SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
genetically modified
New GM Wheat Is a Phony Climate Solution That Threatens Farmers and Wildlife
if we really want safety—for farmers’ finances and the environment—we ought to work more on promoting regional and local seed varieties instead of looking to multinational corporations for guidance.
Oct 13, 2024
The precautionary principle—the ethical equivalent of the common sense notion that it’s “better to be safe than sorry”—means that when some economic or policy change may endanger the public, business and government leaders ought to thoroughly conduct research so as to avoid exposing anyone to unnecessary risks.
Unfortunately, with our food system, our government continues to ignore ethics and common sense, recently approving as “safe for breeding and growing” a new genetically modified (GM) variety of wheat—HB4. Copying and combining certain genes from sunflowers to create this new variety, HB4 is not only pitched to farmers as a tool they could use to battle our ever increasingly dire climate crisis, but also to increase yields.
The truth is another, as this latest proposed tech solution to address our climate crisis stands to improve the financial situation of agribusiness corporations more than farmers, while also likely harming our environment instead of helping it. Not only should the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rethink their decision, but our officials ought to instead support publicly financing regional and local varieties of seed. Strengthening key provisions of the Farm Bill that is currently in Congress could make such proposals a reality.
We need to develop diverse kinds of seeds that suit different ecosystems instead of global “one size fits all” varieties like we find with GM options.
The overarching problem with HB4—particularly for U.S. farmers—is economic.
According to USDA data from the past 25 years, operating costs for wheat farmers have more than tripled in terms of dollars spent per acre—increasing from just over $57 in 1998, to more than $187 in 2023. Also during this time, while the input cost of seed has more than doubled, going from $7 to $16, chemicals have tripled, climbing from $7 to $22. Fertilizer expenses have risen the most—going from $18 to over $78—representing nearly half of what farmers spend per acre.
Wheat is more than a crop, or ingredient that ends up in bread, but an industry, with chemical, fertilizer, and seed companies each clawing for a share.
Meanwhile, wheat prices in our global marketplace have been volatile. The 28% price jump that farmers experienced in the first months of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 quickly stabilized thanks to the Black Sea Grain Initiative—the plan that allowed grain to leave the region for a time until Russia left the agreement in 2023—and different countries easing their export restrictions. Prices then fell, as Ukraine, regularly one of the world’s top wheat exporters, saw its production rebound to pre-invasion levels. Russia’s 2023-2024 exports also exceeded expectations, increasing by 7% over the prior year, making this country the world’s leader in export sales by far.
Meanwhile, the U.S.’ share of wheat exports has steadily fallen for decades, from about 45% in 1980 to just over 15% in 2014. With worldwide production increasing, U.S. wheat farmers may take a loss in 2024.
Maintaining open export markets for wheat can spell the difference between financial life or death for U.S. farmers. On this point, there is no indication that world markets are currently willing to accept HB4, as major international buyers of U.S. wheat have not approved it. With contamination of non-GM wheat a problem that we have been aware of for years, we need to be careful as U.S. farmers can only sell what importers will accept.
The other issue with HB4 wheat is that the seed not only resists drought, but also glufosinate herbicides. Farmers who purchase the seed will have to buy this chemical, in addition to fertilizer. And despite what the USDA claims about safety, studies show that this class of herbicides is toxic to wildlife and humans.
Overall, in addition to potential environmental harm, we have a case of the “price-cost” squeeze that farmers suffer too often, with the inputs that they need taking a significant chunk of their earnings, while the prices that they receive for their labor either shrinking or fluctuating in ways that are largely out of their control.
Accordingly, if we really want safety—for farmers’ finances and the environment—we ought to work more on promoting regional and local seed varieties instead of looking to multinational corporations for guidance.
Both versions of our beleaguered Farm Bill contain such provisions, with the House and Senate versions of the legislation dedicating grant funding to the development of regional seed varieties (referred to as “cultivars” in the legislation).
The operative word here is “regional,” as grant funding may lead to the creation of new seed varieties that would be suited to particular areas and climates. Droughts in general entail a lack of water; but soil conditions and weather patterns vary significantly by region. As a result, we need to develop diverse kinds of seeds that suit different ecosystems instead of global “one size fits all” varieties like we find with GM options.
