Thank you for this terrific piece. Today's spin and double spin of information boggles the mind. (Now ethanol, apparently, is the villain.)

I've been concerned about NAFTA for some time, particularly in the way it undermines national law by demanding that law not counter corporate interests. I'll claim a bit of ignorance here, but I don't gather that this issue gets much coverage in the press.

P.S. As an aside, I too think Will Smith has a great smile. Your earlier piece made me laugh. Thanks.

That was the most easily read post from you yet Andrew.

Harmonious and euphonious vis a vis my own thoughts.

Victor Quintana laments both high grain prices and the disappearance of campesinos, blaming globalization (specifically, liberalized trade policies) for the results. But it doesn't make any sense.

First off, the problem is not liberalized trade, but trade that hasn't been liberalized *enough*. Quintana makes the point for me: "campesinos... can't compete with U.S. production of corn at artificially low prices". In other words, in a fair market, Mexican corn should be competitive. But it's not, because the U.S. hasn't gotten rid of its corn subsidies. This is where Quintana should be focusing his ire... not at restricting trade but at enforcing WTO agreements by eliminating U.S. corn subsidies. I've also read (and I cannot now find the source) that the Mexican government has already had restrictions on U.S. corn in place. If this is so, then it again would provide a rationale for higher prices.

Second, if corn prices are going up, doesn't that mean that campesinos should soon find work, since the corn business should now be viable, even when facing unfair U.S. trade practices? If not, then at what point would it be profitable?

This seems to me like another instance of anti-globalization crusaders reworking the facts to support their arguments.

einnocent:

"Victor Quintana ... blaming globalization (specifically, liberalized trade policies). "

"This seems to me like another instance of anti-globalization crusaders reworking the facts to support their arguments. "

What are the proper definitions of “Globalization” and “Liberalized Trade Policies” and what are their working definitions ? Anti-globalization crusaders, if not already properly armed, can become so - with the antithetical notion of Fair Trade.

Open channels, for trade, communication, exchanges of ideas, travel and migration – fair exchanges – need not include mention of profit, per se. Free Trade, on the other hand, by introducing profit into the Trade lexicon, intends to maximize it.

And as Andrew’s post acknowledges (when he was in his right mine, prior to bestowing the Star of Righteousness on your comment), higher prices, when the result of profit motives, can be offset by returning the profit to small farmers’ to fuel their efforts at sustainability, productivity, community, diversity, and FOOD SOVEREIGNTY.

And health (see Wiki text below).

"First off, the problem is not liberalized trade, but trade that hasn't been liberalized *enough*."

Maybe this is what earned the Star of Righteousness. Completely Fair Trade. But “Liberalized Trade Policies” and “Globalization” have never been, and have never been intended to be, synonymous with “liberalized trade” if by that you mean “Fair Trade”.

Globalization means Colonialism means "Genocide" (or population control if you prefer) – straight from the mouths of the terms “coiners”. (If you want a look at the trail, well, it "goes to the top".)

Senor Victor Quintana rightly uses these terms, as being synonymous with (in his more pointed references): oligo-controlled market (Cargill, Gruma-AD) and oligopolios and concentration (tortilla production)

"Quintana makes the point for me: "campesinos... can't compete with U.S. production of corn at artificially low prices"."

"In other words, in a fair market, Mexican corn should be competitive. But it's not, because the U.S. hasn't gotten rid of its corn subsidies. "

"This is where Quintana should be focusing his ire... not at restricting trade but at enforcing WTO agreements by eliminating U.S. corn subsidies. "

The Mexican government, wittingly (probably, with U.S. collusion) or not, Unfairly and Restrictively surrendered Mexican’s sovereign right to food self sufficiency. If they had retained this sovereignty, against even your concept of “liberalized trade”, er, protectionism, the farmers could deal themselves – with their giovernment’s assistance (as we enjoy) – with availability or price increases.

WTO agreements = U.S. Corn Subsidies = Globalization = Colonialism = Free Trade = Genocide

"I've also read (and I cannot now find the source) that the Mexican government has already had restrictions on U.S. corn in place. If this is so, then it again would provide a rationale for higher prices."

This is what does not make sense.

1.) The rational given by the Mexican government for abandoning the Mexico strategic grain reserve was “why produce corn in Mexico if we can buy it cheaper in America”. So the government of Mexico can not now be credibly restricting access to American corn.

2.) Are you saying that such a restriction, if instituted anyway, combined with a corn shortage in Mexico is the reason behind the higher corn prices in Mexico, or that the higher prices are justified/desirable and that those events (restriction and shortage) provide good rationale in such justification ? The tortured mind of a Free Trade Crusader, I guess, as in the following:

"Second, if corn prices are going up, doesn't that mean that campesinos should soon find work, since the corn business should now be viable, even when facing unfair U.S. trade practices? If not, then at what point would it be profitable? "

The corn flour we provide Mexico (in place of their indigenous nixtamal) is designed to kill them !

http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/Ag&Energy/3-16-07Biofuel&Tortillas/CRISISOFTORTILLA1.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization

Europe

Maize was introduced to Europeans by Christopher Columbus in the 15th century, with it being grown in Spain as early as 1498. Europeans accepted maize within a generation, but they did not adopt the nixtamalization process, perhaps because the Europeans had more efficient milling processes and so did not need to remove the pericarp.However, without the process maize is a much less beneficial foodstuff, leading to outbreaks of pellagra and kwashiorkor in areas where it became a staple grain, such as certain regions of Italy and Africa. Because of this lack of understanding of the importance of the processing, maize suffered the stigma of being an unhealthy grain that could stave off starvation but lead to malnourishment. For example, this is why polenta was considered the poor person’s food in Italy until its more recent increase in status as gourmet food.

Health benefits

The nutritional benefits are many with nixtamalization. Calcium is increased by 750% with 85% available for digestion. Other vital minerals increase as well including iron, copper and zinc which may be due to the lime being used or the vessels being used to make nixtamal. Niacin is made available for digestion which would otherwise be inaccessible with non-processed maize. Another important aspect of this process’ benefit is the significant reduction (90-94%) of the mycotoxins Fusarium vierticilloides and Fusarium proliferatum which produce fumosins which cause disease in animals and possible carcinoma in humans.

If nixtamal is allowed to ferment, riboflavin, protein, and niacin increase further in addition to amino acids, such as tryptophan and lysine. It has been calculated that residents of rural Mexico acquire 50% of their daily protein and 70% of calories from nixtamal tortillas. Because of the importance of nixtamal to the diet, the Mexican government has mandated that nixtamal flour have further vitamin fortification with vitamins A and C, niacin, riboflavin, folic acid, iron and zinc.