The substantial investment in models of international food markets prior to and during the Uruguay Round of international trade negotiations has been a mixed blessing so far as the prospects for reform are concerned. At worst, results from these models have misled the negotiations because they have most often ignored a primary concern lending domestic political support to food market interventions, namely the avoidance of risks borne of dependence on international markets. In this paper the reasons for market insulating policies are reviewed and their links with protection elucidated. Some errors that have stemmed from the application of 'standard' but inappropriate models are noted. Finally, the implications of extending the standard method to include dynamic behaviour and market insulating policies are examined.