International: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 30 Document Number: D10565
Notes:
4 pages., via website, The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy., As Congress and the public debate the pros and cons of the United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement (USMCA), or New NAFTA, behind the scenes and in the shadows transnational
corporations are doubling down on their plans to weaken and eliminate public protections
through a related entity, the secretive Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC). This littleknown council has the mission of promoting trade by “reducing, eliminating or preventing
unnecessary regulatory differences” between Canada and the United States. Since the RCC’s
inception, agribusiness—including factory-farmed livestock producers, the feed industry, and
chemical and pesticide manufacturers and linked transportation businesses—has had a seat at
the regulatory cooperation table. Their focus, without exception, has been advocating the
scaling back and even elimination of important safety protections in both countries. In the U.S.,
recommendations made by the RCC feed directly into regulations enacted (or eliminated) by
the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection
Agency, among others
Axinn, George H. (author / Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University) and Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
1988
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 72 Document Number: C03372
James F. Evans Collection; Axinn, This paper presents some of the basic trends, issues, and questions regarding the last four decades of international development cooperation in agriculture. The impact of technical cooperation tends to account for only a small proportion of change; the bulk of the variance being caused by internal, rather than external, forces and events. The paper reviews both multilateral and bilateral technical cooperation and then illustrates with the case of U.S. universities in international technical cooperation. It goes on to question the difference between "development" and "merely change", and asks who are the real beneficiaries: Finally, the paper suggests the following factors affecting continuity and change as forces to be analyzed with respect to any attempt at technical cooperation: biological, physical, cultural, social, economic, administrative, political, and diplomatic. The world experience of the past four decades confirms that without consideration of such a human ecology of continuity and change, well-meaning interventions in international technical cooperation are likely to have unintended consequences for both "donors" and recipients". (author)
International: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 30 Document Number: D10564
Notes:
2 pages., via website, The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy., Regulation gets a bad name in much of the world today. Business lobbies have successfully equated it in many people’s minds with just so much “red tape”. Government-imposed rules on how things are made, how services are delivered and what products have no place on the market at all are said to hamper business competitiveness. Precautionary measures aimed at safeguarding people’s health, or the health of fragile water bodies and ecosystems, are labelled unfair barriers to trade and investment — a claim made increasingly over the past quarter-century of corporate globalization.
