Uprooted

GMO ban not “scientifcally based”?

In the US vs Mexico GMO corn tussle, USA team GMO wields “scientifically based” as a cudgel to beat back other arguments. AMLO policies, says USA, are “not based on science,” claims about health are “spurious” with “no scientific basis.”“[Mexico’s] decisions need to be based on science – and this is not.” Although the pending ban is about corn, USA dairy folks are jumping all in for science. “Obrador keeps talking about health for Mexican consumers without any scientific basis…We care about our colleagues in corn, but we also care about science-based decisions.”^[1]

Which science for what?

Fans of science — and I’m one — have to ask, though: Which science? About what? Scientific findings apply only to the questions being asked. How important those scientific findings are depends on values and judgements. You can have well-grounded scientific findings, but they might not be all that important or relevant to the problem you’re trying to address. If your concern about GMOs is, like mine, impact on small producers, local varieties, and collateral environmental damages from herbicides, the science saying eating GMOs doesn’t make people sick, while good to know, isn’t all that relevant.

In Mexico, a civilian-led anti-GMO lawsuit^[2] stated, “GE^[3] corn affects the human right to conservation, sustainable use, and fair and equitable sharing of the biological diversity of native corn.” The initial Presidential decree stated objectives of “contribute to food security and sovereignty” and protect “native corn, cornfields, bio-cultural wealth, farming communities, gastronomic heritage and the health of Mexicans.” Specifically, the decree cited sustainable development, biodiversity, agrochemical research, and agroecological practices — all science.

These sciences — the social, anthropological, environmental, and micro-economic — are obliterated by generalized cries of “not scientific!.” Simply saying “not based in science!” with no detail plays nicely into the trope of Mexico as backward, uneducated, less advanced. Paternalistically, the US implies Mexico is unable to understand the real issues and the real science. The ‘real’ science of the impact of human consumption of GMO corn is then used as cover and stand-in for all dimensions of concern. Complex, interacting systems are more difficult to research and sum up in tidy headlines. The easier pieces get narrowed, segmented out, and connections marginalized, or ignored.

Consuming GE corn may not cause disease in individuals, for example. But if GE corn imports undercut local corn so small producers of heritage crops can no longer make a living and have to quit farming and migrate north to work on US farms — is that an impact on human health?^[4] If GE corn cross pollinates and contaminates local varieties, decreasing biodiversity and farmer choice?^[5] If junk foods manufactured from cheap GMO corn products take over from fruit and vegetables? Well, that’s already happening. We have plenty of science showing those negative impacts on human health. How wide does “impact on human health” reach? Do claims that GMOs have no impact on human health cover this?

What of associated impacts? The Presidential decree also encompasses glyphosate, the herbicide typically used in conjunction with GE seeds^[6]. Ever increasing amounts of science show negative impacts of glyphosate on human health, bee and other pollinator populations and habitats, and on marine invertebrates. Several countries have banned or restricted its use; the permit for using glyphosate in the EU is set to expire at the end of 2023. All this science was referenced in the decree. Glyphosate science, however, is walled off from catch-all claims about the “science of GMO safety,” especially since glyphosate talk generates yawns, compared to “GMOs don’t give you cancer!” And if that science was part of the science of GMO safety, well, claims of “safe!” would be hard to sustain. No science has labeled glyphosate safe for the environment, including bees, insect life, and habitat.

To some extent, AMLO brought the “not based on science” criticism upon himself. Though the decree encompassed social, environmental, and cultural concerns, his response to threats from the US over trade pact violations zeroed in on health. “If Mexico has to decide between trade and health, Mexico will opt for health.” This may have been strategic. Trade treaty language creates wiggle room around dangers to human health. Perhaps he was using health in its broadest sense. Or maybe he was reaching for a simple concept people could relate to easily.

Science: big-ag fig leaf?

Cries of “not scientific” gloss over the complexities, perhaps because this passion for science, from many of the same people who deny climate change, is really structured around the economic interests of big ag. Economic arguments are often deployed against environmental ones — the tensions and tradeoffs are real and difficult — but then, whose economics?

US farm lobbies say the ban will cause billions of dollars of damages — over 90% of US corn is GMO, and Mexico is one of the US’s biggest customers. Both countries’ big growers raise fears for the supply chain and food prices. The National Agricultural Council of Mexico ^[7] says the ban puts farmers at a disadvantage compared to corn farmers in the United States, and a ban on glyphosate could cause agricultural production to fall by up to 45%. AMLO counters by aiming to create a growing market for non-GMO corn (which some US producers would welcome), while also launching programs to support small and medium-sized farms. That is, trying to create a balance by also factoring in economics on the smaller scale, environmental protection, and principles of sovereignty and import substitution. Then he muddied it all, getting on very mushy scientific ground by almost any standard, by distinguishing between importing GMO corn for human consumption (no, bad) and corn for livestock feed (ok — maybe?). That point is on the table for January 2023 discussions between Mexico and the US ag interests.^[8]

What gets priority in policy-setting? Local and national economic development, poverty reduction, cheap animal products, food sovereignty and sustainability, environment, nutrition, trade politics, import replacement, rural development? Prime Minister Indira Gandhi connected economic development and environmental protection during the 1972 Stockholm Conference. She made the point that poverty and need are the greatest polluters, therefore the environment cannot be improved in conditions of poverty. Neither could poverty be eradicated without the use of science and technology — science and technology deployed to alleviate poverty, that is.

Resolving tensions and finding balances are part of the hard work of democracies. Science is a critically important tool. But we need to be critical, as well. When we hear “scientifically based,” ask which science, by and for whom, toward what end.

Buy local! What’s the science?

Science, and which priorities top what, came into focus recently around the “buy local!” rallying cry. Being a big proponent of local — in both where you buy and where it comes from — I tuned right in to Food Print’s latest What You’re Eating podcast (great series): Keeping it Local: Avoiding Big Box Stores. At the same time, I came across this, from Our World in Data: You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local.

Check them out, then come back for my next blog post.

[1] See for example, comments by US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Collin Watters, director of exports and logistics for the Illinois Corn Marketing Board and the Illinois Corn Growers Association, Jaime Casteneda, US Dairy Export Council, letter to President Biden letter signed by 24 members of Congress, headed by Republican Representative Adrian Smith of Nebraska and Democrat Daniel Kildee of Michigan. https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/18586-us-corn-growers-say-no-to-mexicos-gmo-deal

[2] https://regenerationinternational.org/2016/03/17/court-ruling-a-victory-for-mexico-farmers-and-anti-gmo-activists/

[3] GE: genetically engineered, same usage as GMO: genetically modified organisms

[4] https://thecounter.org/mexico-phaseout-glyphosate-genetically-engineered-corn-united-states/

[5] Navarro, Carlos. “Study Finds High Levels of Genetically Altered Organisms in Mexican Tortillas.” (2017). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/sourcemex/6384

[6] Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide made by Bayer/Monsanto. Along with developing Roundup, the company genetically engineered corn so that the seed would withstand application of Roundup. This way, weeds are killed, but not the corn. This GE seed trait is patented — Roundup Ready corn. Farmers who grow it are prohibited from saving seed to replant the following year, a practice traditionally important for small producers’ sustainability and resilience. Growers of GMO corn must buy the seed each year; not surprisingly, seed prices have gone up steadily and substantially. A key concern is that the genetic trait of glyphosate resistance, and other traits, will spread into native varieties of corn.

[7] Laura Tamayo, spokeswoman for CNS, is also a regional director for the German multinational Bayer, makers of the herbicide Roundup – whose active ingredient is glyphosate – as well as “Roundup Ready” GMO corn seed.

[8] January 9, 2023: No compromise with Mexico on biotech corn ban. There aren’t any compromises that the Biden administration is willing to make when it comes to Mexico’s effort to curtail its imports of genetically modified corn from the U.S., says Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

FOOD FIGHT! Mexico vs USA

Food sovereignty battle on, right now: US Agriculture threatening Mexico over Mexico’s looming ban on importing US-grown genetically modified (GM) corn, and use of its companion herbicide, glyphosate. Mexico wants to control the planting and import of GM corn that’s been engineered to work with glyphosate. The US wants unrestricted ability to sell its GM corn and farm chemicals to its biggest buyer. Mexico talks sovereignty, food security, indigenous culture, health, climate change, biodiversity. The US talks economics, waves the banner of “feed the hungry!”, then hauls out the big weapon, the USMCA (formerly NAFTA) trade treaty^[1]

Tensions hit high in 2020, when Mexico President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) issued a decree stating that Mexico would phase out the use of GM corn and glyphosate by the end of 2024.

…to achieve self-sufficiency and food sovereignty, our country must focus on establishing a sustainable and culturally appropriate agricultural production, through the use of practices and agroecological inpuuts that are safe for human health, the country’s biocultural diversity and the environemtn. as well as congruent with the agricutlral traditions of Mexico.

The problem is, 90% of US corn is from GM seed, helped along by chemicals from global agri-giants Bayer, Syngenta, DuPont. And Mexico is US corn’s biggest buyer, spending $4.7 billion on corn in 2021, not trivial to US big ag, and growing.

Team US: GMO Corn vs Team Mexico: Food Sovereignty

As the ban-date approaches, team USA/GM is crying foul from the silo-tops, lining up obstacles, and drawing battle lines using the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreements. US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, representing the “deep concerns” of US big ag corn growers and agro-chemical giants, is warning Mexico that the US will take formal steps to enforce legal rights under the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreements. The stakes? The World Perspectives analysis ⁽²⁾estimates that the Mexican ban would result in an economic loss to the US of $3.56 billion the first year, rising to $5.56 billion the second year, adding up to a loss of $73.89 billion in economic output over ten years, and a contraction of $30.55 billion to Gross Domestic Product. Interestingly, the analysis also indicates that over 10 years, the non-GM corn sector in the US would expand and grow (my emphasis) in response to the big Mexican market.

On the other side, Mexico says nothing obliges them to purchase specifically GM corn from the US, so why not agree on replacing the GM with corn with non-GM corn? Mexico is considering direct agreements with farmers in the US, Argentina, and Brazil for non-GM yellow corn, and reportedly, some US farmers are ready to switch to non-GM corn to sell to a market as lucrative, and growing, as Mexico. This is opposed, of course, by the big ag industry giants, who cite a host of structural obstacles. The obstacles could be overcome, say the non-GM growers, but the will and power is not there to do so.

López Obrador insists that his country is under no obligation to import genetically modified crops under the treaty. “When deciding between health or trade, we opt for health,”

All corn, or just people food?

Then there’s the back-and-forth about which corn, for what. Virtually all corn Mexico imports from the US is GM yellow corn for livestock feed and manufacturing (such as high fructose corn syrup, cereal, sauces).

Corn for tortillas, roasted corn on the cob, and other sweet-corn dishes, is pretty much home-grown, and non-GM, with only about 3% imported from the US — a small percent, but still economically significant at over 700 tons per year. But while Mexico has indicated the ban might apply only to corn for direct human consumption, they have not ruled out banning all GM corn and derivative products.

For and against

Critics of the ban, such as Mexico’s National Agricultural Council, align with their US counterparts, arguing AMLO’s anti-biotech stances and policies will result in higher prices for Mexican consumers.

Supporters say global markets, including the US, would shift toward producing more non-GM corn — a net win for the environment — and Mexico could meet its needs for non-GM corn importing from other than the US, and from US farmers who switch to non-GM corn. The US fears that might be true, causing further losses for the majority GM corn growers, even as markets expand and sales increase for non-GM corn.

Much of the support from the ban comes from the less mass-industrialized ag sector, particularly indigenous populations trying to protect heritage varieties, rural community livelihoods, local agro-ecosystems, and health.AMLO’s food security policies also include trying to ramp up domestic production, with help targeted to small and medium-scale producers.

Big ag winning

Where does it stand now? Mexico, the environment, food sovereignty are caving.

AMLO’s offer: delay implementation of the ban to January, 2025, so US corn growers can plan, purchase seed, plant, harvest, and sell the 2022 crop of GM corn without slamming into the 2023 ban.

Mexico also agreed to reconsider its analyses and rejections of GM corn traits in seeds, and allow imports of GM feed corn.⁽³⁾

And the “wont-cross-that-line” corn for human consumption? Allow it, but bar domestic food companies from using it to make tortillas or other products.⁽⁴⁾ Easy to see that’s not going to end well for Mexicans who want control over their corn and food system.

GMO corn and glyphosate bans came from the long struggles of local and regional campesino and small-holder producers, indigenous communities, environmentalists, climate activists, and their partners in the fight for cultural, agricultural, and food sovereignty. ⁽⁵⁾ Their efforts to wrestle Mexican food and agriculture back from the control of US big ag are not being met on the national level. AMLO is using the right words. Transformation demands actions that match.

(1) https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement

(2) All economic figures from The World Perspectives analysis

(3) https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/18632-mexico-offers-new-alterations-to-decree-banning-gm-corn

(4) https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/18416-mexico-quietly-ruling-on-gmo-traits-as-biotech-corn-ban-looms

(5) See, for example, Via Campesina, and projects

Ag and Food Mythmaking Goes On

Greenwashing stories of ag science

No, this isn’t a poster from the ’50’s, when just maybe, you might have seen a farm like this in the US.

It’s a full-wall poster on display right now, December 2022, at the US Botanical Gardens in Washington DC, part of an exhibit called “Cultivate: Growing Food in a Changing World” exhibit. I was excited to check it out, especially given the subtitle text: “Agriculture impacts everyone’s daily life and not just because of the food we eat. Explore the galleries and gardens to learn how inventive ideas in agriculture, both scientific and social, sustain and enrich life… ” Great!

Note: I LOVE the Botanical Gardens. They do wonderful work in urban agriculture, education around food and medicinal plants, plant history, ecosystem education, conservation, and species diversity and protection. And it’s my favorite walk destination when I’m back in DC, with fascinating outdoor gardens and peaceful nooks year-round.

But this exhibit unabashedly perpetuates the myths of agricultural science and innovation as unquestionably, neutrally beneficial. Right at the entry, this wall-sized poster, headlines greenwash buzzwords “steward” and ‘ecosystem,” implying food comes from places like the image: mixed farms, with hedgerows for diverse pollinators, a small herd of animals on pasture (sheep? really?), fallowed fields, and a flowing brook for conscientious irrigation, with farmer making decisions based on eco-stewardship more than cold, hard markets.

This mixed-farm, red barn, fluffy sheep image continues to grace story books and public imagery, long after becoming completely defunct in the US. Picture of endless monocrop fields, the display of corporate ag takeover, are boring. And who wants to see feedlots instead of fields, much less what’s behind packets of meat at the store?

Another display continues the mythmaking: the idea that farmers maintain biodiversity through localized plant breeding. People breed and modify?

Four multinational corporations — Bayer-Monsanto, Syngenta, BASF, and DowDuPont — control 75% of plant breeding research, 60% of the commercial seed market, and 76% of global agrochemical sales.

When farmers purchase GMO seed (90% of corn and soy in the US), they enter into a contract agreeing to purchase new seed each year. They’re not allowed to save and plant the seed for the following year, much less use it to breed new varieties.

The concentration of corporate agri-food power — of not having people able to make choices and changes for better, more secure food supplies — threatens food systems worldwide.

Perhaps the educational text of this exhibit is meant to be aspirational, planting the right general ideas more than representing complex reality. If so, it would be helpful to say so. Point out obstacles to sustainable agriculture and equitable food systems. Follow with posters about organizations and practices in the US and elsewhere that really do entwine food production with principles of ecosystem stewardship and diverse, equitable, sustainable food and farming systems, like regenerative agriculture, agroforestry and agroecology, food sovereignty and food justice.