PAUL WILENIUS: The tension is rising. The supporters of free trade are preparing to meet their opponents in a clash at the World Trade Talks in Seattle this week. Both sides are wary and nervous. The big guys are backing unfettered free trade, to ensure prosperity in the new Millennium. But the others fear it brings with it the evils of environmental destruction, labour exploitation and unsafe food. And a hundred thousand demonstrators will be there to watch the contest. JOAN WALLEY MP: I think there is going to be a big battle because I think that so many of the environmental organisations particularly are concerned about the way that so called free trade is going and they want to see a level playing field. ALAN SIMPSON MP: Civil movements, consumer movements, environmental movements, women's movements, the churches are coming together across national frontiers and confronting the Goliath. WILENIUS: Trade Secretary Stephen Byers is determined to fight for free trade in Seattle, as he sees it as a clear opportunity for Britain. He wants to make it easier for countries to trade with each other, with no barriers to business. But critics fear this favours big multinational companies and is bad for poorer countries and the environment. Trade is the lifeblood of the world economy, and it has grown sixteen fold since the war. These massive container ships arriving in Felixstowe show the business and prosperity it brings to Britain. The World Trade Organisation was set up in 1995 to establish global trade rules, by cutting tariff and other barriers to trade. RICHARD BATE: Free trade is important for countries around the world, it improves their prosperity, it improves their opportunities for their manufacturing industries to grow and expand and it brings in more money to the population of the country so it raises living standards for the population of the countries concerned. WILENIUS: But critics say something has gone wrong. Instead of lifting the prosperity of Third World countries, they argue that World Trade Organisation rules mean the big western multinational companies are overpowering poorer economies of the world such as the Caribbean banana producers . BARRY COATES: Some developing countries have done okay, but it's mainly the ones that have played the system, that have imposed some restrictions on trade in order to build up their domestic economy. Now, exactly those measures are being ruled out under the WTO, and what we see is that what's on offer from the EU at the World Trade Organisation talks is a recipe for more of the same; For the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, more power to multinational companies, and we're calling for the EU to change its position. WILENIUS: The frenetic activity here at Felixstowe shows the importance of global trade. But now many Western governments and powerful companies want more. A recent attempt to deliver an investment agreement ended in failure. But now it's feared they will use the trade talks to get new freedoms to invest in the Third World, and grab public contracts in the name of free trade. COATES: Now the previous agreement, called the Multi-Lateral Agreement on Investment or MAI , wanted to open up countries' restrictions, to mean that multi-nationals had a right of establishment, particularly in developing countries. And furthermore the governments couldn't impose restrictions on what multinationals could do in their countries. And we're very worried about this because the whole emphasis of this agreement is on new rights for multinationals and new protection for multinationals. WILENIUS: Some say there's an even darker side to free trade. Several countries would like to be able to ban products from developing countries where working conditions are poor and even include child labour. In the past, the Labour Party had promised to bring a social clause into world trade. But now Stephen Byers is trying to keep the whole thorny issue of labour standards well away from trade rules. WALLEY: I think everyone's concerned about child labour. It shouldn't have a part in a civilised society. It's obviously of concern to many people, obviously of concern to the United Nations and someone's got to tackle it. And it strikes me that if we can't address this through the World Trade Organisation at the time when we are setting ground rules for future trade negotiations, who else really does have the power to take this on board. SIMPSON: If the Seattle Round went ahead and excluded any addressing of issues about child labour, minimum labour standards, environmental responsibilities and health and safety obligations, it wouldn't be a disappointment, it would be a disaster. WILENIUS: One of the biggest battles in Seattle will be over the environment. In recent years the World Trade Organisation has overturned a number of attempts to curb trade that harms the environment. And the fear is, whenever there is a clash, green issues will lose out. Critics argue that the World Trade Organisation has a poor record on the environment. In the past it has backed free trade at the expense of measures to protect endangered species. Now many want environmental protection enshrined in world trade rules. When they're shopping, millions of Britons worry about what they buy, opting for eco-friendly goods. This timber sold is produced from sustainable forests, which means all trees felled are replaced. But these strict forestry standards could be threatened by a move from the Americans, who want the WTO to open up markets to more forestry products. HALL: What we can expect to see is governments with companies behind them lobbying to reduce tariffs and increase trade in forest products, such as plywood and paper for example. And we're concerned that this will lead to an increase in consumption of forests. We're also extremely worried that once forests are brought into