MS. ANDERSON: I'm not Denise. She had to leave early. My name is Greta Anderson, and I am here with others representing the Women and Food and Agriculture Network. Our network of women shares research and information on food systems, sustainable communities, and environmental integrity. We welcome the opportunity to participate in this important forum.

As a preface, let me say that we believe the World Trade Organization needs to seriously reconsider its mission in the context of the world's welfare. It has allowed neoliberal economic ideology and the goal of opening global markets to crowd out all other considerations and has put trade and investment first, not people, not democracy, not life. And it has, through largely undemocratic means, gained the power to pursue its narrow goals at the hazard of these other, we believe, more essential values.

We would pose the following three questions to refocus the priorities of the WTO as it concerns agriculture: Is free trade in the interests of the world's people? Is free trade in the interests of American farmers and rural communities? What is free trade doing to the earth's natural capital?

Free trade promotes an agriculture of overproduction. Midwest farmers are proud to be feeding the world. While we share in the farmers' pride in the glorious productivity of our land, we believe the mission of feeding the world, as much as it has become a mission, is fundamentally flawed. It is wrong to force others to depend on you for food. It is wrong to put indigenous farmers out of business.

The farmers' stories we hear from the farmland here in Iowa are very moving. The same stories can be heard from all over the world. If, as Secretary Glickman claims, overproduction is the cause of record low prices worldwide, then more free trade cannot be the answer. We must establish and allow other countries to establish policies that recognize that agriculture is a unique sector of the economy, rooted in place and dependent upon nature. If we truly want the world to be fed, using surpluses to rebuild emergency crop reserves should be an important priority.

Think about it. The corporate sponsors of the Feed the World campaign create seeds that cannot be saved. When U.S.-based factory farms import large shipments of grain from South America, it turns out we are the world, after all. It's time farmers and politicians put the quasi-moral rhetoric aside. Our trade policies are not feeding the world; they are feeding the rich.

Which brings us to number 2: Is free trade in the interests of farmers and rural communities? According to the USDA, U.S. exports jumped 25 percent the first year of the WTO to a record 55 billion. The following year they were at roughly 60 billion, but it's a case of the tortoise and the hare. While exports have declined, imports have continued a steady growth. In terms of agricultural trade balance, we're now behind where we were when we started in 1994. So let's have no more talk of exports. Let's talk bottomline; exports and imports, the agricultural trade balance.

Is free trade good for American farmers? The answer is no. Is it good for multinational corporations? It was invented for them and for those who invest in them. Record low crop prices bring record profits. So-called free trade is a case of capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich.

We've talked about the tortoise and the hare. Let's talk about the goose that lays the golden egg. It's true, topsoil was once measured in feet. Not anymore. It is not our midwestern topsoil that is growing our crops. It's phosphorus mined from Florida, oil from the Middle East, water from the Ogallala aquifer, and so on. With policies that encourage farming and trading by extraction, we run the risk of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. We need rational policy, policy that looks at the long run, that taxes resource depletion and pollution, that encourages us to build up our natural capital again. Invest in farmers and in stewardship of the land.

Finally, a word about sound science and GMOs: Technology and innovation is not that same thing as science. We challenge the USDA and FDA to prove that there is sound science behind its approval of genetically modified crops. We aver that this process has been streamlined to avoid the difficult tests and troubleshooting that such a revolutionary product should face. Once again, we ask the question, who is profiting from this technology?

And I would just like to say that I haven't heard much about organic agriculture as an important export. As an ag journalist, I've spoken with organic exporters who say that our reputation abroad is being damaged by the emphasis and push on GMOs, and maybe we need to reconsider that layoff.