Industrial Agriculture - Revision history

Florez4747: /* Tillage */

2023-07-29T22:13:20Z

Tillage

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 29 July 2023
Line 87:		Line 87:

	= Tillage =		= Tillage =
			Industrial Agriculture depends on tilling the land year after year and this activity has negative effects on soil biota communities. Tillage reduces diversity of wild plants and beneficial soil organisms.<Ref>Essel, E.; Junhong, X.; Chaochao, D.; Zhengkai, P.; Jinbin, W.W.; Jicheng, S.; Jianhui, X.; Jeffrey, A.C.; Lingling, L. Bacterial and fungal diversity in rhizosphere and bulk soil under different long-term tillage and cereal/legume rotation. Soil Till. Res. 2019, 194, 104302.</Ref><Ref>Víllora, R.A.; Plaza, E.H.; Navarrete, L.; Sánchez, M.J.; Sánchez, A.M. Climate and tillage system drive weed communities’ functional diversity in a Mediterranean cereal-legume rotation. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 283, 106574.</Ref> [[Mycelium]] is especially negatively affected by tillage<Ref>Oehl, F.; Sieverding, E.; Ineichen, K.; Ris, E.H.; Boller, T.; Wiemken, A. Community structure of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi at different soil depthsin extensively and intensively managed agroecosystems. New Phyt. 2005, 165, 273–283.</Ref>

	= Pesticides and Insecticides =		= Pesticides and Insecticides =

Florez4747: /* Artificial Fertilizers */

2023-07-29T22:10:18Z

Artificial Fertilizers

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:10, 29 July 2023
Line 83:		Line 83:

	https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/66/7/1528/656749 <br>		https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/66/7/1528/656749 <br>



			= Tillage =

	= Pesticides and Insecticides =		= Pesticides and Insecticides =

Florez4747: /* Bayer-Monsanto */

2023-07-11T00:02:28Z

Bayer-Monsanto

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:02, 11 July 2023
Line 144:		Line 144:
	== Bayer-Monsanto ==		== Bayer-Monsanto ==

			=== Mokulele farm ===
			[[Bayer-Monsanto]]'s Mokulele on [[Ka Pae Aina]] farm tests new strains of genetically modified corn seed and sprays pesticides/ insecticides on the crops.<Ref>https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/magazine/entry/toxic-drift/</Ref>

			=== 2014 Lawsuit ===
			"In a plea agreement submitted to the Honolulu district court on November 21 [2019], Monsanto-Bayer pleaded guilty to illegally spraying one of the world’s most toxic pesticides, [[Methyl Parathion]], in Maui in 2014, six months after the US Environmental Protection Agency banned it. In addition, the company admitted to using the pesticide in a manner that endangered the lives of the field workers who did the spraying. It was also found guilty of illegally storing, transporting and disposing of the chemical after the ban."<Ref>https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/monsanto-guilty-of-spraying-banned-pesticide-on-maui-fields/</Ref>

			As a result of the guilty plea Monsanto-Bayer was ordered to pay 6.2 million dollars in criminal fines and an additional 4 million in community service payments. "The proposal, however, did not impose personal fines or prison sentences on any Monsanto employees."<Ref>https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/monsanto-guilty-of-spraying-banned-pesticide-on-maui-fields/</Ref>

			=== 2020 Lawsuit ===
			Monsanto was charged with 30 environmental crimes after letting workers go into corn crops that had been sprayed with a chemical named Forfeit 280 and for illegally storing certain agriculture chemicals on Maui and Molokai. Federal law states 6 days must passed after spraying the chemical before anyone is allowed to enter the area.<Ref>https://apnews.com/article/business-environment-and-nature-crime-hawaii-honolulu-ed13f915250b1e1fbb4ffb7ed2e5ab71</Ref>

	== Syngenta ==		== Syngenta ==

Florez4747: /* Syngenta */

2023-07-11T00:01:47Z

Syngenta

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:01, 11 July 2023
Line 146:		Line 146:

