With Help From NAFTA 2.0, US Strikes Brutal Blow Against Mexican Food Sovereignty, Health and Global Biodiversity

“Both the USMCA and this ruling issued by the trade dispute panel are designed primarily to protect the interests of transnational corporations.”

Note to readers: This is a particularly depressing story for Christmas Eve, for which I apologise, but it is, I believe, an important one that is presumably garnering little coverage in the US and Canada.

As we warned would happen a few weeks ago, Mexico has lost the dispute settlement panel brought by the US and Canada over its attempt to ban imports of genetically modified corn for direct human consumption. On Friday (December 20), the arbitration panel ruled in favour of the United States, asserting that Mexico’s 2023 decree banning the use of genetically modified (GM) white corn for human consumption violated the terms of the trade agreement.

It wasn’t even a close run thing: the panel’s three judges agreed with the US on all seven counts in the case. The panel has given Mexico 45 days to realign its policies with the ruling. Failure to do so could result in stiff penalties, including sanctions.

As we’ve noted before, this case may be an important battle for Big Ag lobbies and biotech companies but it is an existential one for Mexico, for whom corn is the cornerstone not only of its cuisine and diet but also its culture.

The dispute panel argues that Mexico’s provisions against GMO corn cannot be applied as they are not based on an adequate risk assessment, scientific evidence or relevant international standards. This is despite the mountains of evidence from peer-reviewed literature the Mexican government provided showing ample cause for concern about the risks of consuming GM corn and the residues of the herbicide glyphosate — most commonly known as Roundup — that often come with it.

By contrast, as Timothy A Wise, author of Eating Tomorrow and senior adviser at the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy, documented in a recent piece for TruthDig, “when Mexico challenged the US to show that its GM corn is safe to eat in the far greater quantities and forms that Mexicans consume it, it received no response”:

“As a Reuters headline put it in March: ‘Mexico waiting on US proof that GM corn is safe for its people.’ No such proof was forthcoming as the U.S. government flailed in its attempts to counter the hundreds of studies Mexico identified that showed risk. A U.S. filing claiming to rebut the evidence did no such thing.”

As Wise put it, “the emperor has no science.” But that hasn’t prevented it from winning on every count!

US Celebrations

Washington is thrilled with the outcome. The US trade representative, Katherine Tai, said  the panel’s decision reaffirms long-standing concerns of the United States about Mexico’s biotechnology policies and their detrimental impact on U.S. agricultural exports. US Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, claimed that Mexico’s measures contradict decades of evidence demonstrating the safety of agricultural biotechnology, backed by science- and risk-based regulatory review systems.

This, of course, will be news to all the 165,000 people who have filed lawsuits against Bayer for cancers caused by glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide whose use goes hand-in-hand with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GMO corn. Bayer has already set aside a whopping $16 billion to cover the costs of litigation, and there are still many more lawsuits pending. Its shares continue to slide, having already lost roughly 80% of their value since 2018, when they made the disastrous decision to buy Monsanto for $60 billion.

Glyphosate is banned or has been restricted in 18 countries, as well as in several cities in Spain, Argentina and New Zealand, in 80 percent of the regions of Canada and even in three US cities, as an editorial in La Jornada notes. Yet according to the panel, there are no issues. In most countries, including Mexico, Roundup is still the most widely used herbicide. Worse still, a recent study by Friends of the Earth suggests that the chemicals used in Bayer’s new Roundup formulations were significantly more toxic to humans experiencing chronic exposure than glyphosate-based Roundup.

In reaching its decision, the trade panel also appears to have completely ignored the environmental damage caused by widespread, persistent use of GMO crops. From La Jornada:

[A]ll GMOs are planted in huge monoculture fields because that is the only way to make patented seeds profitable. This has devastating consequences for the environment: as the name implies, monocultures involve the complete destruction of biodiversity in an area to install a single plant species. Also, this overcrowding of plants of the same type creates perfect conditions for the spread of pests, which is why GMOs require extensive use of pesticides and herbicides that wipe out flora and fauna, represent a risk to human health and, when they seep into the water tables or are discharged into bodies of surface water, can devastate entire ecosystems.

