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
gmo corn
The Evidence Is Indisputable: Canada Does Not Uphold International Law
It is up to us to challenge the government's dangerous misinformation and demand that the government support binding international laws that protect the well-being of people and the planet.
Jul 01, 2024
Does Canada uphold binding international law? The answer is No.
The Canadian government repeatedly tells the world that Canada upholds an international rules-based order that is the basis of democracy.
What the Canadian government says is not true. The evidence that it is not true is indisputable.
When the Canadian government says it supports the rule of international law, it is referring to its support for international "free" trade rules that override democracy, increase corporate power, and harm the environment.
There is widespread concern that social media is putting out misinformation, that this practice is dangerous and harmful and should be challenged. What about when our government puts out serious misinformation that is dangerous and harmful? Should that not be challenged? What do you think?
I'm not talking about trivial matters. I'm talking about extremely serious issues where the health and survival of people and the planet are threatened. And I'm not talking about pretty words. The Canadian government excels at that. I'm talking about our actions. When words and actions contradict one another, it is the actions that speak the truth. In fact, it makes Canada's role more destructive because it is dishonest. What do you think?
If the Canadian government told the truth, it would say that Canada does not uphold binding international laws that protect human rights and the environment. What the Canadian government means is that it upholds international trade agreements that enforce the interests of powerful private corporations, override democracy, and harm human rights and the environment.
Does that make sense to you? Does that reflect your values? Is that the world you want for your and everyone's kids and grand-kids?
Or does that trouble you like it troubles me?
Another question. If we are a democracy as we claim to be, do you think this should be talked about? It isn't. Why not? I thought democracy meant accountable government. Do you think we should require our political leaders to state where they stand on this issue and hold an open discussion with Canadians as to whether this is what we, who they supposedly represent, want—i.e. a discussion that is not held behind closed doors and under the influence of powerful vested interests and their paid lobbyists, as is the way that Canada's policy on human rights, the environment and, corporate power is typically decided?
Canada, right now, is blatantly violating binding international human rights law
Binding international human rights laws require that, no matter how much economic, military, or political power you (and your allies) have, you are legally bound to obey that law. There can be no double standards. All lives are valuable, even the most powerless, especially the most powerless. Human rights are for all. Otherwise, it is not human rights law at all. It is a sham.
The most serious binding international laws address horrific crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The International Court of Justice investigates and makes legally binding rulings against countries that have violated these laws, and the International Criminal Court makes rulings against individuals who have violated these laws.
Canada has ratified these international laws. Canada is legally bound to obey them and obey the rulings of these two top world courts. But Canada does not. Canada has sabotaged and continues to violate these laws.
For example, Canada lobbied the International Criminal Court to refuse to investigate documented allegations of war crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians. This effort by Canada to prevent the rule of law failed, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) proceeded with its investigation. On the basis of overwhelming evidence, the court said it had reason to believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as three Hamas leaders, had committed war crimes and that the ICC would be seeking arrest warrants for them.
After failing in its attempt to prevent the rule of law, the Canadian government now refuses to say whether it will, as it is legally required to do, obey the court's ruling. Its pretended commitment to international law is nonexistent.
Amnesty International and other human rights organizations, including Jewish organizations, have challenged the Canadian government to obey international law. The government has ignored their appeal.
Please note that binding international laws that protect human rights and the environment have no enforcement mechanisms.
Former Liberal Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy and former Liberal Attorney General Allan Rock and a group of 375 prominent former politicians and current academics have sent a letter challenging Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to express clear support for the ICC ruling. The government has ignored their appeal.
Prof. Heidi Matthews of Osgoode Hall Law School notes that along with a panel of experts in international law who independently reviewed the evidence, the ICC prosecutor concluded there are reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant are criminally responsible for starvation, murder, intentional attacks against civilians, extermination, and persecution, among other crimes.
As Prof. Matthews points out, "This dramatic development marks the first time leaders of a Western allied state have been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity at the ICC." Apparently, Canada believes that binding international law does not apply to Western allied states.
The U.S. government, whether under President Joe Biden or President Donald Trump, believes that binding international human rights law does not apply to the US. In the past and currently Republican and Democrat politicians in the U.S. have threatened to punish and to arrest the ICC prosecutor and ICC officials if they come to the United States.
Human Rights Watch has written to Canada's Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly May 21, 2024, saying, "We urge Canada, as an ICC member committed to a rules-based international order, to protect the court's independence and publicly condemn efforts to intimidate or interfere with the court's work, its officials, and those cooperating with the institution. Canada should also robustly support the ICC's efforts to advance justice for grave international crimes."
The Canadian government stays silent and does nothing. Its proclaimed commitment to the rule of international law is nowhere to be seen.
The International Court of Justice said that South Africa's genocide case against Israel was plausibly brought. The court has ordered a number of provisional measures. Under the Genocide Convention, Canada is legally required to implement these measures and take all action possible to prevent genocide. Instead, Canada is aiding and abetting genocide by not immediately stopping the shipment of any weapons to Israel.
Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights, along with others, have filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government to stop arms exports to Israel.
Please note that, in addition to the horrific human costs, war has a devastatingly destructive environmental impact. See, for example: " Revealed: Repairing Israel's Destruction of Gaza Will Come at Huge Climate Cost."
Canada supports international "free" trade rules that enforce the interests of corporations.
When the Canadian government says it supports the rule of international law, it is referring to its support for international "free" trade rules that override democracy, increase corporate power, and harm the environment. These "free" trade rules are colonialism in a new disguise, giving "freedom" to exploit and dehumanize Indigenous peoples and populations in the Global South.
The government is providing misleading, deceptive information.
Please note that binding international laws that protect human rights and the environment have no enforcement mechanisms. International trade agreements have enforcement mechanisms, such as secretive World Trade Organization tribunals and free trade panels, which can force governments to pay billions of dollars to corporations and get rid of laws the corporations don't like, such as laws that protect the environment and the rights of Indigenous communities.
Think about that. Trade agreements that protect the huge global power and profits of corporations, such as fossil fuel corporations, mining corporations, and agro-chemical corporations, are enforceable.
Legally binding international conventions that protect the health and survival of people and the planet are not enforceable.
Does that make sense to you? Do you think that we should, if we are a democracy, at least have an open discussion about this?
Right now, for example, the Canadian government together with the U.S. government and powerful agro-chemical corporations (" Revealed: Monsanto Owner and U.S. Officials Pressured Mexico to Drop Glyphosate Ban") has threatened to take legal action against Mexico under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (formerly the North America Free Trade Agreement), if the Mexican government does not abandon its decision to place restrictions on the import of GMO corn and glyphosate.
In January 2023, the Council of Canadians and other organizations wrote to Trudeau and government ministers, stating: "We call on the Canadian Government to back Mexico's plan to phase out GMO corn and the use of glyphosate by 2024. We oppose the use of trade agreements to undermine democratic rights and prioritize corporate profit-making ahead of the needs of our communities."
Farmer associations and environmental and social justice organizations sent a petition to the Canadian government, stating: "We oppose Canada's role in the trade dispute that challenges Mexico's restrictions on the use of GM corn. We oppose the use of trade agreements to undermine democratic rights and prioritize corporate profit-making ahead of the needs of our communities." They asked Canada to withdraw from this dispute. Canada continues to act for the interests of the agro-chemical lobby.
The powerful pesticide lobby organization CropLife Canada stated: "CropLife is pleased that Canada is defending rules-based trade and holding Mexico accountable to the free trade agreement."
Contrary to what the Canadian government states, Canada is serving the vested interests of the chemical lobby, not democracy. Environmental organizations have expressed concern that Health Canada, which is supposed to regulate pesticides to protect human and environmental health, has been captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate and ignores inconvenient scientific evidence. In the same way, Health Canada was captured by the asbestos industry and supported the corrupt information of the asbestos lobby that asbestos can be safely used.
Another example of how Canada is undermining democracy, the environment, and human rights and is instead serving the interests of Canadian mining and resource extraction corporations is Canada's support for an "investor-state dispute settlement" regime (yes, this is indeed a pretty phrase intended to put you to sleep, but what it means is giving enforceable power for corporations to override democracy) in the free trade agreement Canada is currently negotiating with Ecuador.
As University of British Columbia professor of law, policy, and sustainability and former United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, David R. Boyd, stated in a report to the U.N. General Assembly in October 2023, investor-state dispute settlements have catastrophic consequences for the environment and human rights.
Boyd's report provides:
compelling evidence that a secretive international arbitration process called investor-state dispute settlement has become a major obstacle to urgent actions needed to address the planetary environmental and human rights crises. Foreign investors use the dispute settlement process to seek exorbitant compensation from states that strengthen environmental protection, with the fossil fuel and mining industries already winning over $100 billion in awards.
Amnesty International and environmental groups have called on the Canadian government to exclude this investor-state dispute settlement provision, but, as is its practice, the government is serving the financial interests of powerful corporate lobby groups and is violating binding international laws that protect the environment and human rights.
Do you support this? Do you think we should, at least, talk about whether this is the world we want? Does it bother you that the CBC and the establishment media pretend not to see this issue and choose not to challenge the government on it? Supposedly, their role is to hold power accountable, but they do not.
It is up to us to challenge the government's dangerous misinformation and demand that the government support binding international laws that protect the well-being of people and the planet.
We need to care about one another and the planet. We will be happier and safer if we do so.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Early US Fumbles in Tortilla War With Mexico Over GMO Corn
The U.S. government ignores the trade numbers and misconstrues Mexican policy when it comes to glyphosate and American corn destined for human consumption across the border.
Jun 27, 2024
An international battle over tortillas is taking place this week. For an ingredient in tacos, the United States gins up a trade dispute with Mexico. Last year, in a Decree Mexico outlawed genetically modified (GMO) corn for human consumption. The U.S.argues that this violates trade obligations. Worried about its GMO corn exports, it formed a trade panel under the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA). Hearings started Wednesday.
The controversy is overstuffed and a sloppy mess. So far, American and Mexican legal filings contain 586 pages, 758 exhibits, and nearly 2,000 footnotes. Arguments span over 20 separate USMCA provisions and multiple annexes. Extra submissions come from Canada and non-governmental organizations. It’s hard to follow, whether you’re a trade expert, scientist, or just care about food safety.
The U.S. position has two weaknesses: economic errors and misrepresentations about the Decree. These are basic mistakes, from a Trade 101 class, regarding injuries and policy. The fumbles stand out from the legalese and scientific jargon in the filings. And let's be clear: he U.S. should drop the case.
A good place to start making sense of the fight is the actual Decree. Article 6 outlaws GMO corn for human consumption, precisely defined as corn for tortillas or masa (dough). It stops approvals for GMO corn for these two items. That is it. The Decree is explicit in not touching GMOs in animal feed or industrial use—the kind U.S. corn farmers mostly export.
Decree motivations include protecting human health, biodiversity, and food security. The prohibition responds to risks from glyphosate, an herbicide needed to grow GMO corn. It has been found to be a likely cause of cancer by international health agencies and U.S. courts. Next, Mexico is corn’s center of origin and diversity, a scientific designation indicating extreme genetic vulnerability. In 2021, Mexico’s Supreme Court found that GMOs threaten to permanently damage this biodiversity. More immediate, corn provides half of the daily protein intake for Mexicans.
With Article 6, Mexico reduces these threats by outlawing GMOs in the tortillas and masa, eaten by millions every day. For thesescientifically establishedrisks, Mexico tailored the Decree to only impact two food staples.
The U.S. ignores this. Recent economic figures explain. Mexican corn imports from the U.S. have increased since the Decree. Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported a “record-high” for corn exports to Mexico for 2023 and 2024 and forecasts similar trends next year. This confirms earlier reports citing increases by 20 percent.
Put simply, the Decree has no real impact on trade in corn. Why? Because American farmers overwhelmingly export corn for animal feed and not for human consumption. Mexicohas explained this since enacting the Decree. Let’s be clear, the U.S. fights as exports increase. It makes no sense.
Furthermore, the U.S. mispresents the Decree. The U.S. says Mexico imposes a “Tortilla Corn Ban.” Wrong. It suspends approvals for human consumption. GMO corn can still be imported but cannot be destined for tortillas. Mexico describes this as an “End Use Limitation,” since it regulates how corn is used. This applies to GMO corn from anywhere including from Mexican farms.
Next, the U.S. exaggerates what the Decree does. It quibbles about non-issues. What it coins “Substitution Instructions” to force replacing GMO corn in animal feed. The complaint is that instructions are unclear.
Problem: the Decree does not mandate substitution. It does describe future actions and the prerequisites needed to replace GMO feed. Article 7 expressly says Mexico’s commission on sanitary risk will continue approving GMO corn in animal feed, so long as it is not for tortillas. It clarifies that federal agencies will conduct any possible substitution. By implication state governments in Mexico have no role.
Article 8 confirms this, explaining what is necessary before any replacement. It designates the parameters to eventually substitute GMO corn for animals. Pre-conditions include determining national food security and any impacts on human health. In two filings, Mexico explains that the prerequisites have not occurred. As such, it has not set any date for substitution, much less any guidance.
Nowhere does the Decree demand alternatives for GMOs. American complaints miss the mark. There is no there there. The Decree does not touch corn for livestock.
The dispute just started warming up the comal (skillet used to heat tortillas). A final panel report comes in November. Until then, expect a mess with more scientific and legal arguments piled on. In the simplest terms, the U.S. ignores commercial reality and misrepresents the Decree. Basic blunders compounding obstacles in the USMCA’s food safety rules.
All this should inspire resolution versus repeating trade defeats. American farmers and Mexican eaters deserve better. Ending the dispute secures a corn buyer in a neighbor. It promotes public health in Mexico. The current course only produces uncertainty.
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
Most Popular