As the latest round of World Trade Organization meetings continue this week in Geneva, Switzerland, Brazil's ethanol industry is now rapping on Europe's door as hard as it's knocked on ours this summer.

And the EU just might have to let them in.

Today, the EU offered to reduce its average farm tariffs by 60 percent, six percentage points higher than its previous proposal. But the Brazilians are still wondering if ethanol will be included in that 60 percent.

UNICA, The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association, has made it very clear that it expects nothing less than near-total access to major markets around the globe for its ethanol. The group is aggressively pushing for lower tariffs and "full integration" of ethanol in global trade. And that's exactly what they're pushing for right now in Geneva.

A tug-of-war ensued last week as Unica rallied at the WTO talks against the notion that a "quota" — essentially more of a ceiling than a floor by international trade definition — on the country's ethanol entering the European Union. Currently, Brazilian ethanol entering the EU is hit with a EURO 0.19 per liter tariff; but the WTO wants to cut that tariff by 57 percent. European leaders are saying, "Sure, right after we put ethanol on our sensitive products list," which requires caps.

The Brazilians do not accept the quota idea, of course. And the Europeans oppose lower tariffs on imported ethanol. In fact, Rob Vierhout, secretary general of the European Bioethanol Fuel Association, was recently quoted as saying lowering the tariff on ethanol is "totally unacceptable," and would "wipe away" the European ethanol industry altogether.

Meanwhile, Brazil's campaign in the Untied States is perhaps loosing steam with falling corn prices. Nevertheless, the debate over whether the U.S. tariff on foreign ethanol should be lowered, or even dropped, lives on.

The 54-cent per gallon secondary tariff was enacted by Congress in 1980 to offset any incentive for imported ethanol to benefit from the tax credit given to blenders for mixing ethanol into gasoline. The purpose of the secondary tariff is to protect American taxpayers from subsidizing imports.

Just days ago, a former White House security advisor and a prominent Florida energy professor co-authored an op-ed peiece in the Wall Street Journal calling for the elimination of the "senseless tariff" on ethanol imports from Brazil. They said: "To quickly boost its biofuel supply, the U.S. should partner with Latin America. Sugarcane ethanol from Brazil, Colombia, Peru and Central America should become an integral part of the U.S. energy strategy. An increase in Latin American cane ethanol capacity is the fastest, most cost-effective and lowest-risk strategy to secure abundant ethanol fuel. The U.S. needs Latin America for energy security, and Latin America needs the U.S. for capital and technology infusion. It's a classic win-win partnership — provided U.S. trade barriers to sugarcane ethanol are eliminated."

That and other calls came after The World Bank called for the United States and the European Union to roll back biofuel mandates, subsidies and tariffs as part of a 10-point plan to deal with soaring food costs in poor countries (a statement that was prepared for the Group of Eight economic summit meeting next week in Japan).

Also this month, a coalition of livestock producers and food companies — including the National Pork Producers Council, the American Bakers Association, Dean Foods Co., Tyson Foods, the Iowa Turkey Federation, Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. — called on President Bush to lift the ethanol tariff.

That move was pretty much synchronized with the 4th of July launch of UNICA's advertising campaign (focused on Florida and California) designed to encourage the American public to pressure the U.S. Congress to remove or lower the tariff.

The Renewable Fuels Association and six other organizations responded with a letter to President Bush in support of the secondary tariff on imported ethanol. The groups called attention to the importance of the tariff for the nation's growing ethanol industry, as well as to the nation's energy, economic, and environmental security. The letter pointed to factors such as oil prices, rising demand, drought, and declining value of the dollar as having more effect on the price of food than biofuels. They urged the President to avoid yielding to the misdirected efforts to blame ethanol for rising prices and to prevent American taxpayers from subsidizing foreign products.

So far, there are no signs that President Bush plans to act on please for a tariff removal or reduction. He does in fact, have the authority to suspend the tariff.

Earlier in the year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., cosponsored a bill recently introduced in the U.S. Senate that would eliminate the tariff altogether. Republican presidential candidate Arizona Sen. John McCain has indicated that he would repeal the tariff on imported sugar-based ethanol. His Democratic opponent, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, would most likely stick with the status quo.

Hang on to your hats folks. We haven't seem the last of this debate.