GET THOSE BOYS OFF THE FARM! - Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America - page 12

in Bondurant, Iowa, about the “boarded-up small towns” and the “anguish of farm families” as a result of
the legislation.
In 2012, Naylor reflected, “No betrayal was more galling, or the effects more devastating for farmers
and eaters, than Bill Clinton's single-minded pursuit of free trade and his support for the 1996 'Freedom to
Farm' bill.” 18
Fifty years after the CED had developed its plan to remove “excess labor” out of farming, Clinton had
facilitated the final blow. The number of U.S. farmers had been reduced by more than two-thirds, and long
after its original founders were dead, CED's plan for eliminating barriers to free trade and submitting ag-
riculture to market forces had become U.S. law. It took the wholehearted support of President Clinton, a
center-right Democrat, to fully accomplish the radical agenda laid out by the CED in the 1940s—a goal
sought for decades by the most powerful economic interests on Earth.
During the twenty years leading up to the free trade policies and the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill, a
range of corporate interests—banking, manufacturing, energy, pharmaceuticals, and agribusiness—had co-
alesced to control the rules that would govern the global economy. Sharing the philosophy that commercial
interests trump all else, they used campaign contributions, influence peddling, and raw political power to
subordinate domestic health, safety, and environmental regulations. Through a complex web of corporate-
funded trade associations, nonprofit think tanks, public foundations, private clubs, and other institutions,
they plotted the content of international trade rules and U.S. farm policy to maximize profitability—at the
expense of humankind and the environment.
Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on September 13, 1993, commit-
ting his administration to fight for congressional approval of the measure. The heavily contested legislation
divided and weakened the Democratic Party and led to the devastating 1994 midterm elections that ended
forty years of Democratic rule in Congress. Unfortunately, the Congress under Democratic leadership had
not been an advocate for family farmers during this period, and the same was true of President Clinton. As
he promised, NAFTA passed shortly after the 1994 elections—but it did not bring the prosperity the presid-
ent envisioned. Since that time, according to the Economic Policy Institute, NAFTA has been responsible
for the loss of seven hundred thousand U.S. jobs. And 2 million Mexican peasant farmers, unable to com-
pete with U.S. corn, have been forced off their land.
Clinton led the battle to join the controversial World Trade Organization. He fought successfully for
WTO-specific “fast track” authority, an undemocratic procedure that authorizes the president to negotiate
trade agreements that allows Congress to vote only up or down on them, without the possibility of amend-
ment or parliamentary challenge.
U.S. entry into the WTO was approved under the fast-track procedure, during a lame-duck session of
Congress, on December 1, 1994. Countries that join the WTO yield their authority for deciding if agricul-
ture programs, food safety rules, environmental regulations, and worker safety laws are illegal trade barri-
ers. The WTO's structure promotes commerce at the expense of other societal goals. As the final arbiter of
trade disputes, the WTO almost always rules in favor of business interests, restraining member countries
from having health, safety, or environmental rules that companies contend impede trade.
In one of its latest actions against consumer interests, the WTO ruled in November 2011 that the U.S.
requirement for mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for meat is a violation of international trade
law. Canada and Mexico had challenged it, which the United States had passed in 2008 with the aim of
providing consumers with information vital to making informed food choices.
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, says the COOL ruling makes very clear
that “these so-called trade pacts have little to do with trade between countries and everything to do with
major agribusiness corporations selling mystery meat in the United States.” According to Wallach, this was
the third WTO ruling in 2011 against popular U.S. consumer policies. She says, “The ban on candy and