The potential health risks posed by GM corn — painstakingly documented by the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies cited in Mexico’s defence, including indications of serious kidney and liver ailments in adolescents after even low-level exposures to glyphosate — are magnified in Mexico, where the national diet revolves around minimally processed white corn, in particular tortillas. Cornmeal provides more than 60% of the average Mexican’s daily calories and protein, which is around 10 times the US average, putting Mexicans at 10 times the risk.

Perhaps the most nonsensical part of this whole process is that Mexico’s 2023 corn ban has so far had a barely perceptible impact on US exports of corn to Mexico. The reason for this is simple: Mexico’s 2023 ban, which replaced a much tougher earlier ban, only applies to the use of GM white corn for human consumption and does not restrict imports of GM yellow corn for animal feed or industrial uses, which account for almost the entirety of US corn imports from the US.

In fact, both last year and so far this year Mexico’s imports of yellow corn from the US have continued to grow despite the ban. As Wise notes, “at a time when the US president-elect is threatening to levy massive tariffs on Mexican products, a blatant violation of the North American trade agreement, it is outrageous that a trade tribunal ruled in favour of the U.S. complaint against Mexico’s limited restrictions on genetically modified corn, which barely affect U.S. exporters.”

To all intents and purposes, NAFTA 2.0 appears to be consolidating what NAFTA 1.0 set in motion: the near-total dependence of Mexico on US producers for its most basic staple crops, including corn, beans and rice. When NAFTA was signed in 1994, Mexico imported $5 billion worth of agricultural products. By 2023 that figure had increased almost sixfold, to $29 billion.

The reason for this was simple, as Wise explains in the interview below with the Real News Network: while the US and Canada continued to heavily subsidise agricultural producers, Mexico’s neoliberal government cancelled its farm subsidies, making it impossible for the country’s small and medium producers to compete with producers from Canada and United States.

Fast-forward to today, the Biden administration’s decision to launch the trade dispute appear to have been driven by two main goals: to nip in the bud any threat to the US’ corn and biotech sectors as well as set an example for other countries. Imagine what would have happened if Mexico had imposed the ban and was able to gradually ween itself off GM corn by buying the grain from elsewhere and expanding its domestic production?

What kind of example would that have set for other countries, particularly those in Latin America that are among the world’s biggest buyers of GM seeds?

If allowed to proceed, it would have eventually harmed the financial interests not only of the four companies that control 85% of the corn seed market but also the few giant farms that dominate the US’ corn sector. More important still, it would have set a very dangerous precedent. By launching this dispute settlement and winning it, the US and Canada have sent a clear message to governments worldwide: think twice before adopting measures to protect public health and the environment, if those measures threaten in any way the economic interests of a major exporter with whom you have signed a “free trade” agreement.

Mexico’s Response

It will be interesting to see how Mexico’s government responds to this latest setback. All eyes will also be on the collective of grassroots organisations that have struggled for almost two decades to safeguard Mexico’s rich native maize varieties. It is thanks to them, and a few brave, incorruptible Mexican judges, that Mexico has so far been able to prevent the mass cultivation of GMO corn in Mexico.

In 2007, a mass social movement emerged bringing together more than 300 peasant organisations, environmentalists, human rights defenders, small and medium-scale producers, consumers, academics, women’s groups and chefs. They gathered under one unifying slogan: “Sin maíz, no hay país” (without maize, there is no country). Their mission was (and still is) to preserve Mexico’s native maize varieties as well as avert legislation that would apply brutally rigid intellectual copyright laws to the crop seeds they are able to grow.

In 2013, a collective of 53 scientists and 22 civil rights organisations and NGOs brought a suit against the GMO giants. And won. In September of that year, Judge Jaime Eduardo Verdugo issued a precautionary injunction on all further permits of GM crops, citing “the risk of imminent harm to the environment.” Shortly after that, another brave judge, Marroquín Zaleta, suspended the granting of licenses for GMO field trials sought by Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, Pionner-Dupont and Mexico’s SEMARNAT (Environment and Natural Resources Ministry).

Like Verdugo, Zaleta cited the potential risks to the environment posed by GMO corn. If the biotech industry got its way, he argued, more than 7000 years of indigenous maize cultivation in Mexico would be endangered, with the country’s 60 varieties of corn directly threatened by cross-pollination from transgenic strands.

Today, despite the panel resolution in favour of the US and Canada and Mexico’s growing dependence on US-grown GM corn, the struggle to protect Mexico’s maize remains undimmed. Mily Treviño-Sauceda, Executive Director of the Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, said:

“The Alianza Nacional de Campesinas strongly condemns the panel’s decision in favour of the United States. Mexico’s policies to ban the use of genetically modified (GM) corn and glyphosate were enacted to protect biodiversity, cultural heritage and the rights of Indigenous people. This decision will continue to adversely impact the quality and nutritional value of food reaching Mexican households. This is just another step in the direction of consolidating agricultural power to the US agro-industrial complex that we will continue to challenge until we see real change for the benefit of the public and our health.”

The organisation Sin Maíz No Hay País issued a three-page statement that included the following passages:

We affirm that “Both the USMCA and this ruling issued by the trade dispute panel are designed primarily to protect the interests of transnational corporations, rather than
prioritising the rights of the Mexican population or environmental sustainability. In
this context, the dispute has raised issues of global concern, including the risks that
genetically modified foods pose to human and environmental health.

For this reason, the Mexican government invited the US to carry out a joint risk assessment
that would cover the needs of both populations, which the US refused to do because it
considered it unnecessary. The dispute also reveals the risks posed by basic foodstuffs being
part of trade agreements and being treated as a commodity and not as a basic good for humanity…

The Panel comprises three experts in international trade and legal aspects related to commercial processes. They are not scientists, nor specialists in public health or the environment. Their work is limited to resolving the administrative dispute presented by the United States against Mexico, without considering the possible impacts of genetically modified corn on the country’s health, biodiversity or environment. It should be remembered that Mexico, in addition to being a centre of origin and constant diversification of corn, has this cereal as the basis of its diet and culture…

Although the Panel did not rule in Mexico’s favour, the country has reaffirmed its commitment to protect public health and the environment from the risks associated with
transgenic corn. This issue remains a priority on the national agenda… It should also be noted that while the Mexican government presented a comprehensive selection of scientific articles, reviewed by peers, the United States presented research funded by the industry itself and even advertising pamphlets.

On the other hand, accusations that the decree hinders free trade are unfounded, since corn imports have grown in recent years, consisting primarily of grain intended for animal consumption. This was recently made clear with this year’s corn import figures.

In fact, over the past two years Mexico has overtaken China to become the largest buyer of US grains — not just corn but also wheat, soybeans, rice and beans. In 2023, the value of Mexico’s grain imports from the US increased 4 percent, to $7.65 million dollars. Data from the Agri-Food and Fisheries Information Service indicate that year Mexico bought from abroad (mainly from its direct neighbour to the north) 32.69 million tons of corn, wheat, sorghum, soybeans, beans and rice, an unprecedented figure. That’s roughly half of all the grains Mexico consumes.

On the campaign trail in 2018, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who imposed the ban on GMO corn, described that dependence, particularly in relation to corn, as an aberration:

“We buy over 14 million tonnes of corn. (…) This is a contradiction, an aberration. Corn originally comes from Mexico and it now turns out that Mexico is one of the biggest importers of corn in the world. This cannot go on.”

Today, despite AMLO’s best intentions, Mexico imports more US-grown grains than ever before. As some in Mexico’s farming sector have been complaining, rather than investing in the countryside, AMLO removed many of the farm support programs in place.

The irony is that Mexico is more dependent on US corn than ever before. During my protracted stays in Mexico, I am seeing more, rather than less, yellow corn tortillas on sale in tortellerias, grocery stores and supermarkets. The same goes for tamales, tostadas, corn oil, honey… US-grown GM corn is taking over.

