to stop companies from moving factories to Eastern and Central Europe, where wages and benefits are lower. In May, France voted against a constitution for the European Union, a political and economic alliance of 25 countries, partly out of fear of competition from cheaper labor in Eastern and Central Europe. "If you work in a factory making textiles, you have to find another job, but what job?" Ligeard explains. "They voted against the referendum because of a concern that we're playing with the rest of the world but not by the same rules so we're not going to gain. We're playing at a considerable handicap." French President Jacques Chirac, whose approval ratings have skidded to 35%, according to a survey by IFOP published this month in Le Journal du Dimanche, is under severe pressure to protect French farmers, who, despite representing only 2.5% of the workforce, wield a lot of political power. France, which will be represented in Hong Kong by the European Union, has agreed to an EU proposal to eliminate subsidies for agricultural exports, which account for 8% of the EU's agricultural aid budget of $53 billion. Last week, the Europeans also agreed to cut sugar subsidies by 36% over four years. European governments pay their farmers three times the price of sugar on the world market. Now, France wants the U.S. to abolish its food-aid program for poor countries, claiming it subsidizes farmers, and instead give cash aid so poor countries can buy what food they need wherever they want. "If you want us to eliminate our export subsidies, we want you to eliminate your food-aid program and give aid in cash," Ligeard says. In response, Neena Moorjani, spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative, said, "The U.S. has put forward proposals to put additional disciplines around food aid that will prevent commercial displacement. We are concerned with proposals by the EU that would allow food aid on a cash-only basis." Moorjani said, "Research shows that when countries move to cash-only policies, the amount of food aid they give declines." The French also are demanding that developing countries, such as Brazil, India and China, open their markets to French cars and other manufactured products, as well as to banks and other service companies. But developing countries, which are the majority of the WTO's 148 members, have dug their trenches. "They're saying to big countries, 'If you're serious about opening global markets so we can benefit from international trade, you have to open your markets to our food products. You promised us you would in (trade negotiations from 1986 to 1994) Uruguay, and you didn't,'" says John Audley, a trade expert at the German Marshall Fund, a trans-Atlantic think tank. Many Europeans, however, remember the days after World War II, when people starved because there wasn't enough food. That crisis was the genesis of Europe's agricultural policies, which were designed to create and support a self-sufficient food supply. At Durand's farmhouse -- 6,100 miles from Hong Kong -- he knows French subsidies are on the bargaining table. He knows Europe's agricultural policies will change, if not in this trade round, in another. "I already made my own revolution," he says. "I must be an opportunist in the face of the system. If the system is absurd, I must be absurd." | |