	== Syngenta ==		== Syngenta ==
			[[File:RedDust.jpg\|\|thumb\|right\|Red Dust coming up from biochemical fields. Photo by Samuel Morgan Shaw.]]
			According to [[Syngenta]]'s website they "... invest and innovate to transform the way crops are grown and protected to bring about positive, lasting change in agriculture. We help farmers manage a complex set of challenges from nature and society. Our approach is to ensure that everybody wins: that farmers are prosperous, agriculture becomes more sustainable, and consumers have safe, healthy and nutritious food."<Ref>https://www.syngenta.com/en/company/our-purpose-and-contribution</Ref> <br>

			Syngenta's method of achieving these, seemingly, noble goals is by wantonly spraying toxic pesticides and insecticides over crops to test their resistance to the chemicals and as a result the Ka Pae Aina's Native residents have been poisoned enmasse by these loosely regulated experiments. Residents have described the test sites as releasing large red dust clouds into the air covering their houses and cars with a thin layer of red- especially during periods of high winds. Because the island is able to grow food year round these types of experiments, involving mass chemical spraying of crops, also occur year round.<Ref>https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2014/05/report-finds-pesticide-residues-in-hawaiis-waterways/</Ref> The mass testing of toxic chemicals has caused residents to dub Waimea, located on the island of Kauai, where much of Syngenta's spraying took place, "Poison Valley." <Ref>https://grist.org/business-technology/gmo-companies-are-dousing-hawaiian-island-with-toxic-pesticides/</Ref>

			=== 2016 Ka Pae Aina Lawsuit ===
			In 2016 [[Syngenta]] sprayed a pesticide on one of its farms in Kekaha, Kauai, [[Ka Pae Aina]] containing chlorpyrifos, over genetically modified corn crops. According to EPA regulations after spraying chlorpyrifos it is required to wait 24 hours before sending workers into the field or require workers to wear protective gear, but [[Syngenta]] did neither sending 19 workers into the contaminated fields. Syngenta allegedly did not realize what had happened and after realizing isolated and decontaminated 35 workers- the EPA deemed the decontamination efforts were insufficient. 10 of the workers were eventually sent to the hospital, due to chemical exposure, with three staying over night, which the EPA also deemed to be insufficient due to [[Syngenta]]'s lack of urgency <Ref>https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-02/documents/fifra-09-2017-0001-syngenta_seeds_llc_amended_complaint-2018-01-12.pdf</Ref> <Ref>https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/newsreleases/epa-reaches-agreement-syngenta-farmworker-safety-violations-kauai.html</Ref> <br>

			In 2017 another incident occurred when Syngenta sprayed the same chemical over fields and did not properly post warning signs indicating there was poison covering the crops. Five crews containing 42 employees were potentially exposed to the toxic chemical and at least one worker displayed symptoms of [[pesticide poisoning]]. After the incidents the EPA filed a lawsuit against [[Syngenta]] on behalf of the affected workers. "The result of oversights allegedly affecting as many as 77 workers — involving multiple failures to warn, properly post signs and the like — led to a 388-count complaint. With maximum penalties as high as $19,000 per violation, Syngenta faced potentially millions of dollars in fines."<Ref>https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/02/epa-settles-syngenta-pesticide-claim-for-pennies-on-the-dollar/</Ref> <br>

			Instead of the proposed 4.8 million dollars the EPA was seeking in damages, based on the 2016 incident alone, Syngenta and the EPA reached a settlement agreement of 400 thousand dollars to pay for 11 worker protection training sessions for growers and an additional 150 thousand dollar civil penalty. The agreement was about 3 percent of what the EPA originally announced it was seeking.<Ref>https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/newsreleases/epa-reaches-agreement-syngenta-farmworker-safety-violations-kauai.html</Ref> <br>

			In response, Alexis Strauss, a regional administrator of the EPA, stated: “You don’t get to settle with a company by getting the maximum amount for every violation.”<Ref>https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/02/epa-settles-syngenta-pesticide-claim-for-pennies-on-the-dollar/</Ref>

	= Climate Collapse =		= Climate Collapse =

Florez4747: /* Pesticides and Insecticides */

2023-07-10T23:59:56Z

Pesticides and Insecticides

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:59, 10 July 2023
Line 141:		Line 141:

	<Blockquote>Earthworms play a significant role in the soil ecosystem by acting as bio-indicators of soil contamination and as models for soil toxicity testing. Earthworms also contribute to soil fertility. Pesticides have not spared earthworms from their toxic effects and the later is exposed to the former mainly via contaminated soil pore water. Schreck et al. (2008) reported that insecticides and/or fungicides produce neurotoxic effects in earthworms and after a long term exposure they are physiologically damaged. Glyphosate and chlorpyrifos have deleterious effects on earthworms at the cellular level causing DNA damage. Glyphosates affect feeding activity and viability of earthworms. Goulson reviewed the harms of neonicotinoids on environment and animal life. He reported that as neonicotinoids have a tendency to accumulate in the soil, therefore, they can kill earthworms such as Eisenia foetida species.<Ref>Mahmood, I., Imadi, S. R., Shazadi, K., Gul, A., & Hakeem, K. R. (2016). Effects of Pesticides on Environment. Plant, Soil and Microbes, 253–269. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27455-3_13</Ref></Blockquote>		<Blockquote>Earthworms play a significant role in the soil ecosystem by acting as bio-indicators of soil contamination and as models for soil toxicity testing. Earthworms also contribute to soil fertility. Pesticides have not spared earthworms from their toxic effects and the later is exposed to the former mainly via contaminated soil pore water. Schreck et al. (2008) reported that insecticides and/or fungicides produce neurotoxic effects in earthworms and after a long term exposure they are physiologically damaged. Glyphosate and chlorpyrifos have deleterious effects on earthworms at the cellular level causing DNA damage. Glyphosates affect feeding activity and viability of earthworms. Goulson reviewed the harms of neonicotinoids on environment and animal life. He reported that as neonicotinoids have a tendency to accumulate in the soil, therefore, they can kill earthworms such as Eisenia foetida species.<Ref>Mahmood, I., Imadi, S. R., Shazadi, K., Gul, A., & Hakeem, K. R. (2016). Effects of Pesticides on Environment. Plant, Soil and Microbes, 253–269. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27455-3_13</Ref></Blockquote>

			== Bayer-Monsanto ==


			== Syngenta ==

	= Climate Collapse =		= Climate Collapse =

Florez4747: /* World Trade Organization */

2023-07-08T22:43:01Z

World Trade Organization

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:43, 8 July 2023
Line 210:		Line 210:
	== TRIPs ==		== TRIPs ==
	TRIPs or the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights		TRIPs or the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights
			<Blockquote>Prior to the WTO, all patenting and intellectual property rules were under the purview of national governments. Most developing countries favored a sui generis community-based patent system which often exempted agriculture, medicine, and other essential products and processes from control by national patent laws. Such policies aimed to acknowledge generations-old traditional local knowledge and ensure that basic necessities of life remained available to all, as a “commons,” in the public domain. Thus, sui generis systems promoted local seed saving, seed research, and seed exchange. ... <br><br>

			TRIPs, however, allows seeds, plants, and other life forms (e.g., “micro organisms”) to be patented by global corporations located far outside the community or nation. Through the WTO, sui generis systems are being undermined and abandoned, and countries are forced to convert to a western-style system of intellectual property rights, which means that nothing is exempt from patent laws, unless explicitly exempted in TRIPs. <BR><Br>

			The basic framework for the TRIPs system was conceived and shaped by the Intellectual Property Committee (IPC) of the United States, and by industry associations of Japan and Europe. The IPC coalition represented thirteen major U.S. corporations including Bristol Myers, Dupont, General Electric, General Motors, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Monsanto, Pfizer, Rockwell and Warmer. This body provided the major impetus for internationalizing intellectual property rights within the WTO. The control of local community innovation, once considered an inherent right of communities, has now become a statutory right of corporations.<Ref>http://www.meadowviewfarmandgarden.com/resources/The%20Rise%20and%20Predictable%20Fall%20of%20Globalized%20Industrial%20Agriculture.pdf</Ref></Blockquote>

	= Corporations =		= Corporations =

Florez4747: /* Agreement On Agriculture */

2023-07-08T21:55:59Z

Agreement On Agriculture

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:55, 8 July 2023
Line 191:		Line 191:

	=== Dumping ===		=== Dumping ===
	<Blockquote>Related to subsidies is the issue dumping, i.e., the practice of selling a product at a price below the actual cost of production. According to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), U.S. grain companies that dominate the global market are engaged in widespread dumping. In 2003, wheat was exported at 28 percent below its cost of production, soybeans were dumped at 10 percent below cost, corn was dumped at 10 percent below cost, cotton was dumped at 47 percent and rice at 26 percent below cost. This practice has devastated many developing countries’ economies. <br>		<Blockquote>Related to subsidies is the issue dumping, i.e., the practice of selling a product at a price below the actual cost of production. According to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), U.S. grain companies that dominate the global market are engaged in widespread dumping. In 2003, wheat was exported at 28 percent below its cost of production, soybeans were dumped at 10 percent below cost, corn was dumped at 10 percent below cost, cotton was dumped at 47 percent and rice at 26 percent below cost. This practice has devastated many developing countries’ economies. <br><br>

	Two main factors contribute to dumping: 1) Large-scale farms and agribusiness have been allowed to maintain, and even increase, subsidies for many export crops; and, concurrently, 2) WTO rules require developing countries to open their markets to imports, yet have stripped away traditional mechanisms such as quantitative import restrictions that could help safeguard against dumping. <br>		Two main factors contribute to dumping: 1) Large-scale farms and agribusiness have been allowed to maintain, and even increase, subsidies for many export crops; and, concurrently, 2) WTO rules require developing countries to open their markets to imports, yet have stripped away traditional mechanisms such as quantitative import restrictions that could help safeguard against dumping. <br><br>

	As a result, the practice of dumping on poor developing countries continues to destroy self-reliant food economies and farmer livelihoods. For example: Haitian and Honduran rice farmers lost their farm incomes when those countries were forced to reduce their tariffs, according to the rules of the WTO and the IMF. They were suddenly faced with an influx of subsidized U.S. rice. Jamaican dairy farmers cannot compete with cheap subsidized milk powder from Europe. And subsidized cotton from the U.S. has also wiped out the cotton market in many African countries, particularly Mali, Benin, and Burkina Faso, which have lost twice as much from the drop in cotton prices as they receive in U.S. foreign aid. <br>		As a result, the practice of dumping on poor developing countries continues to destroy self-reliant food economies and farmer livelihoods. For example: Haitian and Honduran rice farmers lost their farm incomes when those countries were forced to reduce their tariffs, according to the rules of the WTO and the IMF. They were suddenly faced with an influx of subsidized U.S. rice. Jamaican dairy farmers cannot compete with cheap subsidized milk powder from Europe. And subsidized cotton from the U.S. has also wiped out the cotton market in many African countries, particularly Mali, Benin, and Burkina Faso, which have lost twice as much from the drop in cotton prices as they receive in U.S. foreign aid. <br><br>

	Technically, the WTO prohibits dumping and gives countries the right to impose special anti-dumping duties against offending countries. However, the rules require that countries must prove that they have been harmed by dumping, which is a complicated, challenging and expensive process, particularly for smaller countries. Few small countries can afford to challenge powerful economic players like the United States.<Ref>http://www.meadowviewfarmandgarden.com/resources/The%20Rise%20and%20Predictable%20Fall%20of%20Globalized%20Industrial%20Agriculture.pdf</Ref></Blockquote>		Technically, the WTO prohibits dumping and gives countries the right to impose special anti-dumping duties against offending countries. However, the rules require that countries must prove that they have been harmed by dumping, which is a complicated, challenging and expensive process, particularly for smaller countries. Few small countries can afford to challenge powerful economic players like the United States.<Ref>http://www.meadowviewfarmandgarden.com/resources/The%20Rise%20and%20Predictable%20Fall%20of%20Globalized%20Industrial%20Agriculture.pdf</Ref></Blockquote>

			=== Summary ===
			<Blockquote>In sum, the rules of AoA are strongly biased in favor of the rich countries and giant agribusiness interests, which are effectively allowed to subsidize export commodities that are then dumped in poorer countries. Meanwhile, developing countries have been stripped of their few mechanisms, such as quantitative restrictions, to safeguard their food base and rural livelihoods. <Br> <br>

			Finally, subsidies that enable dumping also contribute to the steady erosion of independent and small-scale producers in the North. Such subsidies contribute to declining prices paid to farmers, making farmers even more dependent on subsidies. The increasing need to earn income off-farm, and declining net farm incomes indicate failed policies that facilitate the sale of commodities at less than the cost of production prices.<Ref>http://www.meadowviewfarmandgarden.com/resources/The%20Rise%20and%20Predictable%20Fall%20of%20Globalized%20Industrial%20Agriculture.pdf</Ref></Blockquote>

