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
pesticides
In Win for Agribusiness, Trade Panel Backs US Challenge to Mexican GM Corn Ban
"Trade agreements should not allow multinational pesticide and biotech companies to imperil the health of people and the environment," one campaigner said.
Dec 21, 2024
A trade dispute panel under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement ruled on Friday that Mexico violated the trade accord with its ban on genetically modified corn for human consumption.
The decision was a win for the agribusiness industry and the Biden administration, which called for the panel in August of last year after negotiations with the Mexican government failed. However, civil society groups condemned the ruling, saying it overlooked threats to the environment, public health, and Indigenous rights while overstating potential harm to U.S. corn exporters.
"The panel ignores the mountains of peer-reviewed evidence Mexico presented on the risks to public health and the environment of genetically modified (GM) corn and glyphosate residues for people in Mexico who consume more than 10 times the corn as we do in the U.S. and do so not in processed foods but in minimally processed forms such as tortillas," Timothy A. Wise, an investigative journalist with U.S. Right to Know, told Common Dreams. "Mexico's precautionary policies are indeed well-grounded in science, and the U.S. and the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) have no business using a trade agreement to undermine a domestic policy that barely affects trade between the two countries."
"This ruling will make winners out of agrochemical corporations and losers out of everyone else."
Then-Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) first announced a ban on GM corn and glyphosate in 2020, to go into effect by 2024. This was then amended in February 2023 to scratch the 2024 deadline for animal feed and industrial uses of corn, but immediate ban GM corn for tortillas and tortilla dough. While the deleted deadline was widely seen as a concession to pressure from the Biden administration, the U.S. still went ahead with challenging the rule under the USMCA.
In response to Friday's decision, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack commended the panel for affirming that "Mexico's approach to biotechnology was not based on scientific principles or international standards."
"Mexico's measures ran counter to decades' worth of evidence demonstrating the safety of agricultural biotechnology, underpinned by science- and risk-based regulatory review systems," Vilsack continued. "This decision ensures that U.S. producers and exporters will continue to have full and fair access to the Mexican market, and is a victory for fair, open, and science- and rules-based trade, which serves as the foundation of the USMCA as it was agreed to by all parties."
Yet several U.S. environmental groups backed Mexico's case and said the science used by the U.S. to establish the safety of GM corn was out-of-date and insufficient. For example, the U.S. relies on studies from when GM or genetically engineered corn was first introduced to the market and does not account for how pesticides and herbicides are currently used on the corn.
"Trade agreements should not allow multinational pesticide and biotech companies to imperil the health of people and the environment," said Kendra Klein, PhD, deputy director of science at Friends of the Earth U.S. "The science is clear that GMO corn raises serious health concerns and that production of GMO corn depends on intensive use of the toxic weedkiller glyphosate."
Mily Treviño-Sauceda, the executive director of the Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, condemned Friday's decision.
"Mexico's policies to ban the use of GM corn and glyphosate were enacted to protect biodiversity, cultural heritage, and the rights of Indigenous people," Treviño-Sauceda said. "This decision will continue to adversely impact the quality and nutritional value of food reaching Mexican households. This is just another step in the direction of consolidating agricultural power to the U.S. agro-industrial complex that we will continue to challenge until we see real change for the benefit of the public and our health."
Other trade justice and agricultural advocates said the decision was a missed opportunity to transform trade and food systems beyond Mexico.
"The USMCA was hailed as a new kind of trade agreement, taking some steps forward on issues like labor rights and investment," said Karen Hansen-Kuhn, director of trade and international strategies at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. "This dispute shows how far we still need to go. Mexico has every right to try to transform its food system to better feed its people and enhance rural livelihoods and biodiversity. The U.S. was wrong to challenge that initiative, and the panel is wrong to back them up"
Farm Action President Angela Huffman added: "We are disappointed in the panel's ruling today, which shows the U.S. successfully wielded its power on behalf of the world's largest agrochemical corporations to force their industrial technology onto Mexico. Mexico's ban GM corn and glyphosate presented a tremendous premium market opportunity for non-GM corn producers in the U.S. Instead of helping U.S. farmers transition to non-GM corn production, our government has continued to force GM corn onto people who don't want it and propped up agrochemical corporations based in other countries—such as Germany's Bayer and China's Syngenta. This ruling will make winners out of agrochemical corporations and losers out of everyone else."
Business interests, on the other hand, reacted positively to the news.
"This is the clearest of signals that upholding free-trade agreements delivers the stability needed for innovation to flourish and to anchor our food security," Emily Rees, president of plant-science industry group CropLife International, said, as Reutersreported.
The president of the U.S. National Corn Growers Association, Kenneth Hartman Jr., also celebrated the news, saying, "This outcome is a direct result of the advocacy efforts of corn grower leaders from across the country," according toThe Associated Press.
The Mexican government said it disagreed with the decision, but would abide by the panel's ruling.
"The Mexican government does not agree with the panel's finding, given that it considers that the measures in question are aligned with the principles of protecting public health and the rights of Indigenous communities," the country's Economy Department said. "Nonetheless, the Mexican government will respect the ruling."
The decision comes as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has threatened to set a 25% tariff on all imports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada unless the two countries decrease the number of migrants and the amount of fentanyl that enters the U.S. via their borders. As this would likely violate the USCMA, it puts additional pressure on Mexico to abide by the agreement in order to reinforce norms against Trump's challenge.
Wise criticized the panel for ruling against Mexico when real threats to trade governance loom on the horizon.
"At a time when the U.S. president-elect is threatening to levy massive tariffs on Mexican products, a blatant violation of the North American trade agreement, it is outrageous that a trade tribunal ruled in favor of the U.S. complaint against Mexico's limited restrictions on genetically modified corn, which barely affect U.S. exporters," Wise said in a statement.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pesticide Scorecard Exposes Which Food Retailers Are Failing Bees
"Under the incoming Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency will likely do even less to mitigate the damage of pesticides, putting even more onus on companies to address the escalating risks," said one climate advocate.
Dec 10, 2024
A report released Tuesday from the environmental group Friends of the Earth finds that the U.S. food retail sector's use of pesticides on just four crops—almonds, apples, soy, and corn—could result in over $200 billion worth of financial, climate, and biodiversity risks for the industry between 2024 and 2050. Pollinators, including bees, form a crucial link between pesticide use and these risks.
The report was released in tandem with the group's annual retailer scorecard, which ranks the largest U.S. grocery stores on the "steps they are taking to address the use of toxic pesticides in their supply chains and to support the expansion of organic agriculture and other ecological solutions."
While it highlights some industry leadership on this issue, the authors of the scorecard say that, on the whole, retailer action to curb the impact of pesticides falls short. The following retailers received an "F" grade from Friends of the Earth: Wakefern, Publix, Dollar General, 7-Eleven Inc., Hy-Vee, Walgreens, H-E-B, BJ's, Amazon, and Wegmans.
Although its owner, Amazon, received an F grade, the grocery store Whole Foods was the only retailer that was given an A grade.
A handful of the companies, including Whole Foods, have made time bound pledges to address pesticide use by requiring fresh produce suppliers to adopt ecological farming methods and to confirm their practices through third-party verifications. Eight companies have created policies that encourage suppliers to reduce the use of "pesticides of concern—including neonicotinoids, organophosphates, and glyphosate—and to shift to least-toxic approaches," according to the scorecard.
Friends of the Earth's report on risks associated with pesticide use explains why scrutiny around retailers' use of pesticides is warranted, and why retailers themselves ought to be motivated to reduce these risks.
For one thing, "under the incoming Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency will likely do even less to mitigate the damage of pesticides, putting even more onus on companies to address the escalating risks," according to Kendra Klein, deputy director of science at Friends of the Earth.
"Food retailers must urgently reduce their use of pesticides and advance organic and other ecologically regenerative approaches. They have the opportunity to lead in the fight against biodiversity collapse and climate change, helping to ensure Americans have continued access to healthy food," she said in a statement.
An estimated one-third of world crops rely on pollination, and a little less than three-fourths of fruit and vegetable crops require pollination from insects and other creatures, according to the report. Pollinators are often studied as an indicator for biodiversity risk and general environmental health—and experts cite pesticides as among the reasons that pollinators are in decline. Research also shows that pesticides poise a threat to healthy soil ecosystems.
According to the report, an estimated one-third of world crops rely on pollination, and a little less than three-fourths of fruit and vegetable crops require pollination from insects and other creatures. Pollinators are often studied as an indicator for biodiversity risk and general environmental health—and experts cite pesticides as among the reasons that pollinators are in decline, per the report. Research also shows that pesticides poise a threat to healthy soil ecosystems, the report states.
The report states that 89% of the almond crop area, 72% of apples, 100% of corn, and 40% of soy receives more than one "lethal dose" of an insecticide that is considered toxic to bees. This "quantification of the risk of pesticides to pollinators" for the four crops "provides the values to conduct the financial analysis in this study."
The document details how the food retail industry's use of pesticides creates direct costs for the industry—for example, the money spent purchasing and applying the pesticides, the CO2 emissions associated with using or producing pesticides, and the impact on crop yields, as well as indirect costs.
When it comes to climate damage costs, the report estimates that U.S. food retailer sales for products that include soy, corn, apples, and almonds will suffer $4.5 billion over the period of 2024-50. Biodiversity risk stemming from using pollinator-harming pesticides on those four crops is valued much higher, at $34.3 billion, over the same time period.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Vote Like Your Child’s Health Depends on It
For anyone hoping that a Trump administration might “Make America Healthy Again,” as RFK, Jr. has insisted, evidence makes clear that Trump’s entire record completely contradicts these important goals.
Oct 31, 2024
Every parent voting in the November 5 U.S. election should ask themselves: How will this presidential election affect my child’s health?
Concern is rising about the avalanche of toxic chemicals in our kids’ food and environment—and recently these issues gained more attention amid Bobby Kennedy, Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” campaign for former U.S. President Donald Trump.
While RFK, Jr. speaks of the need to end “corporate capture” over government policy (indeed a serious problem), enforcement of food and drug safety protections plummeted under Trump.
Regardless of one’s political stance, people are right to be concerned about the proliferation of harmful chemicals linked to serious health impacts, from cancer to ADHD. But, there’s a big elephant in this room: Project 2025, the right-wing policy platform crafted by many top former Trump administration officials for the deeply conservative Heritage Foundation. While Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025, evidence shows the right-wing platform will guide Trump’s policies if he’s elected in November.
The Heritage Foundation agrees, claiming that “during Trump’s last term, he embraced two-thirds of their policy proposals within his first year in office.” In 2022, Trump said of the Heritage Foundation’s plans: "They’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do."
Project 2025 would threaten our children’s health, our food safety, and the environment in many disturbing ways. The right-wing Republican platform takes a wrecking ball to crucial protections from toxic pesticides and other harmful chemicals, and undermines consumer food safety, and access to child nutrition and clean air and water.
While RFK, Jr. speaks of the need to end “corporate capture” over government policy (indeed a serious problem), enforcement of food and drug safety protections plummeted under Trump, who appointed an unprecedented number of industry lobbyists and executives to key high-level positions, worsening this corporate capture.
Endangering Food Safety
The food we consume every day is often laden with toxic chemicals that harm our health, particularly for children who are developing their minds and bodies. Project 2025 would make our food supply more unsafe and unhealthy by giving Big Food, Big Ag, and Big Chemical corporations free rein to maximize profits and cut regulatory corners at the expense of our kids’ well-being.
By aggressively deregulating pesticides and chemicals, Project 2025 would allow far more toxics in our food supply, air, and water, putting our children in harm’s way. This would include rolling back vital, hard-won protections from highly toxic pesticides like dacthal (linked to irreversible harm to unborn babies’ developing brains) and PFAS, aka, “forever chemicals”—linked to kidney or testicular cancer, and damage to the liver and immune system—which the Biden-Harris administration recently addressed.
While Kennedy stresses the need for consumer protections and labeling of GMO products, Trump gutted these protections in his first term, prompting a lawsuit by farmers and conservationists.
Project 2025 dangerously calls for removing federal inspection for meat and poultry processing plants, leaving required inspections up to the states, which vary widely and often provide meager protections for consumer health and safety. When we’re seeing massive recalls of tainted chicken and outbreaks of E-coli illnesses from fast food, the last thing consumers need is less protection from our federal government.
This Trump-allied policy blueprint also urges the undermining or even outright elimination of the USDA’s science-backed Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), which have been improved in recent years to address diet-related health crises. These vital guidelines are intended to ensure that the billions of taxpayer dollars spent on federally supported feeding programs, like school meals, align with scientific nutritional guidance.
Also troubling is the Project 2025 plan to further deregulate GMOs in our food supply, including removing hard-won GMO labeling requirements that protect our right to know what’s in our food. Slashing consumer protections on GMOs and food labeling should worry everyone, particularly supporters of RFK, Jr.’s “MAHA” campaign for Trump. While Kennedy stresses the need for consumer protections and labeling of GMO products, Trump gutted these protections in his first term, prompting a lawsuit by farmers and conservationists.
Slashing Child Nutrition and Healthcare
Equally disastrous are Project 2025’s plans to slash government food assistance to low-income and working-class people through SNAP (once known as “food stamps”) and the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), which provides critical nutrition for millions of children. This Republican plan also seeks to eliminate the Head Start program, which served 833,000 children in 2022, and universal free school meals that provide food security to millions of children.
Cutting school meals for kids in need would cause serious harm. As First Focus on Children explains, Project 2025’s cuts to food assistance “would significantly increase hunger for millions of children, spike nutrition-related diseases, and eliminate the safety regulations on baby formula.” If implemented by Trump, Project 2025 would eliminate healthy school meals for 20 million American children in lower-income schools.
Eliminating and Gutting Environmental Protections
Regulations protecting clean air and water are critical to our health. Project 2025 would harm our kids’ health by demolishing vital environmental protections that help keep our water and air clean, and diminish our exposure to toxic pesticides and chemicals. Project 2025’s calls for gutting the EPA including eliminating legal and regulatory enforcement and compliance offices, curtailing environmental review, and diminishing scientific credentials for EPA science advisors. Project 2025 also aims to severely weaken the Endangered Species Act and reduce the influence of EPA science on whether pesticides are approved for use—opening the door to many more toxic pesticides that could harm our health and environment.
According to former Acting Deputy EPA Administrator Stan Meiburg, “Project 2025 is just full of recommendations that would essentially eviscerate EPA. They would turn it into a shell of what its true mission is.”
In stark contrast, Vice President Kamala Harris has consistently acted to protect our kids’ health.
These policies reflect the same agenda implemented by the first Trump administration, which rolled back more than 100 environmental protections. Numerous reports confirm that the Trump administration pressured EPA officials to back away from environmental regulation and enforcement—allegedly retaliating against EPA scientists who warned about harm from chemicals. As ProPublicareported, “If Trump fulfills even some of the promises made in Project 2025, job security for the whistleblowers—and all EPA scientists—will become much more tenuous.” Mirroring this Trump agenda, Project 2025 “specifically calls for new chemicals to be approved quickly and proposes that all employees whose work touches on policy in federal agencies would become at-will workers, allowing them to be fired more easily.”
For anyone hoping that a Trump administration might “Make America Healthy Again,” as RFK, Jr. has insisted, evidence makes clear that Trump’s entire record completely contradicts these important goals. As president, Trump expanded Americans’ exposures to toxic pesticides and chemicals and gutted our consumer health protections. Meanwhile, the Republican Party platform doesn’t say one word (not even one) about protecting our health from pesticides and other toxic chemicals. Trump’s past and future plans are a continuation of decades-long efforts by Republicans to weaken and often eradicate vital environmental protections.
In stark contrast, Vice President Kamala Harris has consistently acted to protect our kids’ health. After Trump reversed a hard-won ban on the highly toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos, Biden-Harris restored that ban to protect our health. Biden-Harris issued the first-ever drinking water standard for “forever chemicals,” investing more than $1 billion to protect Americans from these deadly chemicals.
When we vote for our children’s health and our own, the choice is crystal clear: Trump and Project 2025 would give corporations free rein to poison our environment and our food. Vice President Harris will strengthen and expand vital protections for our kids, and for all of us.
This piece was first published by Friends of the Earth Action.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular