The trade dispute over Mexico’s restrictions on genetically engineered (GE) corn and glyphosate, a pesticide that GE corn is designed to resist, recently entered a new phase. The dispute is turning from the governments’ submissions and rebuttals to a dialogue with the panelists who will ultimately decide the case. One issue up for debate is whether the Mexican government can assert its rights to honor commitments to Indigenous people and protect the environment and biodiversity under the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
Public hearings were held in Mexico City on June 26-27 and broadcast online. Much of the discussion focused on the process. The U.S. asserted that Mexico had failed to conduct a risk assessment carried out according to international standards. Mexico countered that its plans to gradually phase out imports of GE corn are still aspirational, one element of the bigger plans to increase self-sufficiency of corn and other basic foods that began under President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s administration and will continue under the incoming administration of President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum. According to Mexican officials, when and if they consider restrictions on GE imports, Mexico will conduct a full risk assessment of GE corn in Mexico’s specific situation (where corn is a central part of the diet) and invite the U.S. to participate. In the meantime, they explained, the end use restrictions on white corn for human consumption don’t restrict imports, as white corn continues to be imported for other uses such as animal feed. In fact, both yellow and white corn exports to Mexico have increased substantially over the last few years.
The trade dispute is about both the scientific studies cited in risk assessments and the process for determining restrictions on imports. The whole idea behind a trade agreement, or really any international agreement, is that decisions are based on a set of rules. There is little doubt that the USMCA set in place rules that explicitly favor the free flow of goods and services and exacerbate corporate power. It’s also clear that we should choose entirely different rules, but in the meantime, this agreement formally establishes that governments have legitimate reasons to take actions to protect their peoples and environments, even when those actions affect trade. The text and context of the agreements matter.
One such provision, which is new in the USMCA, is Article 32.5, on Indigenous Peoples Rights. This article allows USMCA parties (member governments) to adopt or maintain measures “necessary to fulfill its legal obligations to Indigenous peoples,” provided the measures are not unjustified discrimination or disguised restrictions on trade. It builds on similar, but vaguer, language in other recent trade agreements. The language of the USMCA general exception is bolstered in the Environment chapter, which elaborates on the links between Indigenous rights and biodiversity protection and conservation. These provisions were the direct result of pressure by First Nations communities on the Canadian government, which at the time hailed the inclusion of the Indigenous rights exception as historic.
IATP, the Rural Coalition and the Alianza Nacional de Campesinas submitted joint comments to the official USMCA dispute resolution process. Our analysis established that Mexico’s policies regarding glyphosate and GE corn are necessary to fulfill its legal obligations to Indigenous peoples, including protecting biodiversity and ensuring access to safe, healthy and culturally appropriate food. Mexico’s Constitution includes multiple provisions recognizing Indigenous peoples and rights specific to them. Indigenous rights are also protected through national legislation, executive decree and international treaties to which Mexico is a signatory, including International Labor Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, the Convention on Biological Diversity and other United Nations conventions ensuring Indigenous peoples’ rights. Unlike in the U.S., in Mexico the ratification of such treaties is at the level of the Constitution and automatically made part of Mexico’s laws.
At the June hearing, the panelists asked the U.S. (and Canada) about relevant commitments to Indigenous peoples in their countries. The two governments said they’d respond later with written comments. While the question seemed like a bit of a tangent, in fact, this issue has come up in the U.S., including in Minnesota, where IATP is based.
The Ojibwe (Anishinaabe) people are based in the Great Lakes region, including in Northern Minnesota. Manoomin (wild rice in the Ojibwe language), in addition to being a food staple, has tremendous cultural and spiritual significance to their people. In the late 1990s, as commercial interest in the plant increased in the U.S., the University of Minnesota began genetic studies of Manoomin germ plasm, including research potentially to develop genetically modified wild rice. The White Earth Band of Ojibwe vigorously contested these investigations as biopiracy and possibly leading to contamination of a plant that is much more to them than a simple commodity.
IATP joined dozens of other local and national organizations to support the White Earth campaign. All six Ojibwe bands in Minnesota supported legislation to protect Manoomin from genetic manipulation, as did the Ojibwe from Michigan, Wisconsin and parts of Canada. Finally, in 2007 the Minnesota legislature passed a law restricting the release and sale of GE wild rice in Minnesota and requiring consultations with Minnesota Ojibwe. Since then, the White Earth Band passed a law in 2018 recognizing the legal rights of Manoomin as an entity, part of the growing international recognition of the Rights of Nature.
The Ojibwe are not the only tribe to raise concerns about genetic manipulation of traditional crops, especially those central to their cultural heritage. Many communities seek to protect traditional seeds through seed banks and local legislation.
Under the Biden administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture has taken steps toward better engagement with Indigenous peoples. It established an Indigenous Food Sovereignty Initiative designed to promote traditional foods and expanded formal consultations with tribal leadership on a broad range of agricultural policy initiatives.
The U.S. Trade Representative should learn from the Ojibwe defense of Manoomin and the expanding international debate on the rights of nature and food sovereignty. Recent U.S. trade initiatives have made strides to better protect labor rights, but progress on environmental and cultural rights is harder to discern. Trade policy should adapt to current and evolving legal and cultural norms. The Indigenous Rights general exception in USMCA offers a starting point to consider the broad range of commitments to Indigenous peoples and food sovereignty and to adapt trade policy to meet those important goals.