	== SPS ==		== SPS ==

Florez4747: /* Corporations */

2023-07-08T21:51:42Z

Corporations

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:51, 8 July 2023
Line 209:		Line 209:
	See: [[Bayer-Monsanto]] \| [[Syngenta]] \| [[General Mills]] \| [[White Oak Pastures#Shell Oil\|Silicon Ranch Corporation]]		See: [[Bayer-Monsanto]] \| [[Syngenta]] \| [[General Mills]] \| [[White Oak Pastures#Shell Oil\|Silicon Ranch Corporation]]
	<Blockquote>Over the course of the twentieth century, the profits earned in agriculture have increasingly been diverted away from farmers, accruing instead to both the “upstream” agricultural input businesses that sell seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, and machinery to farmers and the “downstream” food processors, distributors, and retailers that buy farm output. The search for profits in agri-food supply chains thus incentivizes agribusinesses to sell farmers technologies that have contributed to water pollution, climate change, and biodiversity decline. Farmers’ dependence on these inputs has driven up their costs (and reliance on debts) while producing high yields that ultimately drive down the prices they receive for their goods, a “cost–price squeeze” that has devastated smaller or otherwise marginalized farmers. At the inter- national level, differential power relations are at the core of “food regime theory,” which interprets agri-food system dynamics and their environmental implications historically as a product of colonial legacies and geopolitical struggle. In short, for critical scholars of agrarian change, the planetary impact of agriculture—the monocropped landscapes, the greenhouse gas emissions, the nitrogen pollution—is the outcome of highly unequal distributions of profit and power. It is the struggle between human groups—not humanity as a whole—that explains the ecological crises of modern-day agriculture.<Ref>Emily Reisman & Madeleine Fairbairn (2020): Agri-Food Systems and the Anthropocene, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1828025</Ref></Blockquote>		<Blockquote>Over the course of the twentieth century, the profits earned in agriculture have increasingly been diverted away from farmers, accruing instead to both the “upstream” agricultural input businesses that sell seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, and machinery to farmers and the “downstream” food processors, distributors, and retailers that buy farm output. The search for profits in agri-food supply chains thus incentivizes agribusinesses to sell farmers technologies that have contributed to water pollution, climate change, and biodiversity decline. Farmers’ dependence on these inputs has driven up their costs (and reliance on debts) while producing high yields that ultimately drive down the prices they receive for their goods, a “cost–price squeeze” that has devastated smaller or otherwise marginalized farmers. At the inter- national level, differential power relations are at the core of “food regime theory,” which interprets agri-food system dynamics and their environmental implications historically as a product of colonial legacies and geopolitical struggle. In short, for critical scholars of agrarian change, the planetary impact of agriculture—the monocropped landscapes, the greenhouse gas emissions, the nitrogen pollution—is the outcome of highly unequal distributions of profit and power. It is the struggle between human groups—not humanity as a whole—that explains the ecological crises of modern-day agriculture.<Ref>Emily Reisman & Madeleine Fairbairn (2020): Agri-Food Systems and the Anthropocene, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1828025</Ref></Blockquote>

			== Product Dumping ==
			<Blockquote>The dumping problem also stems from the built-in bias of most global rules toward giant agriculture corporations. These corporations have been able to concentrate their domination over many of the world’s agricultural commodities and control global prices and supply. A handful of companies now trade virtually all the world’s corn, cotton, wheat, and soybeans, with trade in coffee, sugar, and other tropical specialty crops also highly concentrated. For example, in 2002, the largest six grain-handling companies controlled three quarters of the world’s cereal commodity market. Similar oligarchic conditions exist in both farm supplies (seeds, chemicals) and in food processing and distribution. This leaves small farmers in both rich and poor countries subject to the whims of corporations, commodity brokers, and the market, and generally unable to get fair prices for their products. The ultimate control over farm livelihoods is now the domain of a handful of corporations.<Ref>http://www.meadowviewfarmandgarden.com/resources/The%20Rise%20and%20Predictable%20Fall%20of%20Globalized%20Industrial%20Agriculture.pdf</Ref></Blockquote>

