David King, secretary general of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, said rather than bicker over the technicalities of their farm support policies, the trade rivals should look at cutting import tariffs.

"The US and France have substantial common interests in these talks. Their situations, in terms of helping farmers and trying to regulate surpluses, are so similar that they shouldn't be fighting each other over details," King told Reuters.

"It's normal both are sticking to their guns but there's nothing to be gained from bashing each other around the head."

He added that the priority for next year's planned global trade round, for which Seattle will set the stage, should be to improve prospects for developing countries which were largely forgotten about at the 1986-1993 Uruguay Round.

"If the WTO can contribute to economic development in poorer nations it will be a major achievement for the round," he said.

King's comments came a day after French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin fired a verbal salvo at Washington, warning its stubborn opposition to EU export subsidies could sabotage plans for the so-called Millennium Round of talks.

Tensions have been bubbling as the November 30 start of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Seattle talks looms. Washington is gearing up to attack the subsidies the EU pays on grain exports and Brussels, prodded by Paris, is preparing to strike back over US farm export credit and food aid programmes.

"The way they yell at each other is silly given they are both subsidising the same thing," King said, noting that a spat over the EU's refusal to lift its ban on North American hormone-treated beef had soured relations.

"The only differences are technical and one isn't purer than the other. Subsidising exports is wrong however you do it."

King said the ideal long-term solution would be to scrap current methods and replace them with a new safety net mechanism which did not force poorer exporters out of world markets.

But for the short term, he welcomed the EU's shift away from support prices, which can foster over-production, towards direct aid to farmers in recognition of services to the rural habitat.

The West has sharply increased agricultural production via subsidies since the Paris-based IFAP was set up in 1946 as a voice representing farmers at international bodies like the WTO.

"Neither the US or EU wants to let their farmers go to the wall and there's a strong argument for safety net support," King said. "But instead of export refunds or credits, both of which are very disruptive for developing countries which can't do the same, we should find another way of doing it."

Under reforms to the EU's common agricultural policy, state aid will compensate farmers for cuts to the bloc's guaranteed cereals price and reward them for looking after the countryside.

But in the long-run governments may resent shouldering the burden of farm aid, especially in times of budget deficit.

King said while the US and EU would try and limit changes to policy in the Millennium Round, meaning the talks should not overrun the planned three years, pressure from the Cairns group, including Australia, Canada and Brazil, would enforce some.

"The Cairns group have a smaller weight but are agricultural countries who earn a living from food exports so they will be pushing aggressively for liberalisation. The US and EU will have to do something or they will cry foul," he said.

"Liberalisation is not supposed to be an end in itself but a tool to promote global economic development through trade with developing nations. There's a strong case for industrialised nations to give better access to exports from developing ones.

He said import tariffs should be scrapped for raw materials like coffee and cocoa and slashed for processed primary goods.