The following opinion was originally published by Common Dreams on May 9. Read the article in Spanish on Contralínea (also watch their Spanish broadcast about the article).
The U.S. position in support of corporate interests is stuck in a mythical past, when massive agribusiness claimed their products would save family farmers without harming consumers or the environment—claims we know are false. Mexico is taking a different approach to create greater resiliency and healthier alternatives that meet public demand.
The trade dispute over Mexico’s limitations on genetically modified (GM) corn and glyphosate continues to unfold. On April 30, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Secretariat published the U.S. rebuttal to Mexico’s comments published in March. Much of what’s in that analysis repeats previous U.S. comments, arguing that Mexico has violated the terms of the agreement and has failed to offer scientific evidence that GM corn and herbicide residues present potential dangers to Mexican consumers.
Civil society groups, many of which have made official submissions to the trade panel on the case, offered some responses to the issues raised in the lengthy statement by the U.S.
Does the U.S. refute the science presented by Mexico?
The U.S. claims that Mexico failed to produce scientific evidence to back its restrictions on the use of GM corn in tortillas. However, Mexico presented many important studies in its submission. The U.S. neglected to address many of these studies in its response.
“There are a dozen references in the U.S. rebuttal to papers published in industry-friendly journals by scientists whose work has been funded for years by GMO seed and pesticide companies,” notes pesticide expert Charles Benbrook, who co-authored a detailed submission to the panel by Friends of the Earth. “Their work draws heavily on cherry-picked data the companies chose to provide these analysts. The absence of any reference to, or discussion of, the dozens of credible, high-quality papers supporting points made in the Mexican submission, including several pointing to possible human food safety issues with genetically engineered (GE) corn, is strong evidence that the U.S. response is a political document, not a scientific one.”
“There are a dozen references in the U.S. rebuttal to papers published in industry-friendly journals by scientists whose work has been funded for years by GMO seed and pesticide companies.”
“The U.S. government still fails to take seriously the evidence Mexico has provided showing ample cause for its precautionary restrictions on GM corn in its tortillas,” said IATP’s Timothy A. Wise of the U.S. response. “Mexico justifiably wants scientific evidence that GM corn with glyphosate residues is safe to eat for Mexicans, who consume 10 times the corn we do in the U.S. and do so not in processed foods but in minimally processed foods. The U.S. has provided no such evidence.”
Nor does the U.S. government take seriously the science showing risks to native corn biodiversity from GM corn varieties, according to Mercedes López of Regeneration International. “The U.S. claim that ‘The prohibition of corn for tortillas and the gradual substitution of Mexico are not ‘related’ to the conservation of an exhaustible natural resource’ is totally false. Mexico is a center of origin and constant diversification of corn. It is a product of the biodiversity of hundreds of generations. The possible planting of genetically modified corn and the import of GM corn for staple foods would threaten that biodiversity and endanger the millions of people who consume corn.”
Does the U.S. have the right to claim “reasonable expectation” of GM corn exports?
The U.S. response also makes the case that U.S. producers have suffered damages from Mexico’s limited restrictions on the uses of GM corn in tortillas, even though there is little evidence it has affected many U.S. producers. U.S. officials now claim that Mexico’s decree violates the trade agreement because it threatens future expected exports, a theory debunked by IATP advisor and trade attorney Sharon Treat.
“The USMCA text affirms each country’s rights to honor its legal obligations to Indigenous communities. Mexico has many such commitments in Federal law and the Constitution. Now in its rebuttal, the U.S. argues that even if Mexico’s actions are justified under the Indigenous rights provision, Mexico hasn't proved that its actions don't amount to a ‘disguised restriction on trade.’ The U.S. argues that exporters had a ‘reasonable expectation’ that Mexico’s rules would never change. Contrary to the U.S. contention, the text simply does not say that the status quo at the time the trade agreement was signed could never be altered. The Indigenous rights provision specifically protects Mexico’s authority to adopt new measures to honor its obligations” says Treat, who coauthored a joint submission to the tribunal on Indigenous rights to GM-free corn with the Rural Coalition and the Alianza Nacional de Campesinas.
The U.S. rebuttal is stuck in a mythical past, when massive agribusiness exports would supposedly save family farmers from low prices. That hasn’t worked in the U.S. or in Mexico. Mexico is taking a different approach to create greater resiliency and healthier alternatives that meet public demand. We should be learning from their experience rather than trying to disrupt it.
See IATP’s resource page on the dispute, where you can read the submissions from Mexican, Canadian and U.S. NGOs.