	= Alternatives =		= Alternatives =

Florez4747: /* Agreement On Agriculture */

2023-07-08T21:19:43Z

Agreement On Agriculture

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 8 July 2023
Line 189:		Line 189:

	* Export competition: Countries are required to bind their level of export subsidies to WTO rules, and then reduce subsidies over time.<Ref>http://www.meadowviewfarmandgarden.com/resources/The%20Rise%20and%20Predictable%20Fall%20of%20Globalized%20Industrial%20Agriculture.pdf</Ref></Blockquote>		* Export competition: Countries are required to bind their level of export subsidies to WTO rules, and then reduce subsidies over time.<Ref>http://www.meadowviewfarmandgarden.com/resources/The%20Rise%20and%20Predictable%20Fall%20of%20Globalized%20Industrial%20Agriculture.pdf</Ref></Blockquote>

			=== Dumping ===
			<Blockquote>Related to subsidies is the issue dumping, i.e., the practice of selling a product at a price below the actual cost of production. According to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), U.S. grain companies that dominate the global market are engaged in widespread dumping. In 2003, wheat was exported at 28 percent below its cost of production, soybeans were dumped at 10 percent below cost, corn was dumped at 10 percent below cost, cotton was dumped at 47 percent and rice at 26 percent below cost. This practice has devastated many developing countries’ economies. <br>

			Two main factors contribute to dumping: 1) Large-scale farms and agribusiness have been allowed to maintain, and even increase, subsidies for many export crops; and, concurrently, 2) WTO rules require developing countries to open their markets to imports, yet have stripped away traditional mechanisms such as quantitative import restrictions that could help safeguard against dumping. <br>

			As a result, the practice of dumping on poor developing countries continues to destroy self-reliant food economies and farmer livelihoods. For example: Haitian and Honduran rice farmers lost their farm incomes when those countries were forced to reduce their tariffs, according to the rules of the WTO and the IMF. They were suddenly faced with an influx of subsidized U.S. rice. Jamaican dairy farmers cannot compete with cheap subsidized milk powder from Europe. And subsidized cotton from the U.S. has also wiped out the cotton market in many African countries, particularly Mali, Benin, and Burkina Faso, which have lost twice as much from the drop in cotton prices as they receive in U.S. foreign aid. <br>

			Technically, the WTO prohibits dumping and gives countries the right to impose special anti-dumping duties against offending countries. However, the rules require that countries must prove that they have been harmed by dumping, which is a complicated, challenging and expensive process, particularly for smaller countries. Few small countries can afford to challenge powerful economic players like the United States.<Ref>http://www.meadowviewfarmandgarden.com/resources/The%20Rise%20and%20Predictable%20Fall%20of%20Globalized%20Industrial%20Agriculture.pdf</Ref></Blockquote>

	== SPS ==		== SPS ==

Florez4747: /* Agreement On Agriculture */

2023-07-08T17:58:14Z

Agreement On Agriculture

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 8 July 2023
Line 178:		Line 178:

	== Agreement On Agriculture ==		== Agreement On Agriculture ==
			<Blockquote>The preamble of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) states that the agreement’s intent is to establish a more pure market-based agriculture. According to Martin Khor of the Third World Network, “The WTO has stamped a new paradigm for national economic and social policies worldwide, and a new framework of international economic relations.” <br>

			The AoA focuses on these four areas: <br>

			* Market access: Countries are required to open national and local economies to foreign commodities, and to import a certain minimum level of agricultural products (referred to as “minimum access” rules). <br>

			* Reduced “trade barriers”: Countries are required to convert import quotas (or “non-tariff” controls) into tariffs (taxes), which must then be reduced and/or eliminated over time. <br>

			* Domestic supports: Countries are required to diminish production subsidies and other supports that national governments traditionally extended to domestic farmers. <br>

			* Export competition: Countries are required to bind their level of export subsidies to WTO rules, and then reduce subsidies over time.<Ref>http://www.meadowviewfarmandgarden.com/resources/The%20Rise%20and%20Predictable%20Fall%20of%20Globalized%20Industrial%20Agriculture.pdf</Ref></Blockquote>

	== SPS ==		== SPS ==