Trying to reverse this trend is going to be an uphill struggle, especially following the panel’s decision. AMLO’s successor, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, responded to that decision on Saturday by pledging to work with Congress to pass a constitutional reform prohibiting the cultivation of genetically modified corn in national territory with the aim of protecting the country’s biodiversity. But that is a big step down from AMLO’s original ban on GM corn for human consumption. Plus, GM corn cultivation is, to all intents and purposes, banned already. 

To her credit, one of Sheinbaum’s first acts as president was to launch the National Food Sovereignty Program, which aims to boost production levels in the Mexican countryside, as well as bring sustainable and healthy food at affordable prices to Mexican families. The program aims to provide increased financial support for small and medium-sized farmers as well as bolster the production of non-GMO seeds. But it will take oodles of time and money, and even then Mexican farmers will struggle to compete with the US’ heavily subsidised producers.

Meanwhile, Sheinbaum’s regular dictum that Mexico is “a free, sovereign, independent nation” is looking increasingly empty. If her government cannot legislate to protect the public from imports of toxic food, what else will it be powerless to stop?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

34 comments

  1. The Rev Kev

    It’s obvious that the court system does not work as the corporations have their fat thumbs on the scale of justice as seen here. So perhaps Mexico should seek an alternate way of indirect confrontation. Maybe pass a law that any GM seeds must have it stamped plainly on any container or bag. Encourage farmers to plant native corn and quietly remove anything that might restrict it’s adoption. Publicize this decision far and wide to undermine the positions of the US and Canada in Mexico. Commission documentaries to be shown on Mexican TV about the dangers of GM corn. Make this setback a Pyrrhic victory.

    Reply
    1. Balan Aroxdale

      Is the NAFTA board a court? My understanding was that it’s an arbitration panel. These are often stocked with former judges but are not true courts.

      Reply
    2. timbers

      It’s going to take much more than those Japanese-esque measures you suggest to get the GMO-Roundup crowd out of Mexico. I suggest this instead: Invite Russia to build a Orilesnik missile factory in Mexico and use the new US largest on earth embassy as testing ground for it. They can just say its an agricultural testing area for new varieties of corn (if it worked in THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN it can for this). Don’t know how approval of that embassy got thru Mexican channels, but if Mexico had any complicity in that, not a good sign.

      Reply
      1. Piotr Berman

        Orieshnik contaminated with an “ell” and deprived of “h”, thus changing filbert bush into some alien entitu.

        Reply
    3. steppenwolf fetchit

      This NAFTA board is one of those Korporate Kangaroo Kourts set up by various Forcey-FreeTrade Agreements. Such a KKKourt ( ” investor state dispute settlement”) was one of the hidden payloads inside the TPP delivery vehicle, for example. The ISDS KKKourt called for in TPP was one of the things which made TPP so hated once it was discovered. One of Trump’s monumental achievements was taking America out of the TPP ratification process.

      This NAFTA Review Board is another example of a KKKourt in action. Mexicans can practice passive obstruction at the cultural level and personal-choices economic-activity level. But if they want a Forcefield of Protection around their whole country and all its corn as a unitized whole, they will have to cancel New NAFTA and pull out of it.

      This subject and this post is important enough that I hope people will keep circling back to it for at least a few days, reading a growing thread of comments and contributing further comments if such comments have real value to add and contribute.

      Reply
      1. Alice X

        >One of Trump’s monumental achievements was taking America out of the TPP ratification process.

        Yeah, maybe sort of, but he strengthened the ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) provisions in NAFTA 2.0. Which is what we have here. The court is a panel of three corporate stooges lobbyists.

        The headlines giveth, the fine print taketh away.

        Fool me once, shame on you…, fool me twice… you can’t fool me again (quote W.)

        It’s the Transnational Corporate Empire™ at work.

        Reply
        1. steppenwolf fetchit

          Your caveat is well founded and well placed. If he agreed to a KKKourt in New NAFTA, that is bad. But now that the New NAFTA KKKourt has shown what it is there for, maybe Mexico will feel forced to quit New NAFTA. I suppose it depends on whether the corn-protectors or the maquiladora-owners can shout louder and spend more to influence Mexican government.

          Even if pre-emptively dropping out of the TPP process is only a yeah, maybe sort of achievement, at least it spared us the creation of a big new KKKourt.

