Schnepf, Randy. "Brazil’s and Canada’s WTO Cases Against U.S. Agricultural Direct Payments." Congressional Research Service (n.d.): n. pag. Congressional Reserach Service. 27 Jan. 2010. Web. 3 Feb. 2016.
History of Budgetary Expenditures of the Commodity Credit Corporation: Fiscal Year 1990-2000 Actual, April 9, 2001. Washington, D.C.: USDA Consolidated Farm Service Agency, 2001. Web. 3 Feb. 2016.

Complainant Research Brazil & Canada v. United States Synopsis

Starting in 2007 both Canada and Brazil started the process to officially bring a case against the United States with the World Trade Organization (WTO). Although Brazil and Canada brought different cases to the WTO, the complaints were ultimately the same. They felt the United States violated a WTO agreement to decrease spending on agricultural subsidies. In this synopsis Brazil and Canada’s case will be examined and supported.
The basic principles of a free market are being ignored when the United States government gets overly involved with agricultural subsidies. The free market is built upon limited government involvement. This was the reason for the WTO agreement in the first place. Countries had to reduce the amount of trade distorting subsidies given to farmers. The United States has failed to decrease their subsidy spending below the levels agreed upon in the WTO agreement.
The biggest argument made by both Brazil and Canada in this case comes down to the United States distorting the world market and trade. By the United States providing more subsidies and direct loans causes U.S. farmers to be able to offer products at a lower price than other farmers from around the world. This will ultimately drive the price of certain products down. Because everyone is out to maximize their own utility for as little as possible, buyers will purchase from U.S. farmers leading to increase revenue.