In article <5c9oo0$kmc2@mars.online.uleth.ca>
>     I'm a journalist from Fort Macleod in Alberta, Canada.
>I need to collect opinions for some features I'm writing
.............................  They still bicker
>over which countries unfairly subsidize crops or
>livestock, while trade and the movement of workers
>remains restricted at our borders.

Free trade in agricultural products is certainly impacted negatively by 
all kinds of government regulation and other programs. However, in Canada 
there are many internal barriers to trade as well, as provinces restrict 
agricultural trade quite vigorously at times.

>     Meanwhile, intensive farming is unpopular with
>some consumers.  They believe it has increased costs,
>reduced food quality and damaged the environment.
>And many producers who have invested in modern high
>intensity operations, find themselves simply working
>for their bankers, always struggling to stay one
>step ahead of their next loan payment.

If "intensive" farming is unpopular it is probably directly in 
relationship to the lack of information on agriculture in general. The 
term "intensive" is a relative descriptive term, and generally used in a 
negative context. If you want to look at agriculture in the prairies of 
western Canada, it is probably the least intensive forms of agriculture 
that have caused the greatest environmental damage. Specifically, the loss 
of carbon in the soil, over the 80 plus years of cultivation, is possibly 
one of the greatest environmental disasters to have happened in this part 
of the world.

>     So as our leaders continue refining the NAFTA
>agreement, should they include new standards for

>Gary Chambers
>Gary Chambers
>Public Access Internet
>Upanet at the University of Lethbridge
>e-mail: GCHAMBERS@upanet.uleth.ca
>or phone: (403) 553-2756

added my comments within the text of your original article Gary, hope it 
makes sense.