the world trade organisation, that any measures that people or countries take to protect or promote sustainable forestry, such as labelling to tell you what kind of timber you're buying, will then be threatened by trade rules and could be challenged in the WTO. WILENIUS: Choosing between free trade and the environment will not be easy. British Ministers say they back green trade policies, but sceptics fear that business will win out over ecology. And not enough will be done to stop environmental agreements being undermined. Environmental campaigners are concerned they may have very little to take home with them, when the talks finally end. MAYBEE: Well the first thing the WTO should do to protect the environment is stop over-ruling environmental decisions, made by national countries and by international treaties. They're the experts, they're the ones who care about the environment, they should be responsible for decisions. SIMPSON: That's what the environmental movement, globally, is demanding out of Seattle, that we take the environmental commitments that we've made as fine sounding phrases and we turn them into binding obligations. And if we don't come out of the Seattle Round with that, and that alone, then it will be a disaster. WILENIUS: Perhaps the most hard fought issue of all will be agriculture. In the past it's been kept out of the trade talks. Now there's pressure to cut back European farm subsidies, but some fear this could deal a heavy blow to standards of animal welfare. The UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. The pigs on this farm in Suffolk are allowed to roam freely and to bed down on straw. They're reared by farmer David Barker. He's deeply worried that high animal welfare standards make British farmers uncompetitive in the global market place. He fears that imports of cheap pig meat from the United States could wipe out the already troubled British pig industry. DAVID BARKER: It costs us around eighty pence per kilo to produce pig meat, but when you look at the systems in America the large concrete farms, no straw , poor welfare, cheap labour, genetically modified maize and soya, they probably can produce that quantity at about sixty pence a kilo, they can undercut us to the tune of about twenty pence, because the differential is our higher welfare and our animal feed standards. WILENIUS: Many feel there is more to farming than pure profit. HALL: We certainly think that agriculture in the North and South is such an important function for human communities, that it's very important to provide support and incentives to promote the many different roles of agriculture. We don't believe that free trade in agricultural products would be a good idea and we don't think that it would benefit people or the environment. WILENIUS: But there is one area where the little guys have hit back at the large global corporation - that's on food. For decades the big multinational companies have been growing stronger, putting their opponents on the back foot. It's been an unequal contest. But now governments in the west are being forced to take more account of consumer power. New food products like this Genetically Modified oil seed rape have alarmed consumers in Britain. There's already been direct action against similar fields of GM crops and farmer Bob Fidiman is worried the crop trial on his farm near Hemel Hempstead in Hertfordshire could be ripped up by protestors. After BSE he understands consumer concerns. BOB FIDIMAN: We are all aware of how that affected our consumers and it is because of that, that it has given credence to the scare of maybe what are the public eating in their food. WILENIUS: Despite consumer worries, the WTO is determined to stop countries banning products like GM food as a precaution, unless there's hard evidence it's harmful. MAYBEE: One of the key reforms is to get the WTO to recognise what every other part of international law recognises which is the issue of the precautionary principle. It allows governments to say, this issue is not known about, we're going to take a decision to ban or stop something, in the safety of the public while we learn about its consequences. And learning about its consequences could take twenty years in the case of issues like releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment. WILENIUS: European governments believe that GM crops must be properly labelled when they are sold to the consumer on the open market. But there are fears the WTO could rule that even this is a barrier to free trade. COATES: There's a dispute that's likely to happen in the WTO very soon over the EU's requirement that the Genetically Modified content of food should be labelled as such. The US is saying this is a restraint on trade but I think consumers should have the right to know what's in their food. BENNETT: I certainly think that we should be making sure that the consumer has all the information they need on labelling. So I think it's very important that labelling, particularly of food products, particularly whether there are genetically modified ingredients in them, is clearly there so that the consumer can make absolute choices. WILENIUS: In this global contest, the critics of free trade are getting stronger. The demonstrators in Seattle are helping to put pressure on Western governments to develop a more ethical trade policy. BENNETT: The British government has to push for an ethical trade policy in which you take into account considerations other than just free trade. The world is far too important for us just to allow it to be run as a trading organisation. WILENIUS: So the problem for western governments is to show they can pursue an ethical trade policy. Because if they won't, they may find their own consumers and voters turning against them. Then the big global players like Britain may find the little guy really can hit back.