          Reply
  2. Es s Ce Tera

    This case would seem to demonstrate there is little advantage, only disadvantage, that NAFTA amounts to loss of sovereignty. I hope Mexico does the right thing and withdraws from NAFTA.

    Reply
  3. George Oprisko

    Most miss the point….

    All GMO glyphosate tolerant seeds use the artisanal maize/soy genome as their base.

    Mexico could simply calculate the % of the GMO genome which is new and created by the patentors.
    Mexico could then calculate the $$ / gene attributed to the GMO genome.
    Mexico could then impose fee(s) on any and all GMO seeds created and sold world wide by the patentors
    ON BEHALF
    of Mexico as curator of the Maize genome.
    CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO SEIZE WORLDWIDE..
    Seeds…. industrial plants…. executives… whatever…

    Reply
    1. Nick Corbishley Post author

      Nice Judo thinking, George.

      Joking aside, perhaps you’re right: the Mexican government’s best way of defending itself is to start using its opponents’ tactics against them. A good place to start would be to exercise the collective rights of Oaxacan farming communities over Olotón, a “miraculous” variety of maize that is able to grow in nutrient-poor soil by fixing its own nitrogen from the air, meaning it does not require fertilisers.

      In recent years, Mars, Incorporated has been accused of practicing biopiracy in relation to Olotón, as scientists tied to the company have expropriated this biological material of great cultural and economic value to further their own professional and financial projects, without properly compensating local communities.

      Reply
      1. KLG

        Minor point: nitrogen, not oxygen. And Olotón is the result of indigenous plant breeding plus evolution and symbiosis that puts the “ingenious” technical fix that is Roundup Ready corn to shame. The enzyme complex of bacteria that fix nitrogen is poisoned by oxygen concentrations above ~5%. In legumes, these bacteria grow only in nodules attached to below-ground roots. A mucous-like coating on the Olotón above-ground roots keeps the air out and allows the bacteria to do their work. Reference here, with the following excerpt:

        Bacterial nitrogenase is O2-sensitive and needs to be protected by a low-oxygen (<5%) environment or physiological protective mechanisms, as well as an abundant carbon source to derive energy for this process. To determine if mucilage could fulfill these requirements, we measured the free-oxygen concentration in the mucilage of Sierra Mixe maize and teosinte at the depth of 8 mm and found it to be <5%, indicating that the mucilage can provide a microaerobic environment compatible with nitrogen fixation for these bacteria (Fig 4D).

        I was plant molecular biology-adjacent in the mid-1980s when Roundup Ready commodity crops were a gleam in the eye of the scientists in the next lab. I attended an international conference in Savannah in 1986 that was a celebration of what molecular biology would do for agriculture, as embodied by Monsanto et al. The highlight was a talk by Barbara McClintock, the discoverer of mobile genetic elements who used corn as her experimental organism. The remainder of the meeting was technological cheerleading of the worst kind. I may have been the only attendee who thought Roundup Ready seeds were a technical fix for a problem that did not have to exist. And now, here we are. Regarding NAFTA, thanks, Bill! Could not have done it without you.

        Reply
        1. Nick Corbishley Post author

          Fixed! Thanks, KLG, for the heads-up and the added scientific background. I actually knew it was nitrogen but for some reason (probably lack of sleep) my brain had me type in Oxygen instead. Have a very Happy Christmas!

          Reply
    2. steppenwolf fetchit

      Hmmm . . . Economic Guerilla Lawfare. One hopes some Mexican leader-thinkers are reading this post and thread.

      Reply
  4. Yaiyen

    I never understood why Bayern bought Monsanto, at the time Monsanto had bad reputation, you would have to live in cave to not know this. Bayern must have thought Monsanto will get away with the stuff they were doing. Most judges and scientist are bought by them so in a way cant blame Bayern for thinking this

    Reply
  5. Quetzalcoatl Claus

    Maybe the Avocado and Agave cartels can takeover indigenous corn cultivation along with illegal logging of rainforests and start water rationing the beer and soda cartels plundering of water aquifers and show the commodities markets how the tail wags the dog of sanctions tariffs and free piracy. America grows Andy Warhol’s Monster simulacrum they call corn. Gives cows liver disease too. Let’s all cheer for the days to come when the homeless and asylum seekers are in forced prison labor camps taking jobs from all those who formerly earned the new middle class income as hand pollinators when all insect apocalypse comes and all the Matt Damon Mars farmers can’t feed us.

    Reply
  6. Joe Brant

    Surely Mexico can ban the Sale or Use of GMO corn, at least by large resellers, if it cannot ban the import.

    Perhaps industrial farming of native varieties can be pursued without GM or hazardous additions.

    If the purpose is to maintain agricultural employment, this can be slowed down to match industrial growth.

    Reply
    1. steppenwolf fetchit

      If ten thousand brilliant persons come up with ten thousand brilliant micro-solutions, can they all be epsteined? What if a million brilliant persons do it?

      What if they all arrive at and share a mass leaderless brilliant solution together by a sort of slo-motion Vulcan Mass Mind Meld procedure?

      Reply
  7. Felix

    thank you for staying with this topic Nick and Yves. as the old saying goes “poor Mexico so far from God so close to the United States”. I’ve no idea of the circumstances surrounding the quote, however the irony is impactful. Diaz was wholly owned by the US political class, a fact he took pride in.

    Reply
  8. CA

    Mexico has what should be a brilliant agricultural sector, the focus of the Mexican economy and economic development. The problem with NAFTA and USMCA extension, was failing to recognize how important protecting Mexican agriculture was. All however can be saved, since the USMCA must be reaffirmed in 2026 by all 3 nations. The need is for Mexico to make clear there will be no renewal unless there is agreement to allow an immediate strengthening of Mexican agriculture.

    There must be a national water conservancy program, use of the national seed banks for genetic research and strengthening, just as China is doing. Agricultural subsidies modeled on New Deal subsidies. And, research on Chinese cooperative advanced technology agricultural production.

    Reply
  9. CA

    China of course has more resources than Mexico, but Mexico is actually a wealthier country in per capita terms. China has been spending from 100 to 150 billion dollars yearly. on water conservancy. While there is falseness about forced labor in, say, Chinese cotton production, what is true is that cotton production is dramatically advanced in technology and will become more so. Chinese agriculture research and development is comprehensive, leading to crop improvement from seed diversity to advanced storage of product.

    Spain has been sending China olive trees, and China is working on acclimating the trees. Glacial-alkali lakes in Xinjiang and Xinxiang are increasingly productive fish farms. The Chinese space station is a platform for agriculture experimentation…

    The point is that American analysts routinely predict Chinese agriculture difficulties, the predictions as routinely turn to necessary surplus production.

    Why not Mexico?

    Reply
  10. JMH

    The court or commission or whatever it is has made their decision, now let them enforce it. Just because some arrogant corporate overlords want it their way does not mean they should get it. Tell them to go to hell … politely.

    Reply
    1. steppenwolf fetchit

      And then figure out how to send them there. Because there is wisdom in the saying . . . ” In politics you never tell a man to go to hell unless you can make him go there.”

      Reply
  11. chuck roast

    Nothing new here. Back in the innocent, halcyon days of The Shining City on the Hill came the Alianza para el Progreso. For a number of years after this selfless American initiative I labored under the illusion that this was an attempt by the good guys to help our less fortunate brethren in Latin America to climb out of poverty. Imagine my surprise when a classmate at Uni had me read his paper on how the Alianza was an imperial initiative to destroy food self-sufficiency in the recipient countries and create export monocultures. American corporations could then supply them with everything but the bananas. NAFTA = Alianza on steroids.

    Reply
  12. Eclair

    Another example of ‘we’re making the frelling laws because we have the guns and the money. And because we have now make it illegal to do a certain thing, we will bring down upon you the full force of the justice system and declare you an outlaw.’
    How long before a critical mass of the populace realize that much of our vaunted legal system is weighted heavily towards the rich and powerful individuals and corporations?
    Genocide is ok. Control of seeds is ok. Denial of health care is ok. Poisoning air and water is ok. As long as the right people, or governments, or corporations do it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *