Boy have you got it right. 
The news media has been very silent on the issue of what Corporations and governments are doing to small farming around the world.  That includes the USA, Canada, EU and Australia.

The USA is not immune to the plans of Corporations and the World Trade Organization.  There are over 2.1 million farms in the USA only 300 thousand gross over $100,000 a year. The average age of the American farmer is 53. Can the US afford to remove 1.8 million families from their homes and put them on welfare? Can we afford to lose the 73 billion dollars worth of food these small farmers produce in a year? (Ag census 2002) Because those are the present plans of the FDA and USDA.

The USDA is pushing through changes to further the implementation of the WTO agenda of traceability (NAIS). We have the opportunity to stop these changes by commenting on the proposed rule change. Your comments can be made at

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/ main?main= DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007- 0096

The procedure is simple and painless. You can read the comments of everyone who has participated. All you need to do to comment is to click on the yellow comment tag at the right of the side under the add comments column then follow the directions.

Some Key points and references for those interested.

This is an excellent first hand account of how Government and Corporations collaborate to steal land from small farmers " Polish entry into the European Union" http://www.i-sis.org.uk/savePolishCountryside.php

In the 70's and 80's the IMF and the World Bank blackmailed debt-ridden governments into eliminating high tariffs and into systematically dismantling government support of family farming, thereby sacrificing national food self-sufficiency. A member of the World Bank executive board described this as “unprecedented thoroughgoing interventionism.”
SAP The globalization of poverty   http://www.doublestandards.org/sap1.html
Structural Adjustment Policies http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html
Mr. Budhoo's Bombshell: Former employee Breaks Code of Silence on IMF crimes: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/Budhoo_IMF.html

Then there is the World Trade Organization.  Dan Amstrutz (former VP of Cargill) wrote the draft for the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture. (WTO AoA). The critical paragraph is: "Measures to trace animals...to provide assurances on...safety ...have been incorporated into international standards... The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures...Aims to ensure THAT GOVERNMENTS DO NOT USE QUARANTINE AND FOOD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS as UNJUSTIFIED TRADE BARRIERS... It provides Member countries with a right to implement traceability {NAIS} as an SPS measure." http://www.cspinet.org/reports/codex/spsnassp.html

In simple terms The WTO “free trade agreement” allows cheap imports to cross borders without quarantine or other food safety testing. Only Traceability, Risk Assessment, and the SPS measure “Guide to Good Farming Practices” are allowed. The “new food safety policy” is about opening borders to trade without bothering with little things like food poisoning. That is why the USDA cut testing to the bone refuses to allow private testing, closed down disease testing labs, and  turned border checks over to private parties such as a Mexican Cattlemens Association. The result? food recalls and TB in Texas,California and other western state cattle.

Think of a third world farmer as you read this.
Guide to Good Farming Practices . http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/rt/2502/review25-2BR/25-berlingueri823-836.pdf
Safe and Secure Food Act of 2005 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-1534
NAIS 4th component http://www.naissucks.com/index.php?con=4th_Component
Report Finds Fundamental Flaws in WTO's Agreement on Agriculture http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/891.html
The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures - Weakening Food Safety Regulation to Facilitate Trade? http://www.cspinet.org/reports/codex/spsnassp.html

2007 Farm Policy by Food and Water Watch www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/agricultural-policy/us-farmbill/Farm%20Bill%20April%202007.pdf

Even worse is what is being done to seed.  Traditionally seed was saved, swapped and traded among farmers.  Over thousands of years seed was bred to thrive in a specific area without irrigation or chemical fertilizer.  Monsanto, Cargill and Maseca-ADM plan to change all that with patents, GMOs and the Global Diversity Treaty.
Seed Sharing or Biopiracy . http://www.africafocus.org/docs07/bio0712.php
98 per cent of our vegetable varieties have disappeared. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/agricultural-red-tape-driving-vegetable-varieties-to-extinction-763821.html
List of 'official' seed varieties: http://www.realseeds.co.uk/terms.html Global Diversity Treaty: http://www.bioversityinternational.org/publications/pdf/1144.pdf
Monsanto's Seeds of Worry: http://www.mcgilldaily.com/article/2998-seeds-of-worry

