Mexico’s effort to keep genetically modified corn out of the country is triggering a trade dispute with the United States and Canada that could affect the future of agriculture.
The trade dispute hinges on a key question: whether genetically modified (GM) corn poses a threat to human health.
A Battle Over Biotechnology
Corn has fed previous trade battles between Mexico and the United States, with Mexican producers previously protesting the North American Free Trade Agreement for allowing U.S. corn in without restriction. In the latest chapter, Mexico issued a presidential decree in February 2023 that bans GM corn in tortillas and dough and signaled the country’s intention to gradually replace GM corn in all animal and human foods.
The United States contends that there’s no scientific evidence that GM corn is unsafe to eat, a claim that Mexico refutes. Mexico says the United States hasn’t presented any evidence of GM corn’s long-term safety, particularly when eaten at high levels.
Clashing Visions and the Future of Agriculture
The trade disagreement highlights clashing ideological values and interests. Mexico has concerns for public health and indigenous maize. The United States aims to protect U.S. farmers, food security, and the future of agricultural biotechnology.
Ultimately, the three-member USMCA panel has to sort through the arguments, science, and finer points of indigenous legal rights to make a decision. Lucy Sharratt, coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, said the ruling could generate cultural and environmental shockwaves.
“If the panel pays attention to the science, they should come to the same conclusion as the Mexican government. If they’re swayed by politics and the power behind the technology, it’s going to be difficult for them to see the reality of the science,” she told The Epoch Times. “This is a hugely significant decision the panel has before them.”
Mexico’s Case
Mexico filed a 200-page response to the U.S. trade violation complaint, which many observers say fulfilled the onus of its argument. It offered 66 articles in peer-reviewed journals pointing to GM corn’s associated health risks including increased damage to organs, cancer, antibiotic resistance, and reduced nutritional content.GM corn is tightly wed to glyphosate, the key ingredient in RoundUp and other herbicides. That’s because one of the most prominent traits in GM corn is resistance to glyphosate, the main ingredient in RoundUp. Monsanto, the German firm making most of the GM corn grown in the United States, calls the corn “Roundup Ready.” A rise in the use of glyphosate closely paralleled the rise in use of GM corn seed.
Additionally, Mexico’s report included 74 studies and papers on the risks of glyphosate, pointing to research documenting residues found on GM corn and concerns that the volume of corn that Mexicans eat creates the need for a different safety standard. Mexico’s decree isn’t an outright trade ban, but it does create the need for suitable replacements for both GM corn and glyphosate.
The Glyphosate Issue
Glyphosate has become an important topic of research, and studies now suggest that it has several potential consequences on human physiology.The study found highly significant correlations between glyphosate applications and hypertension, stroke, diabetes prevalence and incidence, obesity, Alzheimer’s disease, autism, multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, several types of cancer, intestinal infections, and more. Researchers used the Pearson correlation coefficient, the most common way to measure correlation.
Additionally, Roundup Ready corn and soy in the United States were also found to have highly significant correlations with many of the same diseases. The authors concluded that the results warrant additional research on these relationships.
Unsatisfied With the Science
Mexico has objected to some of the research that the United States was citing during negotiations, including sources that were not peer-reviewed, were more than a decade old, or were funded by biotech companies. Mexico also raised concerns about the lack of long-term studies on humans eating GM corn, according to Timothy A. Wise, senior adviser for the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy.
“Nobody’s done those studies, and the U.S. government knows they don’t exist,” he told The Epoch Times. “And they don’t want them to exist, because the only thing that would happen if they do exist is [to] upset the biotech industry.”
The United States turned down a proposal to do a joint study with Mexico on the health impacts of GM corn in early attempts to settle the trade disagreement.
Fernando Bejarano, executive director of Pesticide Action Network in Mexico, told The Epoch Times that the United States’ rejection of this proposal gives Mexico reason to doubt that the United States will acknowledge the potential risks posed by glyphosate and GM corn.
Mexico has rightly decided that it’s better to prevent problems with glyphosate than it is to take irresponsible risks, he said. It’s the opposite tactic of the United States’, which relies on proof of harm after the fact.
The United States had until March 26 to file its rebuttal with the trade tribunal. The Mexican section of the secretariat for the USMCA told The Epoch Times on April 2 that it had not received the United States’ rebuttal, and that the “parties are in the process of revising the timeline,” which will be published when the new schedule is approved. A final decision in the dispute is expected by November.
One of those is the Center for Food Safety (CFS), a nonprofit public interest and environmental advocacy organization aimed at protecting human health. The group has raised issues with the trustworthiness of the U.S. regulatory system.
Battle Over Science
Thus far, the United States has stood by its argument that GM safety has been proven, and those who support the actions of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) criticize Mexico for not practicing sound science.“We must continue using every available option to stop this unscientific and economically damaging ban on genetically modified corn from coming into effect,” Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in a statement. “As I have said before, there can be zero compromise with Mexico on this issue.”
