But, there is no inherent connection between those objectives and trade-distorting agricultural policies. Obviously WTO rules do not establish the priority of national social goals, but WTO rules do discipline the instruments employed in achieving goals. If non-trade concerns stem from deep social yearnings that must be dealt with in many societies, then the task will be to find ways to accommodate the social goals in decoupled ways that are compatible with free trade. While the Uruguay Round established effective disciplines in traditional problem areas, such disciplines have not yet been established in some new areas. The agricultural trading system has much to gain from WTO disciplines on STEs, because they allow some countries to undercut exports based on open market transactions and restrict imports.
Biotechnology holds tremendous promise globally for food consumers, producers, and the environment.
With the world's population growing by about 2 percent annually, there are 80 million more mouths to feed each year. Some countries threaten to adopt policies regarding the importation and planting of bioengineered crops and the labeling of products containing bioengineered foods that are not based on scientifically justified principles. If our farmers are to meet the challenge of feeding an ever-increasing population with a sustainable agricultural system, then they must have access to the new bioengineered varieties. We need to think about how the WTO can help facilitate this new technology. Developing Countries One of the critical components to a successful new round of negotiations will be the full participation of a substantially increased number of developing countries.