Mexico Claims Of US Lying About Science Of GM Corn Restrictions

The U.S. government has demanded that Mexico produce scientific evidence to justify what it claims are illegal trade restrictions under the U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade agreement.

Mexico Claims Of US Lying About Science Of GM Corn Restrictions

Trade representatives from Mexico and the United States are holding their first talks this week in Mexico City following the formal complaint the United States government filed against Mexico’s policies restricting the use of genetically modified (GM) corn and the herbicide glyphosate on March 6. The agenda’s focal point is science.

The U.S. government has demanded that Mexico produce scientific evidence to justify what it claims are illegal trade restrictions under the U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade agreement (USMCA). This is despite a more flexible new decree, issued on February 13, which exempts feed corn from restrictions.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack stated that Mexico’s current biotechnology trajectory is not grounded in science and that the science around agricultural biotechnology has been settled for decades.

The highest scientific body in the Mexican government, CONACYT, organised an impressive virtual conference on March 29 to present the science. The USTR delegation was probably present. The U.S. position may be clear-cut, but the science is far from settled. in particular, the science of safety.

“Mexico has a rich store of exceptionally healthy varieties of corn,” said scientist Alejandro Espinoza Calderón, the director of Mexico’s biosecurity agency, Cibiogem. It is concerning to learn that 90 percent of tortillas tested positive for traces of glyphosate and transgenes. The nation of Mexico must prioritise its biosecurity.

The panel discussed the health risks from exposure to glyphosate and the potential health risks associated with consuming minimally processed GM corn. National University biologist Ana Laura Wegier Briuolo emphasized that without healthy corn, healthy people cannot have healthy people.

Dr. Omar Arellano presented the most recent evidence from Mexico, Argentina, the United States, and elsewhere on the mechanisms by which glyphosate impacts human health.

In a long-term study of 677 kids, Dr. Felipe Lozano Kasten, a pediatrician and professor of public health in Jalisco, discovered that 98 percent of the kids had glyphosate in their urine. According to a forthcoming paper, 23% of newborns had pesticide traces on them.

A public web page with annotated references to studies documenting the risks of glyphosate and GM corn consumption as well as the additional risk to native varieties from cross-pollination by GM corn has been maintained by Mexico’s science agency. To present the full range of available scientific evidence, the science agency is organising a series of online conferences in May.

The U.S. government may face challenges as it starts formal consultations on its threatened USMCA dispute. Mexico not only has a lot of credible scientific evidence on its side, but the trade agreement’s text is very clear in recognising each country’s right to regulate in the manner in which it sees fit.

Even the updated USMCA’s new section on agricultural biotechnology is clear: “This Section does not require a Party to mandate an authorization for a product of agricultural biotechnology to be on the market.”

USTR alleged violations of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) chapter’s health and safety regulations in its formal complaint.

However, Section 4 of that chapter expressly gives Mexico the authority to set its own public health protection standards: “This Chapter does not prevent a Party from adopting or maintaining a sanitary or phytosanitary measure on a temporary basis if relevant scientific evidence is insufficient, (a) establishing the level of protection it determines to be appropriate, or (b) establishing or maintaining an approval procedure that requires a risk assessment to be conducted prior to the Party granting a product access to its market.”

The USMCA language guarantees sovereign countries the right to regulate in the ways they deem appropriate to protect public health and the environment. It does not mandate that Mexico accept U.S. definitions of sound science, nor does it prescribe precautionary policies in the face of scientific uncertainty.

USTR Katherine Tai’s claim that Mexico’s policies threaten to disrupt billions of dollars in agricultural trade is based on outdated, industry-funded economic studies.

Mexico’s revised decree applies only to GM corn used in tortillas and corn-dough, which is supplied overwhelmingly by Mexican producers of white and native corn varieties.

The U.S. government is unlikely to find any significant number of exporters of GM white corn who see their markets reduced by Mexico’s actions, as Mexican Economy Minister Raquel Buenrostro stated in response to the USTR request for technical consultations.

The Mexican government will show what has occurred: its beloved tortillas are being contaminated with glyphosate and GM corn. And they intend to put a stop to that.