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
usmca
What a Ruling Against Mexico’s GMO Corn Ban Could Mean for the Future of the USMCA
The pro-U.S. ruling raises questions about the fairness of tri-national trade agreement itself, which has now legitimized the use of the agreement’s dispute process to challenge a domestic policy that barely affected trade.
Dec 29, 2024
A tribunal of trade arbitrators has ruled in favor of the United States in its complaint that Mexico’s restrictions on genetically modified corn violate the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, or USMCA. The long-awaited ruling in the 16-month trade dispute is unlikely to settle the questions raised by Mexico about the safety of consuming GM corn and its associated herbicide.
Indeed, the pro-U.S. ruling raises questions about the fairness of the USMCA itself, which has now legitimized the use of the agreement’s dispute process to challenge a domestic policy that barely affected trade. U.S. President-elect Donald Trump is now openly threatening Mexico with 25% tariffs on all Mexican exports, a blatant violation of the USMCA that Trump himself renegotiated and signed in 2018. Yet the treaty appears impotent to challenge such unilateral U.S. trade measures just as its tribunal slaps Mexico’s hand for its public health policies.
According to the U.S. government, the final report from the tribunal, announced December 20, ruled that “Mexico’s measures are not based on science and undermine the market access that Mexico agreed to provide in the USMCA.” In fact, the trade panel’s ruling was more limited, demanding that Mexico comply with the trade agreement’s procedures for carrying out risk assessments based on “relevant international scientific principles.”
Countries considering entering into trade agreements with the United States may now be more reluctant to do so if their domestic policies can be challenged in a trade court.
The Mexican government defended its position but vowed to comply with the ruling. “The Government of Mexico does not share the panel’s determination, as it considers that the measures in question are in line with the principles of protection of public health and the rights of Indigenous peoples, established in national legislation and in the international treaties to which it is a party,” read a statement following the ruling.
The ruling will not settle the debate over the health and environmental risks of GM corn and its associated herbicides, In the course of the dispute, Mexico produced extensive peer-reviewed scientific evidence that showed ample cause for precaution given the risks associated with both GM corn and its associated herbicide glyphosate. Recent studies have shown negative health impacts to the gastrointestinal tract and potential damage to the liver, kidneys, and other organs.
“[We] did an exhaustive review of the scientific literature,” explained María Elena Àlvarez-Buylla, the molecular geneticist who led Mexico’s national science agency, CONAHCYT, until October. “We concluded that the evidence was more than sufficient to restrict, out of precaution, the use of GM corn and its associated agro-chemical, glyphosate, in the country’s food supply chains.”
That evidence was presented in great detail to the tribunal in Mexico’s formal filings during the process, and it has now been published as a “Science Dossier.” It represents one of the most comprehensive reviews of the scientific evidence of the risks of GM corn and glyphosate to public health and the environment.
For its part, the U.S. government declined to present evidence that its GM corn with glyphosate residues is safe to eat in Mexico, where corn is consumed at more than 10 times the levels as in the United States and in minimally processed forms such as tortillas, not in processed foods.
“The research on the part of the U.S. was quite poor,” says Dr. Álvarez-Buylla, noting that U.S. research was outdated, ignored many recent studies, and depended on science that is “full of conflicts of interest.”
The U.S. government also failed to produce any evidence that Mexico’s February 2023 presidential decree had any meaningful impacts on U.S. exporters. U.S. corn exports have increased since the decree was enacted, not shrunk. The measures restricted only GM white corn use in tortillas, less than 1% of the U.S. corn exported to Mexico.
Early on in the dispute, Mexican Economy Minister Raquel Buenrostro stated that the U.S. needed to show “quantitatively, with numbers, something that has not occurred: that the corn decree has commercially affected” U.S. exporters. The U.S. has yet to produce any such evidence.
Meanwhile, president-elect Trump’s threatened tariffs are blatantly illegal under the USMCA and promise to inflict massive economic harm on Mexican exporters, and on U.S.-based firms that produce in Mexico.
The pro-U.S., pro-agrochemical industry ruling will ripple far beyond this dispute. Mexico’s documentation of the evidence of risk from GM corn and glyphosate should prompt consumers and governments the world over to take a closer look at these controversial products, and at the lax U.S. regulatory processes exposed by Mexico.
Countries considering entering into trade agreements with the United States may now be more reluctant to do so if their domestic policies can be challenged in a trade court. Kenya has been negotiating a trade agreement with the United States. Kenyans are already concerned the agreement will open Kenya to GM animal feeds, says Anne Maina of the Kenya Biodiversity and Biosafety Association. If the agreement can be used to challenge domestic policies, she says, it will be even less palatable.
It remains to be seen how the Mexican government will comply with the ruling. It has 45 days to respond. Already, President Claudia Sheinbaum has reiterated her support for a constitutional amendment to enshrine a ban on GM corn cultivation and consumption in tortillas. A “Right to Food” law passed last year mandates labeling of foods containing GMOs. No tortilla seller wants such a label on its products, because Mexican consumers are clear that they do not want GM corn in their tortillas.
The tribunal’s ruling will not undo the fact that Mexico’s precautionary policies are indeed justified by a wealth of scientific evidence. By allowing the trade agreement to undermine a domestic policy that barely affects trade, it will further tarnish the legitimacy of an agreement already seen as favoring multinational corporations over public health and the environment.
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
Blasting US 'Recklessness,' Mexico Pauses Embassy Relations Over Judicial Reform Meddling
"They have to learn to respect Mexico's sovereignty," Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said of the U.S. and Canada after their ambassadors weighed in on his controversial proposal.
Aug 27, 2024
Outgoing Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador put the embassies of the United States and Canada on time out Tuesday after their top diplomats and other influential figures weighed in against controversial proposed reforms to Mexico's judicial system.
"The relationship with Ken Salazar is good, but it's on pause. We're going to give ourselves our time," López Obrador—who is widely known as AMLO— said during his morning press conference, referring to the U.S. ambassador. The president said the "pause" also applies to Canada, whose ambassador, Graeme Clark, voiced alarm over the proposed reforms.
"They have to learn to respect Mexico's sovereignty, because we are not going to give them advice there, nor to say that it is okay and what is wrong," he added. "We want them to be respectful, there is a reciprocal relationship in terms of sovereignty."
López Obrador's move came after Salazar asserted last week that "popular direct election of judges is a major risk to the functioning of Mexico's democracy."
"We understand the importance of Mexico's fight against judicial corruption. But direct political election of judges, in my view, would not address judicial corruption nor would it strengthen the judicial branch of government," the ambassador continued. "It would also weaken the efforts to make North American economic integration a reality and would create turbulence as the debate over direct election will continue over the next several years."
"I believe faith and trust in the rule of law are one of the many shared values which unite our nations, while for the private sector, they lay the groundwork for building confidence and inspiring investment in a stable and predictable environment," Salazar added.
Clark subsequently said that Canadian "investors are concerned; they want stability, they want a judicial system that works if there are problems."
López Obrador accused the ambassadors of "recklessness" during his Tuesday press conference, adding that "there are things that only concern our country."
It's not just the ambassadors. On Tuesday, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Ranking Member James Risch (R-Idaho), and Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a joint statement that they "are deeply concerned that the proposed judicial reforms in Mexico would undermine the independence and transparency of the country's judiciary, jeopardizing critical economic and security interests shared by our two nations."
"We are also alarmed that several other constitutional reforms currently under discussion may contradict commitments made in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, which is scheduled for review in 2026," the senators added.
The Global Enterprise Council, the Mexico City-based lobbyist for 63 multinational corporations operating in Mexico—including Walmart, American Express, AT&T, General Motors, Microsoft, and ExxonMobil—is also opposing the proposed judicial reforms, as are other organizations including the New York City Bar Association and the Washington Posteditorial board.
López Obrador's "Plan C" proposes a sweeping overhaul of Mexico's corruption-ridden judiciary. The plan's most controversial reform would make judges at all levels of the judiciary—who are currently appointed—elected officials. All current sitting judges would be up for election in 2025 and 2027.
The president argues these reforms are necessary to combat corruption and impunity in Mexico's judicial system. He has
accused Mexican Supreme Court justices of being "supporters of the oligarchy, not of democracy" and says they oppose Plan C because "they do not want a government of the people."
Plan C—which came after an earlier proposal was blocked by the Supreme Court—has sparked nationwide protests by opponents, who say López Obrador is trying to weaken the judiciary and the National Electoral Institute and entrench his ruling Morena party as former Mexico City Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum, a close ally of the president, prepares to replace him on October 1 after winning June's election in a landslide.
Tensions between Mexico and the United States have been mounting for months over Mexican perceptions of U.S. meddling, including dubiously timed corporate media
reports of alleged links between López Obrador and drug cartels.
Last week, López Obrador said that Salazar's statement "expressing a position on this strictly domestic matter of the Mexican state represents unacceptable interference, contravenes the sovereignty of the United Mexican States, and does not reflect the degree of mutual respect that characterizes the relations between our governments."
"This is an overtly interventionist attitude; I hope it does not happen again," he added.
In separate remarks last week, López Obrador also accused the U.S. of funding organizations working to undermine the Mexican government under the guise of human rights.
For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development—whose decadeslong history of meddling in Latin America runs the gamut from
kidnapping and torturing unhoused Uruguayans to death for instructional purposes to an attempt at toppling Cuba's revolutionary government by infiltrating the island's hip-hop scene—has financially supported Mexicans Against Corruption and Impunity, a frequent critic of the López Obrador administration.
During his Tuesday press conference, López Obrador reminded Mexicans of centuries of U.S. aggression and meddling in Mexico's internal affairs.
"For many years… the United States has applied an interventionist policy throughout America, ever since it established the Monroe Doctrine," he said.
López Obrador recounted how Mexico lost half its territory as a result of the 1846-48 U.S. invasion—carried out on false pretexts decried by a young congressman from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln—and endured seven months of U.S. occupation of Veracruz in 1914.
The president stressed that having trade agreements with the U.S. does not mean that Washington has the right to meddle in Mexican affairs.
"The treaty is not for us to cede our sovereignty, the treaty is about trade, about forging good economic and commercial ties that suit both nations," he said Tuesday. "But that doesn't mean Mexico must become an appendix, a colony, or a protectorate."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular