Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. Subsidizes Brazilian Cotton to Protect Monsanto's Profits

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 07:01 AM
Original message
U.S. Subsidizes Brazilian Cotton to Protect Monsanto's Profits
via CommonDreams:




Published on Friday, April 8, 2011 by Think Forward
U.S. Subsidizes Brazilian Cotton to Protect Monsanto's Profits

by Emelie Peine


On February 18, Republicans in the House of Representatives defeated an obscure amendment to the House Appropriations bill by a 2-to-1 margin. The Kind Amendment would have eliminated $147 million dollars that the federal government pays every year directly to Brazilian cotton farmers. In an era of nationwide belt tightening, with funding for things like education and the U.S. Farm Bill on the chopping block, defending payments to Brazilian farmers may seem curious.

In order to understand this peculiar political move, one has to look all the way back to 2002, when Brazil filed a case in the WTO challenging U.S. cotton subsidies. In 2004, the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO found in favor of Brazil, ruling that government subsidies afforded U.S. cotton producers an unfair advantage and suppressed the world market price, which damaged Brazil's interests. After multiple appeals the WTO upheld the original ruling, and by 2009 the U.S. still had not reformed its cotton programs. Brazil then asked the WTO for permission to retaliate against the U.S. by imposing trade sanctions. The WTO decided that Brazil was entitled to impose 100-percent tariffs on over 100 different goods of U.S. origin. Even more importantly, however, Brazil was entitled to suspend intellectual property rights for U.S. companies, including patent protections on genetically engineered seeds.

In WTO language, Brazil was allowed to suspend its obligations to U.S. companies under the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. This constituted a major threat to the profits of U.S. agribusiness giants Monsanto and Pioneer, since Brazil is the second largest grower of biotech crops in the world. Fifty percent of Brazil’s corn harvest is engineered to produce the pesticide Bt, and Monsanto’s YieldGard VT Pro is a popular product among Brazilian corn farmers. By targeting the profits of major U.S. corporations, the Brazilian government put the U.S. in a tough spot: either let the subsidies stand and allow Brazilian farmers to plant Monsanto and Pioneer seeds without paying royalties, or substantially reform the cotton program. In essence, Brazil was pitting the interests of Big Agribusiness against those of Big Cotton, and the U.S. government was caught in the middle.

The two governments, however, managed to come up with a creative solution. In a 2009 WTO “framework agreement,” the U.S. created the Commodity Conservation Corporation (CCC), and Brazil created the Brazilian Cotton Institute (BCI). Rather than eliminating or substantially reforming cotton subsidies, the CCC pays the BCI $147 million dollars a year in “technical assistance,” which happens to be the same amount the WTO authorized for trade retaliation specifically for cotton payments. In essence, then, the U.S. government pays a subsidy to Brazilian cotton farmers every year to protect the U.S. cotton program—and the profits of companies like Monsanto and Pioneer. ...............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/08-8



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 07:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well how bout that.
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katnapped Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Never could've predicted! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. So rather than eliminate subsidies to our Big Cotton, we agreed to subsidize Brazil's
cotton farmers, too.

Of course it would have been nicer is the House repubs had voted to end the $3 billion annual subsidy for mega-cotton farmers, and the $147 for Brazilians along with it, rather than voting to maintain the Brazilian subsidy so that they could protect their agribusiness special interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Dems need to shut down the government next year if cotton subsidies aren't ended to both.
I'm so sick of these free-loading Republicans. Red states are the biggest recipients of federal tax dollars and all they do is whine about government spending. It's time to end their gravy-train.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
3. We got cuts in heating for the poor while Brazilian cotton farmers got $147 million.
And our Democratic President and Senate leader were crowing about their great compromise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
6. Well isn't that special!
x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conspirator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
7. That's basically stealing public funds for private corporations nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 03:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC