I will ask you to summarize at three minutes.

MR. TOKAR: Sure.

Good morning. My name is Brian Tokar. I'm on the faculty of the Institute for Social Ecology, Plainfield, Vermont.

We have heard repeatedly this morning and can read in countless USDA documents that the continuing prosperity of American farmers depends on the continuation and the furtherance of the so-called free trade agenda of tariff reduction, deregulation of markets and the elimination of all but the most non-controversial measures to protect public health and safety. I want to argue that nothing could be further from the truth.

While some large growers and their mentors at the helm of largest agribusiness firms are getting rich from this agenda of economic globalization, it is devastating for small farmers and ordinary citizens here in Vermont and throughout the world.

For most of human history, food has been more than simply a commodity to be bought, sold and traded. It has represented the integrity of human cultures and communities. People have grown their food with a rich appreciation, gained over thousands of years, of the unique qualities of their place on earth; its climate, its soils, its vegetation, what gross well what time of year as well, as we as people's unique local preferences.

Today the voices of free trade would have us create one worldwide market for agricultural products, upon which all of humanity is to depend. The results of this are accelerated depletion of soils, increased pollution of waterways, a food supply increasingly tainted with toxic chemicals, and more and more communities of people around the world deprived of the right to their own sustenance. The same corporations that have grown to dominate the production of agricultural chemicals now seek to control production and trade of pharmaceuticals and even seeds. The world's three largest sellers of seeds are now the chemical companies Du Pont, Monsanto and Novartis. They are working to systematically replace the seed varieties our farmers depend on with genetically engineered varieties that have already been shown to disrupt the balances, aggressively cross pollinate with related species, harm beneficial insects, and that may also be quite hazardous to our health.

Food safety standards should only be based on sounds science, we are told. This seems very reasonable. But whose science are our standards to be based on and who will carry the burden of proof? Studies of the environmental and health consequences of genetically engineered feeds are only beginning to catch up with 20 years of aggressive research to commercialize genetic engineering. The more evidence we see, the more it confirms what biotechnology opponents have been saying all along. Scientific uncertainty must not be used as a smoke screen to forestall open public discussion and to prevent implementation of a more precautionary approach such as we need to protect the safety and integrity of our food supply.

We are told that European fears of genetically engineered foods are irrational and the Europeans are told that we in the U.S. support the agenda of the biotechnology industry. Both of these claims are completely wrong. Agriculture Secretary Glickman has recently acknowledged that genetically engineered crops, which benefit a few corporations at the expense of our health, the environment, the integrity of our agricultural communities probably cannot be forced down the throats of unwilling European consumers. But our Trade Representative's office, with the aid of the USDA representatives, continues to promote the agenda of replacing the world's most essential food crops with the uncertainty and likely dangerous products of bio-technology.

It is time that the put an end to this thoroughly wrongheaded policy. It is time to stop dismissing social necessities as trade barriers. It is not acceptable that non- technically treated, non-genetically engineered foods just become a niche market for the affluent few while more people are being sold staple foods that might be hazardous to grow and to consume. It is unhealthy, unjust and unethical for policies regarding something as basic as our food to be determined only by commercial considerations. The patenting of living organisms, as mandated by the GATT TRIPS agreement is a moral and ethical outrage.

MR. ALLBEE: Please summarize.

MR. TOKAR: Free trade in agricultural products represents a race to the bottom in terms of health, the environment and the survival of rural communities. One more sentence. Rather than continuing this agenda in Seattle this fall, the cause of justice demands that we replace the WTO with a truly democratic entity that represents not just commercial interests but the fullest aspirations of all the world's peoples.

(Applause.)