[[link removed]]

MEXICO DEFENDS GM CORN RESTRICTIONS WITH SCIENCE  
[[link removed]]


 

Timothy Wise
March 14, 2024
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ "If we win, we will challenge an entire model of production. It
would be a huge achievement, setting an international standard. If our
maize is defeated in its center of origin, we would see the same in
other centers of origin for other crops." _

,

 

Since Mexico imposed its restrictions on genetically modified (GM)
corn in tortillas last February as precautionary measures to protect
public health and corn biodiversity, the United States government has
repeatedly justified its challenge to the policies under the
countries' trade agreement with the claim that Mexico’s policies are
not based on science. 

As U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said last August when the
U.S. case was filed under the formal dispute mechanism of the
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), “Mexico’s approach to
biotechnology is not based on science and runs counter to decades’
worth of evidence demonstrating its safety and the rigorous,
science-based regulatory review system that ensures it poses no harm
to human health and the environment.”

Mexico has now filed its formal response to the U.S. in the trade
dispute
[[link removed]].
Published March 5, Mexico shows that it has the latest independent
science firmly on its side. 

As the Mexican government notes in its 200-page response, _“Far
from there being a consensus on the safety of GMOs, scientific
evidence points to various negative effects on health, on native corn
and on the environment, derived from the cultivation and consumption
of GM corn.”_ (119 –quotes from the document are italicized and
cited here by their numbered paragraphs since pagination is different
in the English and Spanish versions). 

In the interest of offering a readers’ guide to this long and
technical document, IATP highlights here some of the most important
points. We include some quotes in the text and at the end from key
academic, civil society and government leaders, who have been
instrumental in the decades-long effort to stop GM corn and its
companion herbicide glyphosate. 

Ten NGOs will submit their formal comments in eight invited
submissions on March 15 in support of Mexico’s restrictions. Canada,
as a third party supporting the U.S. complaint, will as well. The U.S.
has until March 26 to rebut Mexico’s claims. It is now on the U.S.
to respond concretely to the science presented by Mexico. That
evidence includes:

RISKS FROM DIRECT CONSUMPTION OF GM CORN: 13 pages of evidence that
GM corn, particularly insect-resistant Bt varieties, poses potential
health risks to humans through damage to the intestinal tract and
other organs.

* The section includes 66 academic references from peer-reviewed
journals. (A partial list is included at the end of this article.)
* The documented risks arise from: direct exposure through foods;
epigenetic changes that can be passed to the next generation;
increased antibiotic resistance; and reduced nutritional content.
* Many studies highlight the increased risks in Mexico for a
population that consumes 10 times the amount of corn as we do in the
U.S. and does so in tortillas and other minimally processed forms that
represent a very different scale of dietary exposure than we face in
the U.S.
* _“Given the fundamental importance of corn as everyday staple
food in Mexico, the population in Mexico is highly exposed and
vulnerable to these risks due to the amount of corn grain consumed
directly on a daily basis in the form of tortilla and other foods made
with nixtamalized flour and dough.” (24)_
* _“Although the United States has attempted to trivialize and
dismiss this body of scientific evidence, Mexico's assessment
indicates that the risks are real and of particular concern to human
health in Mexico.” (382)_

RISKS FROM CONSUMING GLYPHOSATE RESIDUES ON GM CORN: 16 pages of
evidence, including 74 academic references, on the elevated risks to
Mexican consumers from glyphosate residues on GM corn. Those residues
have been documented to be present in Mexican tortillas
[[link removed]] already,
even though it is illegal to grow GM corn in Mexico and the country
produces nearly all its own white and native corn for tortillas. That
evidence of traces of glyphosate, presumably from imported GM corn, is
one of the main reasons for the GM corn restrictions.

* Mexico's submission cites the growing mountain of evidence that
direct exposure to glyphosate causes cancer, as jury after jury has
found in damage cases against Monsanto and its owner Bayer.
* Multiple academic references show risks from low-level exposures
from residues on consumed food. Again, Mexico's far higher levels of
corn consumption multiply the risk and make U.S. and most
international standards of acceptable residue levels moot, justifying
Mexico's precautionary approach.
* _“Mexico considers that the ingestion of residual glyphosate and
other contaminants present through the direct consumption of GM corn
grain represents a serious food safety risk in Mexico.” (174)_

LAX U.S. REGULATORY PROCESSES THAT FAIL TO ENSURE SAFETY FOR
MEXICO: Mexico questions the U.S. presentation of the science
claiming safety: _“The United States, far from proving that the
measures identified are not based on science, presents information
lacking scientific rigor, is outdated, or with conflicts of
interest.” (230-235)_

* Many of the sources cited by the U.S. — Mexico highlights 33 —
are not from peer-reviewed or academic sources.
* Others are outdated, showing research that is dangerously out of
date for such a relatively recent technology on which new science is
emerging all the time. (Sixteen of the studies cited by the U.S. are
more than 10 years old.)
* The U.S. repeatedly cites broad surveys by science agencies, but
most are more than 10 years old. 

* Even those are selectively cited, such as the U.S. claim that the
National Academy of Science in a 2016 survey confirmed GM safety. In
fact, NAS evidence of safety comes from comparisons of U.S. (with GM)
and United Kingdom (without GM) consumption, but none with a profile
such as Mexico’s. 

* As researchers noted in the American Academy of Pediatrics
[[link removed]]:
“There were no long-term, published epidemiologic studies directly
assessing the potential health impact of genetically engineered food
and associated herbicide exposure, so conclusions about health were
largely made in the absence of available data.”

* Many of the studies cited by the U.S. show conflicts of interest,
indicating funding by biotech companies or researchers associated with
biotech interests.
* U.S. regulatory standards are weak since they do not require
animal studies or other safety assessments before a new GM variety is
approved.
* The oft-cited “4,000+ studies that show GM safety” are rife
with these errors. Most come from companies’ own tests when they
sought approval from U.S. regulators to commercialize new GM
varieties. Few are peer-reviewed. Fewer are based on long-term animal
feeding trials.

* Mexico highlights that the U.S. cannot produce a single academic
study that shows that the long-term consumption of large quantities of
minimally processed GM corn treated with glyphosate is safe to eat.
That is why Mexico took the precautionary measures it did. As
Mexico’s Undersecretary of Agriculture Victor Suárez told Reuters
[[link removed]]: 

* “To this day we have not seen any scientific studies that have
been presented by the U.S. and the companies on the safety of
continued consumption over years. So there is no scientific basis for
the U.S. and the companies to claim that their corn is safe.”

MEXICO’S CAREFUL RISK ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH USMCA
GUIDELINES: Mexico presents ample evidence that it has indeed done
the risk assessment required by the trade agreement and that the
agreement gives Mexico the right to determine the levels of protection
it deems necessary, then interpret the available science in light of
that commitment.

* In that context, the relatively lax U.S. regulatory standards
offer little useful evidence for a country as highly dependent on corn
consumption as Mexico. The absence of long-term studies with high
levels of consumption forced Mexico to conduct its own risk assessment
based on the available science.
* Mexico lists the documentation of that risk in a 31-page 2020
publication
[[link removed]] by
the national science agency, which has been available for the U.S.
government and the media to review. Mexico has constantly updated that
evidence base in a publicly available databank
[[link removed]] that
further informed its updated 2023 decree.
* _“The Risk Assessment evaluated the potential adverse effects on
the health of Mexicans from the presence of contaminants, specifically
glyphosate and GM proteins residues in foods made from GM corn
commonly consumed by Mexicans.” (403)_

RISKS TO NATIVE CORN VARIETIES FROM GM CORN: Mexico also presents
extensive evidence of the risks to native corn varieties from
cross-pollination by GM corn, including a comprehensive study by
NAFTA's own environmental commission. Such contamination can undermine
the genetic integrity of Mexico's native corn varieties, which it
argues is a unique and endangered natural resource valuable not just
to Mexico but also to the world for future plant-breeding.

* Mexico cites 13 distinct national laws and international treaties
that obligate it to protect native corn.
* That obligation includes a special exception in the current trade
treaty that allows countries to take actions that guarantee cultural
and Indigenous rights, of which native corn is considered an integral
part.

THE USE OF “LEAST TRADE-DISTORTING” MEASURES: Mexico shows that
its measures are carefully chosen to minimize the impact on
international trade, satisfying the USMCA obligation that a government
use the least trade-distorting measures available to achieve a
legitimate policy goal.