When the USDA decided that HB4 was “safe,” they must have left out considerations for farmer financial well-being and the environment. But our legislators can make up for this mistake with the Farm Bill—whether it emerges in a lame duck session this year following the elections in November or awaits our next Congress—taking heed of the risks that GM crops pose, and supporting more local and regional food system development.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Law Is Not on the US Side in GMO Corn Fight With Mexico
Put simply, the U.S. gets it wrong when it comes to trade rules on food safety. Their lawyers—experienced as they are—should know better.
May 14, 2024
The United States ups the ante in its legal clash with Mexico over genetically modified (GMO) corn. Last month, a trade panel released the US’s latest legal filing. It essentially doubts the science Mexico offers and claims Mexico violates obligations from the USMCA trade pact.
This regards Mexico’s Decree from April 2023 banning GMO corn for human consumption. The ban cites harms from genetic manipulation of corn seeds and cancer risks from herbicides like glyphosate, needed by GMO farms. A USMCA panel will hold hearings on American complaints in June.
The U.S. position is not as strong as it claims—far from it. Observers analyze why Mexico’s scientific justifications are on solid ground. As a law professor, I explain how the U.S. overstates its legal case, at times severely so, when it comes to the ban on GMOs in tortillas and masa (dough).
Put simply, the U.S. gets it wrong when it comes to trade rules on food safety, called sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) and covered in USMCA Chapter 9. Weaknesses regard two aspects of food safety: protection levels and health risks. In a recent journal article, I offer detailed examinations of these and other obstacles.
American faults involve established international law. The USMCA is three years old and this case raises its first SPS controversy. Fortunately, there are long-settled understandings in international law specific to SPS and trade obligations. For decades, panels have interpretated the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) SPS Agreement. This will inform the USMCA panel.
SPS Agreement obligations are central to the USMCA. In the new trade pact, the U.S., Mexico and Canada expressly agreed to affirm “rights and obligations” from the SPS Agreement. Numerous tribunals have ruled on disputes about the SPS Agreement. They’ve examined food safety measures and impacts on trade in food and agriculture, similar to gripes concerning Mexico’s Decree.
Both sides refer to panel reports from SPS cases. Reports are like court opinions. The U.S. cites over 40 reports, including 16 from the highest level, the WTO’s Appellate Body. Mexico references nearly50 and 23 from the highest level. The U.S. problem : it excludes important legal aspects from these reports.
One omission regards what is called the “appropriate level of protection” (ALOP). The USMCA uses the WTO definition for ALOP: the “level of protection deemed appropriate” by the country establishing a measure to protect human life.
The U.S. gets it wrong in terms of what this level can be and who determines it, to then say Mexico inadequately defines it. Mexico is clear that for human consumption of GMO corn, its ALOP is “zero risk.”
The U.S. may not like this, but it is legal under trade rules. This is irrefutable. In 1998, the Appellate Body found “zero risk” is permitted for an ALOP. This comes from a controversy between Australia and Canada over salmon imports. In the corn dispute, the U.S. refers to the case but not to its sections approving “zero risk” levels.
This is forgetful lawyering. Trade law treatises describe “zero risk” as a settled option and interpreted as such by later trade panels. Like legal encyclopedias, treatises summarize how legal doctrine develops, based on new rulings. Attorneys and judges use them to identify how courts and panels interpret legal rules. For ALOP, American lawyers fail with the basics.
The US underplays who actually determines the ALOP. Mexico does, according to the USMCA. Trade rules are explicit that countries in situations like Mexico have wide discretion to determine the ALOP. This is “unambiguous.”
Prior cases are clear. In 2008, the Appellate Body said a country employing a food safety measure has the “prerogative” to determine the ALOP. This involved an American challenge to European Union (EU) controls of hormones in beef.
