Public Health vs. Corporate Interest

The U.S. government, through the United States trade representative, has requested dispute resolution consultations with Mexico based on the free trade agreement signed by both countries and Canada (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) because of a decree introduced by the Mexican government that would gradually eliminate imports of genetically modified corn and ban the use of glyphosate in the cultivation of crops. The Secretariat of Economy insisted that it would defend the Mexican position with hard facts and figures and that this decree would not result in commercial sanctions.

Washington’s attempts to force Mexico to accept genetically modified corn produced on U.S. territory reflect a historical attitude of the United States’ governing class to treat the interests, demands and whims of large corporations as state business.

Though U.S. authorities and lawmakers are trying to present their case as a defense of the farmers who will be significantly impacted by not being able to export their main crop to their southern neighbor, the facts speak for themselves: At this moment in time, a handful of large multinational corporations have a monopoly over the corn business, control its entire production chain and reap all its economic rewards.

In just 20 years (from 1997 to 2017), the number of farms with at least 1 acre (4,000 square meters or 40% of a hectare) planted with corn has fallen from 450,520 to 304,801 without a decline in production, which suggests that the same land is now concentrated in fewer hands.

While 89% of individual production units do not generate enough money to be self-sufficient, 47% of the national agricultural production value is earned by just 3% of these. According to the president of the National Farmers Union of Nebraska speaking to this publication, four businesses control 85% of the corn seed market and 84% of grain mills, in addition to 84% of the global market of herbicides and pesticides, meaning they have absolute control over fixing prices and of farming practices.

The USTR cynically accuses Mexico of pursuing biotechnological policies without a scientific basis. However, in aligning ideologically with the interests of large corporations, Washington has either ignored or twisted studies that prove the carcinogenic risk of genetically modified species and of glyphosate, an herbicide widely used in the large single crop farming operations of genetically modified organisms.

So widespread are this chemical’s dangers, the best-known commercial brand of which is Bayer’s Roundup (owned by Monsanto, which manufactures and distributes it globally), that 18 countries have either banned or imposed restrictions on it. On a local level, it is prohibited in various cities in Spain, Argentina and New Zealand, in 80% of the regions in Canada and by three major U.S. cities. In 2018, Monsanto was ordered to pay $290 million to a gardener, terminally ill with cancer, for not properly advertising the risk of contracting the disease for those who use its product.

In requesting these consultations, The Biden administration is trying to undermine Mexico’s sovereignty and force it to import goods whose potential harm to human health has been flagged by its own laws and that threaten both biodiversity and land and water, which could be contaminated by the excessive quantity of toxic pesticides being used on genetically modified crops.