If the United States appears skeptical about the implications of multifunctionality for WTO rules, the U.S. objection is not multifunctionality as a factual matter. Each country chooses social objectives for themselves. But, there is no inherent connection between those objectives and trade-distorting agricultural policies. 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. Open trade in agriculture relieves farmers of developing countries of the burden imposed by protectionism and export subsidies while reducing hunger and offering reliable supplies of food at reasonable prices.