Second, the US exaggerates requirements in evaluating food safety, called “risk assessment.” Risk assessments are “evaluation[s] of the potential for adverse effects on human health.” This definition comes from the SPS Agreement and is incorporated by the USMCA. Mexico’s assessment is titled the “Scientific Record on Glyphosate and GM Crops” published in 2020 and available since then online from the National Council of Humanities, Sciences and Technologies (CONAHCYT).
The U.S. overstates what is legally needed, to then characterize Mexico’s assessment as “incoherent and inadequate.” WTO cases find that risk assessments must only establish a “potential” for adverse effects. The Appellate Body confirmed this standard in the US’s first challenge of EU controls for hormones in beef in 1998.
The standard has staying power. Ten years later, the tribunal re-affirmed this requirement in the U.S.’s second trade case against beef hormone regulations.
The standard is a fixture of SPS doctrine. Recent treatises explain that for risks in human food, trade rules are deferential to SPS measures since “protection of public health is at stake.”
In its legal filing, the U.S. demands far more than is legally necessary. It calls for excessive proof. This includes “estimates of hazard, exposure, or risk” and “levels that can cause” adverse effects when eating corn. It faults Mexico for not proving that imported GMO corn “presents unsafe levels of glyphosate residue.” These are a few examples that veer from what international trade law actually requires.
SPS cases on risk assessments further undercut American positions. In the first beef hormone controversy, the Appellate Body explained that food safety measures must have a “rational relationship with the risk assessment” and that risk assessments must “reasonably support” this food safety measure. This U.S. must have missed these trade rules, since it asks for significantly more from Mexico.
Emotionally, the U.S. presents criticisms of GMOs as fringe and unacceptable. The filing says that scientific evidence provided by Mexico only “distract[s] from prevailing scientific opinion.” This is demeaning.
Trade rules are more based on reason. They do not require SPS measures to reflect majority scientific opinion. Lawyers for the U.S. should know this. In the first fight over beef hormones, the report explained that assessments do not need to “embody” the “view of a majority” of the scientific community. Then with a second American try, the Appellate Body added that scientific support is acceptable as long as it is “considered to be legitimate science.”
Where does this take us? With legal lapses in several areas, the U.S. should try to resolve its gripes with Mexico versus pursuing fruitless disputes. The commercial reality is U.S. corn exports to Mexico have dramatically increased since the Decree.
Be careful what you ask for, when it comes to trade rulings. It is 2024 and trade lawyers for the U.S. eerily face the same legal questions from 1998 and 2008. Then they concerned American beef exports. U.S. lawyers should re-read those rulings. Trade law is clear on ALOP and risk assessments. American farmers don’t need another trade loss, they need better legal advice.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Taking Firm Stance, Scotland Pushes GMO Ban
But government will permit genetic modification for scientific research
Aug 10, 2015
Scottish government officials announced Sunday that they will ban the domestic cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops, which has attracted praise from environmental and food safety campaigners.
"Scotland is known around the world for our beautiful natural environment--and banning growing genetically modified crops will protect and further enhance our clean, green status," declared rural affairs secretary Richard Lochhead in a statement.
"The Scottish Government has long-standing concerns about GM crops--concerns shared by other European countries and consumers, and which should not be dismissed lightly," Lochhead continued.
The government invoked recently passed European Union powers that permit individual governments, like Scotland, to prohibit GM crop cultivation within their territory. Critics have expressed concern that the EU legislation won't go far enough because it does not ensure protection from legal challenges to bans.
"The Scottish government will shortly submit a request that Scotland is excluded from any European consents for the cultivation of GM crops, including the variety of genetically modified maize already approved and six other GM crops awaiting authorization," the rural affairs office said.
While the statement did not indicate whether the ban extends to scientific research, the Guardianreported Sunday that "a spokeswoman confirmed that laboratory research on GMOs would continue."
The ban signals a growing divide between the Scottish National Party and the United Kingdom's conservative Tory government housed in London, with the latter announcing earlier this summer it will allow cultivation of GM crops.
Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth-Scotland, told Scottish newspaper The National: "The Scottish government has been making anti-GM noises for some time, but the new Tory government has been trying to take us in the direction of GM being used in the UK, so it is very good news that Scottish ministers are taking that stance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular