Susan Schwab, the U.S. trade representative, was determined to take a positive approach to the discussion, insisting the United States was “willing to do [its] share.” On Tuesday, the United States offered to lower its ceiling on farm subsidies from $48 billion a year to $15 billion.

The reduction of 69% fit nicely into Falconer’s established 66%-73% goal. However, opposition was quick to point out that that figure is still comfortably above the nation’s $7 billion in subsidies currently being offered by the government.

“This is a nice try but it is not enough,” said a spokesman for the Brazilian foreign minister, Celso Amorim. “It is not the final offer they can do.”

Schwab countered by pointing out that soaring commodities prices have already reduced a wide array of price-linked subsidy payments and the $15 billion cap would have meant real cuts in spending in seven of the past 10 years.

“Anyone suggesting a number outside the ranges in [negotiating] text is not serious about achieving an agreement,” she said. The negotiating text stipulated a range of $13 billion- $16.4 billion.

EU trade spokesman Peter Power came to the defense of the United States.

“This is a reasonable offer at this stage,” he said. “It is not the furthest the U.S. could go, but we assume this depends on remaining negotiations and a balance being achieved in other sectors.”

Still, other assessments were far more scathing. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade policy called the offer “absurd,” and Oxfam International describing it as “vastly inadequate.”

“Fifteen billion [dollars] is around twice what the U.S. is [really] spending at the moment. They would not have to cut a penny off current subsidies as a result of this offer,” Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of Oxfam International told Agence France-Presse.

While the United States and European Union may not have put their best offers forward, opposition at the talks has responded with little more than righteous indignation. Both parties have failed to breach even a jumping off point for further negotiations and the Doha may require another seven years of debate before any progress whatsoever is made