* Mexico's restriction on GM corn use in tortillas affects a tiny
share of U.S. corn exports to Mexico — perhaps 1% — because some
97% goes to animal feed and industrial uses. Mexico is largely
self-sufficient in white and native corn for tortillas. 
* Affected U.S. farmers are not prevented from exporting to Mexico.
In fact, they can earn premium prices if they switch to non-GM white
corn.
* The restrictions apply to all GM corn from any source, including
from within Mexico, so they in no way discriminate against the U.S.
* The measures do not involve trade restrictions of any kind, just a
restriction on the use of GM corn in tortillas.
* The U.S. challenge of Mexico's so-called “substitution
instruction,” to gradually replace GM corn in animal feed and
industrial uses, is misguided and at best premature. At this point it
imposes no specific actions nor indicates any trade restrictions nor
any date by which any measures will be enacted. To prove the point,
Mexico notes that since the decree was announced in February 2023,
U.S. corn exports to Mexico have increased significantly, not
decreased.
* The U.S. in its complaint fails to identify a “less
trade-distorting alternative” policy than Mexico’s minimal
restrictions, as required by USMCA. As Mexico points out, the U.S.
suggests that _“because the Tortilla Corn Ban does not achieve any
[Appropriate Level Of Protection], a reasonably available, less
trade-restrictive alternative would be to withdraw it altogether.”
(450)_

Experts have praised Mexico’s response as a strong science-based
justification for its policies: 

"If we win, we will challenge an entire model of production. It would
be a huge achievement, setting an international standard. If our maize
is defeated in its center of origin, we would see the same in other
centers of origin for other crops. The biotech companies would be
emboldened," said Monserrat Téllez, Seeds of Life (Mexico).

“Mexico presents ample scientific evidence on the risks to human
health and the environment of consuming GM corn with residues of the
herbicide glyphosate. The government of Mexico has every right to
determine the appropriate level of protection to protect human
health,” according to Fernando Bejarano, Ph.D., Red de Acción
sobre Plaguicidas y Alternativas en México (RAPAM)/Pesticide Action
Network in Mexico. 

"Mexicans are the largest consumers of corn, especially through
tortillas. We have the right to prohibit the use of transgenic corn in
the preparation of tortillas not only because of the presence of
transgenic corn but also the higher concentrations of glyphosate
residues. In addition, our country is the center of origin and
diversity of corn, the basis of our culinary culture, which has been
declared a world heritage site. We have the right to protect this food
and this cultural asset,” stated Alejandro Calvillo, Poder del
Consumidor.

“We welcome this vigorous defense of Mexico’s programs to
transform its food system. The science they present backs up
longstanding civil society campaigns for healthy foods and biodiverse
agricultural systems. There’s a lot here that could contribute to
more substantive debates on our food and agriculture system in the
U.S., as well,” observed Karen Hansen-Kuhn, IATP’s director of
trade and international strategies.

Ever since Mexico first announced its intentions to limit GM corn and
glyphosate in its tortilla chain, the U.S. government has asserted
that Mexico’s policies are not based on science
[[link removed].].
Mexico’s comprehensive response refutes that claim, presenting
hundreds of academic studies that show cause for concern about human
health and the threat to native corn diversity. The onus is now on the
U.S. government to respond by March 26 with science, offering its
evaluation of the dozens of studies Mexico cites that show cause for
concern.

Ten U.S. and Mexican NGOs will submit their formal comments in eight
invited submissions on the dispute March 15, due for publication April
4. IATP maintains a resource page on the GM corn conflict
[[link removed]].

 PARTIAL LIST OF ACADEMIC JOURNALS CITED BY MEXICO ON THE SCIENCE:

Science 

Env Health Perspectives 

Journal of American Science 

Food & Nutrition Sciences 

British J of Nutrition 

Nature 

Scholarly J of Agric 

Science J of Applied Toxicology 

Food & Agric Immunology 

International Immunopharmocology 

Agroecology & Sust Food Systems 

Int J of Biological Science 

J of Organic Systems 

Environmental Science Europe 

Frontiers in Plant Science 

Food & Chemical Toxicology 

African Journal of Biotechnology

READ THE ARTICLE IN SPANISH HERE
[[link removed]].
LEA EL ARTÍCULO EN ESPAÑOL AQUÍ
[[link removed]].

_Timothy A. Wise is a senior advisor at IATP, where his work focuses
on agribusiness, family farmers and the future of food, based on his
recent book, Eating Tomorrow: Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the
Battle for the Future of Food (The New Press). Tim has a long history
of collaboration with IATP on issues including agricultural dumping,
U.S. agricultural subsidies and policies, responses to the 2007-8
global food crisis, the WTO and Mexico under NAFTA. He was a senior
advisor with the Small Planet Institute, where he directed the Land
and Food Rights Program from 2016-2020. _

_About IATP:  Our mission is to work locally and globally at the
intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable
food, farm and trade systems._

* Mexico
[[link removed]]
* GMO
[[link removed]]
* corn
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]