Lin Warfel, an 83-year-old farmer from Illinois, told The Epoch Times that he has used glyphosate on his crops since it came to market in 1996 and is perfectly healthy—as are many of his peers. He suspects that lawsuits over illnesses linked to the chemical have to do with the mishandling of it.
“The GM corn is safe. It doesn’t make any difference if you eat 1 pound or 10 pounds,” he said.
Mr. Warfel described GM seed as a blessing that has allowed him to increase yields, feed more people, and decrease his chemical applications.
Toxic Residues Are Increasing
While the science surrounding GM corn is debated, and the influence it has on farming practice is varied, some experts say that should not change whether Mexico can prohibit potentially harmful substances from entering its country.“Every country has a sovereign right to determine what technology, what GMOs [genetically modified organisms] are going to be allowed in their country,” Chuck Benbrook, an expert consultant in genetically engineered food and food safety, told The Epoch Times. “The U.S. government has been very aggressive in trying to push this technology on countries around the world.”
Despite the new varieties of GM corn, observers say toxic load to farms has increased since GM seeds were introduced to the market. There are many unknowns about the technology, Mr. Benbrook said.
For one, technology is evolving under the umbrella of original approval without updated safety testing, he said. More traits are being developed as older ones are found to no longer work. Additionally, the levels of safety were based on much lower toxin exposure than what Americans are currently exposed to.
Mr. Benbrook said he is is hopeful that the dispute will force the U.S. government and biotech and food companies to conduct more thorough research. The GM issue as a whole hasn’t received much attention in the past 15 years, he said.
The report concludes that the United States is essentially asking Mexico to trust the safety assessments conducted as many as 30 years ago.
“The Mexican government is both wise and on solid ground in refusing to allow its people to participate in the experiment that the U.S. government is seeking to impose on Mexico,” the report states.
The report also notes that there has been a roughly four-fold increase in pesticides and toxins in corn production since the early 1990s. The total number of pesticides and pesticidal compounds used per acre in the United States was 2.6 in 1990 and grew to 13.4 in 2023, illustrating a rising reliance—and human exposure—to toxins.
Glyphosate’s Dangers
A growing concern about glyphosate comes from studies suggesting that it disrupts hormones. The Endocrine Society co-authored a report in February categorizing glyphosate among the top four most threatening endocrine-disrupting chemicals—meaning that it has a toxic effect on hormones—which play a role in many bodily functions and processes. Glyphosate has eight of 10 characteristics of an endocrine-disrupting chemical, according to the report.“There are already thousands of studies that have contributed to a global consensus, and findings by government bodies around the world, that biotech foods are safe to consume,” Ms. Finnerty said. “How many more studies are needed? Mexico is searching for a problem that simply does not exist.”
Ms. Finnerty noted that Mexico’s secondary argument about GM imports threatening its native corn doesn’t hold weight because GM seed is not sold in Mexico. There’s no threat that imports could pose a risk of cross-hybridization with their native corn crops, she said.
The BIO contends that Mexico is simply making political decisions. The decree, the group said in a news release, was not preceded by a formal change in safety or regulatory policy but only an administration change. In fact, nothing about GM science had changed, the BIO stated.
“Science-based, predictable regulation of trade in food and feed products is critical to ensuring the flow of trade that meets the world’s food needs,” Nancy Travis, the BIO’s vice president for international affairs, said.
The U.S. government’s response to Mexico’s decree also appears to be entirely political, according to Mr. Wise.
Effect on US Farming
So far, Mexico hasn’t enforced its ban as it relates to imports, but if it did, Mr. Warfel said it could have an impact on the price that he can get in the market for corn and whether his farm breaks even or makes a profit.
Farm industry groups here praised the USTR for pursuing the dispute with USMCA.
Are There Only 2 Options?
Others observe that the United States hasn’t acted in good faith to resolve the matter, however.Ms. Sharratt said it wouldn’t be that complicated for the United States to work with Mexico by adapting the type of white corn that it grows and exports to the country to be free of genetic engineering—allowing a compromise that might benefit both countries.
“Forcing GMO corn into Mexico is a political move. It’s not a move necessary for U.S. farmers. There are strong alternatives,” she said.
Mr. Bejarano noted that Mexico’s decree would actually benefit those farmers already growing organic, non-GMO white corn in the United States.
“It’s the right of Mexico to decide what kind of protection is needed,” he said. “We can have free trade without sacrificing the constitutional duties of the government to protect their own people.”
Should Mexico win the trade dispute, it’s unlikely that U.S. consumers would not take note. Such a weighty ruling would also likely trigger closer scrutiny of the science regarding GM corn and other modified food crops. In the end, Mexico could become a harbinger for the decline of U.S. dependence on foreign seed companies and the herbicides that pair so well with their genetically modified offerings.
Friends Read Free
