The USDA and agribiz ramp up their adherence to science — that is, the narrow slice of science that protects the billions of US dollars at stake with Mexico’s proposed GMO ban.
The U.S. agriculture trade chief has given Mexico until February 14″ to “…explain the science behind Mexico’s planned bans on genetically modified corn and glyphosate herbicide.” Mexico, he said, “…rejected 14 separate agricultural product traits that were submitted to them and they did not provide any justification.”
“We want to make sure that they do the science, show their work, and make decisions based upon risk assessments.”
The chemical companies are joining in. They want to nip this unscientific insanity in the bud. According to Syngenta, “…if Mexico proceeds with its ban on GM corn, it could open Pandora’s Box..and it sets precedent for the future.”
″Are they going to quit with GMO corn? No. If they get that done, I think soybeans are next. Are they going to quit with glyphosate? No, they’ll pick some other pesticide, be it atrazine, be it chlorpyrifos, whatever it may be.″
Oh those crazy Mexicans, grasping at whatever.
Fear of the slippery slope promoted the US dairy industry to weigh in, as well, carrying the torch for science.
“…if Mexico were allowed to make a major policy change that ignored accepted science and a trade pact to restrict U.S. corn, what is to keep the country from doing something similar when it comes to dairy?
Ah, but there’s the rub. Which science is acceptable? And if part of the problem is, as Mexico has argued, a lack of conclusive research about the broad breadth of impacts of both GMOs and glyphosate, well, does showing inadequate science, or showing a dearth of studies, count? Look! No one’s studied rural displacements, pollinator decline, growth of superbugs and superweeds, or contamination. Reams of absence of data!
Isn’t this the precautionary principle at work? As widely recognized in the European Union, if an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.
Perhaps Mexico should be asking the US for its science proving glyphosate does not harm the environment, that switching to GMO/glyphosate systems will not cause further deforestation, species decline, water diversion, increased reliance on mono-cropping, increased livestock production with attendant damage, out-migration, etc., etc.
Mexico has just about caved entirely on this, going from a stance of full ban to imposing minimal limitations. Apparently still not sufficient. After all, the US accepting any limitations at all would suggest there might be a kernel of rationality in Mexico’s concern over GMO impacts. Can’t have that. Slippery slope.
Uprooted 