induced damage and encouragement of over-the-counter forward contracts (Byerlee et al., 2006). Initiatives like these are enhanced by the development of varieties and production technologies that expand the productive season and overcome the biotic and abiotic stresses, which occur during the off-season (Tchoundjeu et al., 2006).

Consumers' concerns about food safety are affecting international trade regulations.

The effects of the implementation of food safety standards on global trade is valued at billions of US dollars (Otsuki et al., 2001; Wilson and Otsuki, 2001). However, the regulatory environment for food safety can be seen as an opportunity to gain secure and stable access to affluent and remunerative new markets, and generate large value addition activities in developing countries (World Bank, 2005b).

Food standards are increasingly important and have implications for consumer organizations and private firms.

New instruments of protection and competitiveness have emerged as "standards" and new forms of coordination between actors in the food chain have been developed in response to consumer and citizen concerns. Actors in the food chain work together to specify acceptable production conditions and impose them on suppliers (Gereffi and Kaplinsky, 2001; Daviron and Gibbon, 2002). Initially limited to some companies, standards are becoming accepted globally (e.g., Global Food Standard, International Food Standard [IFS], GFSI [Global Food Safety Initiative], FLO [Fair Trade Labeling Organization]) (JRC, 2007). The multiplication of these standards, which are supposed to improve food safety, preserve the environment, and reduce social disparities, etc., raises questions about international regulation, coordination, and evaluation (in the case of forests, Gueneau, 2006).

Food labeled as "organic" or "certified organic" is governed by a set of rules and limits, usually enforced by inspection and certification mechanisms known as "guarantee systems".

With very few exceptions, synthetic pesticides, mineral fertilizers, synthetic preservatives, pharmaceuticals, sewage sludge, genetically modified organisms and irradiation are prohibited in all organic standards. Sixty mostly industrialized countries currently have national organic standards as well as hundreds of private organic standards worldwide (FAO/ITC/CTA, 2001; IFOAM, 2003, 2006). Regulatory systems for organics usually consist of producers, inspection bodies, an accreditation body for approval and system supervision and a labeling body to inform the consumer (UN, 2006b). There are numerous informal organic regulation systems outside of the formal organic certification and marketing systems. These are often called "peer" or

"participatory" models. They do not involve third-party inspection and often focus on local markets (UN, 2006b). The IFOAM and Codex guidelines provide consumer and producer protection from misleading claims and guide governments in setting organic standards in organic agriculture (see 3.2.2.1.9). The cultivation of GMO crops near organic crops can threaten organic certification due to the risk of cross-pollination and genetic drift.

Some food standards are now imposing minimum conditions of employment.

To face the inequalities that accrue from benefits to largescale producers, standards have been developed to encourage small-scale producers. The most prominent example is the Fair Trade Movement (www.fairtrade.org.uk), which aims to ensure that poor farmers are adequately rewarded for the crops they produce. In 2002 the global fair trade market was conservatively estimated at US$500 million (Moore, 2004). This support has helped small organizations to market their produce directly by working similarly to that of forest certification. Where foreign buyers impose labor standards, the terms and conditions of employment in the formal supply chains are better than in the informal sector. Enforcement of food standards furthermore improve the working environment and ensure that agricultural workers are not exposed to unhealthy production practices.

The globalization of trade in agricultural products is not an import-export food model that addresses poverty and hunger in developing countries.

Many complex factors affect the economy of a country. The following evidence suggests that international policies that promote economic growth through agriculture do not necessarily resolve the issue of poverty (Boussard et al., 2006; Chabe-Ferret et al., 2006):

. An estimated 43% of the rural population of Thailand now lives below the poverty line even though agricultural exports grew 65% between 1985 and 1995. . In Bolivia, after a period of spectacular agricultural export growth, 95% of the rural population earned less than a dollar a day. . The Chinese government estimates that 10 million farmers will be displaced by China's implementation of WTO rules, with the livelihoods of another 200 million small-scale farmers expected to decline as a result of further implementations of trade liberalization and agriculture industrialization. . Kenya, which was self-sufficient in food until the 1980s, now imports 80% of its food, while 80% of its exports are agricultural. . In the USA net farm income was 16% below average between 1990-1995, while 38,000 small farms went out of business between 1995-2000. . In Canada, farm debt has nearly doubled since the 1989 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.