Erik, I agree with you that the problem is global corporations, and we should ban the production of harmful chemicals. I certainly am no defender of the chemical producers, who also have managed to shield themselves from liability for their exports. Nor am I a defender of the agricorporations that threaten to monopolize the U.S. food supply. But another way to curtail the use of dangerous pesticides -- and to interest U.S. consumers in the cause -- is to insist that food exported to the United States is free of pesticides and other toxic chemicals. I don't think Mexican producers necessarily are being malicious, but they are using chemicals whose use is illegal in the U.S. (and they also use underpaid laborers) to produce food and export it into the United States at lower cost than U.S. producers, who (are at least supposed to) abide by our regulations. We practically cannot force Mexico to protect its domestic food supply or its farm workers, but we should assert our right to protect our own food supply, as the European Union is trying to do. The global corporations are working to take away that right through "free trade" agreements such as NAFTA, GATT, MAI and the World Trade Organization. NAFTA is a symptom of the free reign of global corporations. I don't see why we should not fight its spread. If large-scale Mexican producers cannot use pesticides on food for export to the U.S., maybe they will scale it back for food destined for the domestic market. We could prohibit the production of dangerous pesticides in the U.S., but we can't prohibit their production elsewhere, and the global corporations will fill that demand (which they admittedly created) somehow. Ultimately, the Mexican people have to demand the enforcement of food and labor safety laws. We should support them where possible. But we should not accept tainted food in the meantime. -- Jim Cullen >Jim- > >The bigger picture may change your mind about the protection of the food >supply. The U.S. produces and exports the very pesticides that you are >worried about reentering the states via Mexican food exports. If we were >really worried about protecting the U.S. instead of protecting corporate >profits we would ban their production and distribution here. > >You make it sound like mexican producers are being malicious about their >food exports, aiming to harm the U.S. Unfortunatly, these practices also >impact the local populations who also eat these foods. Moreover, the >growers and workers in the fields are exposed to these dangerous pesticides >(imported from the U.S. with safety instructions written in ENGLISH) who >die in the fields from overexposure. > >Agriculture is a very complicated industry, with 5 or so companies >controlling well over 1/2 of the global food industry. Many of these >operate in Mexico (Cargill, ConAgra, Continental Grain, and Monsanto, just >to name a few). So many of these injustices aren't committed by the hands >of Mexicans, but by U.S. corporations. > >Protection of food supplies should be a priority of the U.S. but it isn't >NAFTA which is the cause, it is the free reign of our global corporations. > >Erik Leaver >Interhemispheric Resouce Center > ---------------------------------------- THE PROGRESSIVE POPULIST James M. Cullen, Editor P.O. Box 150517, Austin, Texas 78715-0517 Phone: 512-447-0455 Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://www.eden.com/~reporter ----------------------------------------
