Agriculture cannot exist in its present form without world trade. Like it or not, the fact is indisputable. Right now the average U.S. farmer produces enough grain, fiber and livestock for 130 people, 90 of whom live in the United States. Pure and simple, that means we have a large surplus that must go somewhere unless we want 30 percent of us to stop producing. If we don't export, we don't need our current number of farmers. I don't know about you, but from my standpoint, agriculture has undergone enough consolidation. We need growth, not contraction. That leaves us with an obvious conclusion: We need to develop a consistent, equitable overseas market.

In addition, there's no disputing the fact we need to somehow address the retailer/wholesaler/producer inequity. Producers need a bigger share of the food dollar. But I've yet to see a feasible, reliable way to make it happen. At the same time, we can always use new value-added products to increase demand in the U.S. market. Almost everyone in agriculture is in favor of ethanol and newly created products from traditional agricultural commodities. But even if we bolster these areas, we cannot ignore world markets. After all, 96 percent of the world's population lives outside the United States.

So the question then becomes how to best provide these excess agricultural products to the world market. That's where the problem lies. We have become very adept at supplying products for the world market. But we stink at requiring other countries to compete fairly. As Farm Bureau points out, the United States spends $49 an acre in direct support to agriculture. The European Union, on the other hand, spends $309 per acre. Japan, $4,606. In terms of export assistance, the European Union spends $100 for every $1 the United States spends on export assistance. That must be rectified if we are to compete.

Obviously, we must either spend more on export enhancement or demand our trading partners reduce their expenditures. The last thing we should do is return to the disastrous isolationist market policies that helped fuel the Great Depression of last century. U.S. ag exports have totaled $53.5 billion so far in 2002. Analysts expect that number to increase to $57.5 billion in this coming year. Trade is our future, but we must trade wisely and negotiate aggressively.

What should give all of us hope in the free-trade debate are the efforts of U.S. farm groups. For instance, in recent renewal discussions surrounding issues before the World Trade Organization, U.S. negotiators identified several items that must be addressed for the marketplace to be more fair: export subsidies, market barriers and trade-distorting domestic policies. Farm Bureau is in the midst of these discussions. Farm Bureau does an excellent job of monitoring trade issues and bringing them up for discussion in trade talks. I urge all of MFA's members to support Farm Bureau in these efforts.

On another front, the U.S. Meat Export Federation constantly pushes for increased opportunities for U.S. agriculture. The Meat Export Federation (the trade association funded by USDA, exporting companies, and the beef, pork, corn, sorghum and soybean checkoff programs) aggressively promotes U.S. products and pushes overseas markets to accept those products for the long term. The organization even has an education program aimed at China's chefs, restaurants and retailers promoting the benefits of the consistent quality of U.S. cuts of meat.

As the Federation reports, U.S. beef exports to China and Hong Kong have soared this year. In the first three-fourths of this year, U.S. beef exports have jumped 48 percent over the pace of a year ago. That increase is due in large part to the acceptance of U.S. beef by Chinese buyers. Just 2 years ago, U.S. beef sales to China were close to nonexistent. The increase is due to multiple factors, of course. Part of it is China's entry into the World Trade Organization. That entry included China agreeing to recognize our system of federal inspection of meat and poultry plants. The negotiated process gave us an edge and captured us a 75 percent share of China's imported beef market.

Even so, Chinese citizens don't have the buying power to become reliable, large consumers. But sheer numbers give U.S. exports an enviable market opportunity. According to the Meat Export Federation, Chinese citizens have a per capita income of just $4,300, while in South Korea it's $18,000 and Japan, $27,000.

U.S. rice sales to Cuba are offering yet another example of the benefits of wisely expanding trade, thanks to the U.S. Rice Federation. Cuba, in early October, signed deals to purchase 90,000 metric tons of U.S. paddy rice as well as an additional 20,000 metric tons of milled rice. Trade officials estimate shipments of up to 150,000 metric tons before year end. As the U.S. Rice Federation points out, until 1961 Cuba was the largest export market for U.S. rice. Trade sanctions have cost U.S. rice farmers an estimated $3 billion in lost sales. The Rice Federation has been instrumental in changing U.S. policy toward Cuba.

So we're taking the right steps. I'm awaiting results that we all want--better prices. And I for one am getting impatient.