US Farm Bill exposes hypocrisy

Farmers in third world countries, as well as in Australia, are fuming 
over the US Farm Bill which involves an 80 percent increase in subsidies 
for US producers of wheat, cotton, corn, peanuts and other agricultural 
products. The bill will cost an estimated US$180 billion over the next 10 
years.

There are several issues that worry not only Australian and other overseas 
agricultural producers but the family farmers in America as well.

First of all, the lie about "free trade" and "level playing field" is 
finally exposed for what it is — a lie to help huge agro-businesses to 
take total control of agricultural production.

Nearly 80 per cent of the money will go to the richest 10 per cent of US 
farms, mainly agro-industrial enterprises in Midwest and the South.

It is also a bribe to voters in the pending congressional elections in 
swing farm states such as South Dakota, Iowa and Missouri.

As cheap agricultural produce floods world markets, prices will be forced 
down.

The hardest hit will be the poorest of the poor — third world countries 
where agriculture is the main source of income.

The combined value of farm subsidies in the US, Japan and Europe is roughly 
equivalent to the entire gross domestic product of sub-Saharan Africa and 
seven times the sum the rich world gives the poor world in aid.

Western countries often present themselves as "saviours" of the poor 
countries. In fact, they mainly contribute to the poverty through 
structural adjustment programs, unfair trade and, as with this Farm Bill 
plain economic and political thuggery.

The US offers about US$10 billion a year to the world's poor — the lowest 
per capita aid budget of any developed country and peanuts compared to 
their own agricultural subsidies.

There is another aspect of the bill which should be of concern to 
consumers. Amendments to the Bill permit the industry to label irradiated 
food as pasteurised.

In Europe, all irradiated foods intended for consumers and mass caterers 
must be labelled as either "irradiated" or "treated with ionizing 
radiation", even if the treated products constitute less than 25 per cent 
of the finished product.

In contrast, US regulations require only irradiated foods sold in stores to 
be labelled, although spices are exempted.

Non-labelled irradiated food products imported from the US have been found 
in European supermarkets over the past year, causing alarm among European 
consumers and resulting in some US products being removed from shelves.

Irradiation uses gamma rays, X-rays or accelerated electrons that alter the 
molecular structure of food in an attempt to kill pathogens and insects.

The process destroys nutrients, may change the smell, taste and appearance 
of food. It also produces new chemical compounds.

Irradiation is a distinct process that is very different from 
pasteurisation, which uses rapid heating and cooling to partially sterilize 
liquid products, mainly milk.

"There is no reason for Europeans to lower their standards to meet the 
trade agendas of reckless US companies", said Wenonh Hauter, director of 
Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program.

"US companies are proving irresponsible in their labelling of irradiated 
goods. We urge Europeans to continue removing irradiated American products 
from their grocery shelves."

Due to widespread consumer rejection of irradiated food, the irradiation 
industry is seeking to use misleading euphemistic labels it deems less 
threatening to consumers, such as "cold pasteurised" and "electronically 
pasteurised".

But consumer focus groups in the US have unanimously rejected such 
alternative wording as "sneaky" and "deceptive".