It is time for the USA to wake-up and see what is happening to the World food supply.  Ag business is about profit and they do not care who starves.
These quotes show the grain traders greed and the level of concern for other humans. Keep in mind that four privately owned grain traders control 90% of the worlds grain. They are Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, Andre, and Bunge. The family members earn about ½ billion a year each. This is in response to Ag Sec Ed Schafer's announcement "the cupboard is bare"

 “In summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these long term trends...very attractive.” Food shortfalls predicted: 2008 http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dancy/2008/0104.html 

“Recently there have been increased calls for the development of a U.S. or international grain reserve to provide priority access to food supplies for Humanitarian needs. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) strongly advise against this concept..Stock reserves have a documented depressing effect on prices... and resulted in less aggressive market bidding for the grains.” July 22, 2008 letter to President Bush http://www.naega.org/images/pdf/grain_reserves_for_food_aid.pdf

Gail has done the research now who is going to tell the world governments that the people have had enough.
Gail mentioned that The USDA is pushing through changes to further the implementation of the WTO agenda of traceability (NAIS). The draft rule is seriously flawed for multiple reasons:1)  Does not substantiate the alleged benefits to animal health.  USDA makes general claims about the benefits of identifying locations where animals are kept, but the agency does not address the ability of existing programs to meet this purpose, nor how the proposed rule would improve the capability to identify locations.  2) Ignores the costs and burdens.  The proposed rule would substantially increase costs for livestock owners and taxpayers.  Costs include the development and maintenance of a massive database; purchase of 840-numbered tags by animal owners; changes by state agencies to make existing programs consistent with the rule; and increased federal government intrusion into the lives and daily activities of farmers and other animal owners.3) Violates individuals' religious beliefs.  Amish, Mennonite, and some other individuals have religious objections to the universal numbering system under NAIS.4) Creates disincentives for people to seek veterinary care for their animals and participate in existing disease control programs.  The proposed rule lists four animal disease programs-tuberculosis , brucellosis, scrapie, and Johne's - and will also impact others.  These programs include provisions for veterinary care through vaccinations and testing.  Animal owners who object to NAIS may avoid participating in these programs, thereby increasing health risks to the public and farm operations. 5) Adds to the confusion.  This rule is the latest in a series of ambiguous and often contradictory documents that the USDA has issued on NAIS.  This has created enormous confusion over the intent of the USDA and problems for both animal owners and state agencies.Moreover, the proposed rule is a significant step towards implementing the entire NAIS program.  Thus, the agency should address the fundamental question of whether it should be implementing NAIS at all.  In addition to the problems with the draft rule listed above, there are many additional objections to the entire NAIS program:1) No significant benefits:USDA's assertions that NAIS will provide benefits for animal health are not supported, and actually contradict basic scientific principles.  2) High costs for animal owners and taxpayers:  These costs include: (1) the development, maintenance, and update of massive databases; (2) the costs of tags, most of which will contain microchips; (3) the labor burdens for tagging every animal; (4) the paperwork burdens of reporting routine movements; and (5) the costs of enforcement on millions of individuals. 3) Impracticality:  The databases to register the properties, identify each animal, and record billions of "events" will dwarf any system currently in existence.  4) Waste of money:  The USDA has already spent over $130 million on NAIS implementation, but has yet to develop a workable plan for the program.  5) Diverts resources from more critical needssuch as disease testing, disease prevention through vaccination and improved animal husbandry practices, and disease detection in currently uninspected livestock imports.6) Damage to food safety efforts:  NAIS will not prevent foodborne illnesses, such as e. coli or salmonella contamination, because the tracking ends at the time of slaughter.  Food safety is better served by focusing on programs such as increased testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or Mad Cow), improved oversight of slaughterhouses and food processing facilities, and increased inspections of imported foods.  Programs such as NAIS that burden small, sustainable farmers will hurt efforts to develop safer, decentralized local food systems.7) Discourages involvement in farming or animal husbandry:  Because of costs and government intrusion, some people will choose not to stay in farming or go into farming.  This will result in less competition, greater reliance in foreign imports and poor quality at higher prices