Mexico is not allowed to ban U.S.-grown genetically modified (GM) corn sprayed with glyphosate for use in tortillas under the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA), a panel of arbitrators ruled Dec. 20.
The Biden Administration brought the case against Mexico under the USMCA in 2023 after Mexico banned GM corn from use in minimally processed corn products for health and environmental reasons.
In the ruling, the USMCA panel found in favor of the U.S. on all seven claims, and said Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn in tortillas cannot stand because they are not based on adequate risk assessment, scientific evidence and relevant international standards.
An effort to protect public health
The USMCA panel said Mexico did not conduct an adequate risk assessment, a process that identifies and evaluates hazards, considers exposure levels and the effectiveness of existing controls, and determines whether the associated risks are acceptable or require further mitigation.
Mexico argued that its policies to restrict GM corn are “aligned with the principles of protection of public health and the rights of Indigenous peoples.” The government said it would abide by the ruling, but did not say how it would do so. Mexico now has 45 days to respond to the ruling.
In its ruling, the panel ignored a large body of scientific evidence presented by Mexico, including hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that raise concerns about the health risks of GM corn and glyphosate. These studies “show very clearly the risks of GM corn planting and consumption in tortillas and masa,” Maria Elena Alvarez-Bullya, former director of CONAHCYT, Mexico’s national science agency, told U.S. Right to Know last month.
“We concluded that the evidence was more than sufficient to restrict, out of precaution, the use of GM corn and its associated agrichemical, glyphosate, in the country’s food supply chains.” She said the health risks are particularly high for Mexican people who directly consume much more corn than any other people in the world.
In reaction to the trade ruling, Dr. Alvarez-Bullya said, “Keeping Mexican maize varieties as well as watersheds and foods in Mexico free of GMOs and glyphosate protects our food system, and therefore our health. Trade agreements should never be prioritized above the health and environment of the countries involved.”
Win for agrichemical corporations
John Crowley, president and CEO of the biotech industry trade group BIO, hailed the ruling as a “monumental victory for the future innovation of agricultural production technologies.”
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative described the ruling as a “major trade enforcement victory for U.S corn growers, processors and exporters.” According to Ambassador Katherine Tai, “The panel’s ruling reaffirms the United States’ longstanding concerns about Mexico’s biotechnology policies and their detrimental impact on U.S. agricultural exports.”
Farm Action, a U.S. based group that opposes corporate monopolies in agriculture, said the ruling, “shows the U.S. successfully wielded its power on behalf of the world’s largest agrichemical corporations to force their industrial technology onto Mexico.”
The group’s president, Angela Huffman, said Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn and glyphosate “presented a tremendous premium market opportunity for non-GM corn producers in the U.S.” Instead of helping farmers transition to non-GM crops, “our government has continued to force GM corn onto people who don’t want it and propped up agrichemical corporations based in other countries — such as Germany’s Bayer and China’s Syngenta.”
Mexico’s national campaign Sin Maíz No Hay País (“without corn there is no country”) said the ruling puts the interests of transnational corporations over the rights of Mexican people and their environment. The controversy raises global concerns, they said, about the health risks of GM foods, and illustrates the problem that food is “considered as a commodity and not as a priority good for humanity.”
Karen Hansen, director of trade for the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, said the panel “ignored substantial scientific evidence on health and environmental risks, sidestepped threats to Indigenous Rights, and inappropriately anticipated economic harm to U.S. corn exporters when no harm has occurred. The USMCA was hailed as a new kind of trade agreement, taking some steps forward on issues like labor rights and investment. This dispute shows how far we still need to go.”
An analysis by researcher Timothy Wise notes that Mexico’s corn ban would have had a small impact on trade, affecting less than 1% of U.S. corn exports.
Why the U.S. brought the dispute to the USMCA anyway is a point of speculation. In the view of Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist who submitted scientific testimony to USMCA in defense of Mexico’s position, Mexico’s policy to restrict GM corn imports for certain food products “sets a major precedent for the world, and that’s why the U.S. is fighting it so hard.”
Notably, the U.S. did not challenge Mexico’s ban on growing GM corn or its restrictions on glyphosate, an herbicide linked to cancer and other illnesses that is sprayed on most corn grown in the U.S.
Mexico’s new President Claudia Sheinbaum recently announced intentions to present a constitutional amendment that would protect Mexico’s native corn supply from GM varieties. “This will be in the constitution as this is the best defense we have for biodiversity as well as for our health,” she said.
—
We are posting documents from the trade dispute here: GM corn and glyphosate science: Documents from the Mexico-U.S. trade dispute. See our previous coverage: New scientific analyses underpin Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn and glyphosate due to health risks (Nov. 27, 2024)
