Remember when the GATT agreement came up and the "loonies" who attacked it talked about losing our sovereignty? Remember how the Clinton administration and Congressional supporters pooh-poohed the concept, saying that it'll give the U.S. the weapons to open up markets? Well, guess what, they were both right. Maybe not today, but eventually our sovereignty will be damaged. We will have no ability to guarantee the safety of products or the purity of foods and drugs, unless the rest of the world agrees with us. It will come to us because, thanks to our big business-beholden government, democracies can't protect themselves.

The EU has declared that beef from cattle treated with growth hormones is unfit for human consumption. The U.S. has protested that as a protectionist move, preventing the import of U.S. beef. A similar battle is taking place with the Japanese over irradiated vegetables. In order to protect our cattle ranchers, we are going to use the World Trade Organization rules to put tariffs on European products. Leaving aside the damage to a fragile European economy, leaving aside the damage to American consumers, the long range implications of this action are frightening.

The GATT and the WTO have a useful function in terms of preventing unfair practices which inhibit free trade. Assuming you believe in the value of open markets, the question is whether there are any limits that individual countries, or trade groups can establish. Obviously, we have the right to prevent Colombia from importing and selling its primary cash crop, cocaine. Importing poisoned food, unsafe cars, or similar goods is a reasonable prohibition. The question is who gets to determine that. The governments of Europe, democracies all, have decided that cattle treated with DES are unfit. This isn't a radical thought, as we have had a lively debate about that here. Yet our position is that since we decided this question in favor of cattle producers (and drug companies) everyone has to decide it that way. If you were a European instead of an American, how would that make you feel?

Perhaps this is a valid complaint under GATT rules. Still, is it a wise one? Someday in the future, Europeans, or Chinese (once they're in the WTO), or Indonesian businesses and governments may decide that we have rules in place that are restrictive. Are we allowed to determine safety standards for products? What about chemical contents of food products? Someday, we may decide we didn't want to import products made by "slave labor," or by child labor. Will we be able to do that? Valid concerns over chemical content in food are an option I'd like the U.S. government to be able to raise and legislate against if we consider it necessary. What this case is establishing is that the lowest common denominator of food safety is the one which will rule world-wide.

Once again, the Clinton administration bows at the shrine of big business. This isn't why I voted for Democrats, but I guess our votes will mean just a little less in the future.