Please identify yourself.

MS. CHILD: I'm Mary Child. I'm sorry that you aren't on a more (inaudible).

MR. SCHUMACHER: Me too.

MS. CHILD: It doesn't take much. I'll begin.

As the purpose of this session is to solicit public comment on agricultural trade priorities, I will address this in relation to our agricultural policy in general, and more specifically, to remarks made by Secretary Glickman last Tuesday before the National Press Club.

It has been clear to me for some time that we no longer have government in America for the people, by the people, and of the people. In general what we have today in America is government for corporations.

Secretary Glickman maintains that the USDA is taking an arms length regulatory stance when it comes to biotechnology. This  is another way of stating that the USDA will not do anything that will impede the development of biotechnology or compromise corporate interest and control.

This non action is in effect an action. It is a statement to all citizens of all countries in the world that the U.S. government's first line of responsibilities is to its corporations. This is made even more clear because the corporations are well down the road of development and marketing genetically modified products. The very subjects that we are discussing here today, consumer concerns, fairness to farmers, corporate infringement on fourth amendment and constitutional rights of individual landowners, the risk of public health, safety and environment, the unscrupulous tactics of western corporations worldwide, are the very kinds of issues that a government acting for the people would be highly concerned with addressing; not sidestepping in favor of pushing through the corporate agenda at home and within the rest of world.

One issue that is being sidestepped is the loss of the small farm and the undermining of rural communities. What is the true cost of that loss to our society? One of the corporations involved in highly unscrupulous practices that are undermining farming communities is Monsanto. As a condition of for roundup ready soybean seeds, farmers sign a contract that allows for an unannounced search and seizure on their property by a corporate entity for a full three years after the purchase of the seeds.

Monsanto is currently suing some 475 farmers for violation of contract agreements. Monsanto has sponsored radio endorsements in Illinois during the fall soybean harvests that actually named farmers who had been caught saving seed.

They maintain a widely advertised toll free telephone tip line for neighbors to report each other for suspected violations of seed contracts. Why is the corporation about to enter into a contract that grossly infringes on an individual's constitutional rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment? Where, I ask you, is the government for the people?

Another issue that's being sidestepped in the name of taking an arms length regulatory stance is that of people wanting to know if they are eating food that contains genetically modified organisms. Why do we have to demand to know what is in our foods?

What insults me the most is I'm supposed to believe that this is all in the name of the USDA not wanting to regulate, when it's clear that what matters here is the corporate interests and the corporate bottom line.

There is a pattern here in the United States that is being spread to the rest of the world. In the past as well as most recent history, proliferation of corporate agriculture and extraction based industry has resulted in environmental degradation and loss of small farms as people are forced to seek employment and relocate to more industrialized areas.

We don't have to look very far to see this pattern played out as it has been in the coal industry and the unchecked growth of factory poultry production.

Development initiatives by large western corporations in many third world countries increasingly result in the creation of extraction based industry, and along with it an increasing national debt. The policies and implementation of corporate agriculture are displacing indigenous people from the land and farms, breaking up families and forcing them into cities to look for work.

MR. ALLBEE: Please summarize.

MS. CHILD: Our government and the World Trade Organization has shown considerable enthusiasm for leveling the playing field in the interest of international corporations. Can you begin to demonstrate some enthusiasm for leveling the playing field in the interest of local people, economies, and ecosystems? Have you totally redefined the concept of quality of life we live --

MR. ALLBEE: Please, please --

MS. CHILD: -- with a dollar sign and the corporate bottom line?

MR. ALLBEE: Thank you.

(Applause).

MR. SCHUMACHER: Secretary Glickman did speak July 13 at a national press conference. I was very proud of the speech he made. I'll put in quotes --

MS. CHILD: I find the speech was totally muddled.

MR. SCHUMACHER: Let me read a couple of quotations from the speech that I think we all know were said. (inaudible). Biotechnology developers must keep farmers informed of the latest trends not just research, but in the marketplace as well. Contracts with farmers need to be fair, not result in a system that reduces to mere (inaudible) mistrust between farmers and companies. And I think that addresses --

MS. CHILD: I think it's already happened. My point is that it's a past tense. There has already been mistrust involved by allowing Monsanto to go forward with these contracts. It's already happening. It's past tense.

MR. SCHUMACHER: I think the Secretary

MS. CHILD: It's not being addressed. It's empty words. (inaudible).

MR. SCHUMACHER: This is what the secretary called on for the company to do. And your comments --

MS. CHILD: With all due respect, it's after the fact. A government for the people would not be allowing this to happen. Where we have to go back and push you to say why. This is undermining the fabric of this society.

(Applause).

MR. ALLBEE: We'll try to proceed so others can speak.

MR. SCHUMACHER: Thank you.