International Economics and Politics.
Agrimultinationals, Farmers and GMOs.
At the last WTO meeting in Doha, Qatar, trade ministers agreed to increase agricultural producers access to markets (especially for poor countries selling to richer countries) and to decrease domestic financial support for agriculture. In theory, this was supposed to lead to freer, more liberalized trade in agricultural products. Trade negotiators promised that "development- of the world's poorer nations would be at the top of their agenda during negotiations over new trade rules that the WTO members launched two years ago. But it was not. Through loopholes and overruling pressure from large multinationals and countries, these large agricultural corporations find a way to keep the money coming in any way they can. Whether it be through genetic agriculture innovations such as GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms) or trade restrictions imposed by the WTO they get their crop most important, which is the cash crop. At the WTO meeting in September of 97 a decision was made pressured by the U.S., backed by companies like Chiquita to create a "level playing field- for agricultural production. This means that family-run farms and local producers have to compete with giant multinational corporations. Since then not much has been made to compensate for the lost dollars in small farmers pockets. According to the WTO ruling, there shouldn't be discrimination based on where the food is produced or even how it is created (which also means, for example, that a country cannot easily say no to genetically modified food and the general public doesn't have to be informed of whether it's genetically modified or not.).
This has affected the way the European Union (EU) has its trade agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP countries) and the Lo'me convention, which is based on cooperation and partnership between the EU and 71 ACP member states.