PANNA: Genetically Engineered Corn in Mexico: Cross-Border Threats, Cross-Border Responses

Biotechnology proponents sometimes claim that genetic engineering is the key to ending world hunger, and accuse biotechnology opponents of selfishly denying life-saving benefits to developing countries.¹ But in international negotiations, developing countries have pushed hard for protections against uncontrolled trade in these potentially dangerous products. This article looks at some of the issues that one country faces with the influx of genetically engineered (GE) foods and seeds, and suggests themes for cross-border non-governmental organization (NGO) collaboration.

Mexico is the birthplace of corn and home to its progenitor, teosinte (see Gene Pollution -- GE Corn in Mexico). For generations, individual farms and small farming collectives have bred and preserved corn varieties that are adapted to specific local conditions throughout the country. Because of the skill with which Mexican farmers have tended these varieties, Mexico is also home to great genetic diversity in cultivated corn.

In the United States, concerns about genetically engineered corn include the possible contamination of conventional foods, changes in soil chemistry, and harm to nontarget organisms. But in Mexico, there are even greater risks since GE corn could contaminate corn's progenitor species or the local landraces that farmers have developed over the course of centuries. Such contamination could alter the range of genetic variability available to farmers, and threaten the future food security of millions of people around the world who depend on this crop. Genetic diversity in corn is crucial not only for traditional farmers but also for the industrialized agriculture that produces much of the food in the U.S. and other industrialized countries. (see Gene Poluution--GE Corn in Mexico)

Mexico currently produces genetically engineered cotton, soy and tomatoes, and has allowed field tests of a variety of genetically engineered crops, including corn, squash and potatoes.² Commercial (as opposed to experimental) cultivation of GE corn is not allowed in Mexico at this time. However, Mexico imports large quantities of corn from the U.S. for use as food and animal feed. In the spring of 1999, Greenpeace Mexico took samples from three shipments of corn imported from the U.S. and found that two contained genetically engineered varieties.³ While the shipments Greenpeace tested were ostensibly meant for use only as food, many small farmers in Mexico purchase corn to use both as food or fodder and for planting. As a result, small farmers across the country may have unknowingly planted GE corn in their fields -- potentially contaminating surrounding fields and wild corn relatives.

In Mexico, as in the United States, regulatory frameworks have been slow to catch up with new developments in industrialized agriculture. In some cases, it is unclear which government agency is responsible for protecting public health and the environment from risks associated with genetically engineered crops. The shipment of genetically engineered corn identified by Greenpeace has been described as a political "hot potato," with each government agency eager to pass on responsibility to another -- health officials deferred to agriculture officials, who in turn deferred to other officials, while environmental and trade officials tried to avoid becoming involved at all.⁴ On the other hand, in some respects, Mexico is ahead of the U.S. in progress toward regulating genetically engineered foods. In March 2000, for example, the Mexican Senate voted unanimously to require labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients. The House of Representatives was reluctant to take action, so a six month "grace period" was established to consider the matter further. It remains to be seen how Mexican food safety policy will develop under the leadership of the newly elected president, Vicente Fox.⁵

Options for cross-border coordination

NGOs in the U.S. and Mexico -- and around the world -- must collaborate if they are to have any success in the struggle to stop the spread of GE crops. Independent actions on a country-by-country basis will only have a limited effect and at best may just slow the rate at which these crops are planted. We must develop coalitions and collaborations that effectively unite NGOs from industrialized and developing countries if we hope to have a serious impact on the agenda of the biotechnology industry.

There are several ways that NGOs can work together on this issue. Because trade agreements put pressure on governments to develop consistent standards across borders, working to protect environmental and health standards in different countries at the same time can be particularly important. Cross - border coalitions can press governments to establish regulatory frameworks governing every stage of the GE crop production process and to ensure that these regulations are uniformly implemented. NGOs may also collaborate across borders to bring consumer pressure to bear on individual companies. In the absence of cross-border coordination of boycotts and other forms of consumer pressure, products rejected in developed countries may simply be shunted to developing countries. Collaborative consumer efforts across borders are crucial to counteract this pattern. These are just two possible avenues of collaboration; to counteract increasing corporate control of our food supply, we must continue to explore and expand ways of working together.

Biosafety Protocol: Support for precautionary measures

The Biosafety Protocol presents other opportunities to protect Mexico's biodiversity and food safety, by supporting the right of individual countries to take precautionary action on imports of genetically engineered organisms. Finalized in January 2000, the Protocol requires an Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) procedure for all "living modified organisms" (LMOs) intended for introduction into the environment. This means, among other things, that any seeds imported for planting must be labeled if they are genetically engineered. This provision partially addresses concerns that farmers in developing countries could received unlabeled genetically engineered seed through aid packages, thus becoming unwitting participants in an uncontrolled ecological and human health experiment. Under the Protocol, genetically engineered products intended for consumption must bear labels stating that they "may contain" genetically engineered ingredients and that they should not be used for seed.

The Protocol also endorses application of the Precautionary Principle, stating that "lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant information and knowledge regarding the extent of potential adverse effects of a [GMO] on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the Party of import, taking also into account risks to human health, shall not prevent that Party from making a decision [on the import of a GMO]." This means that a country wishing to ban genetically engineered crops enjoys the support of an international agreement. However, it remains to be seen how the international community will deal with possible conflicts between this provision and challenges under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

The genetic diversity of Mexico's corn -- both local landraces and wild corn relatives -- is at risk if imports of GE corn are allowed to continue. It is crucial that NGOs on both sides of the border work to prevent GE corn from being shunted to Mexican markets after rejection in the U.S. and Europe. NGOs around the world must also work together to push for strict regulation of GE crops and for strong implementation of the Biosafety Protocol.

Rachel Massey is a writer for Environmental Research Foundation.

Thanks to Ana María Ruiz Días of Red de Permacultura México (Mexico Permaculture Network) for her assistance with this article.

Notes

1. See, for example: Anthony Trewavas, "Much Food, Many Problems." Nature 402, p. 231, November 18, 1999, or Norman Borlaug, "Food Production," In World Bank, Meeting the Challenges of Population Environment and Resources: The Costs of Inaction. World Bank: Washington, DC 1996.

2. Laura Carlsen, "Gene-altered culture? Transgenic corn battles Madre Maiz for Mexico's heart and soul." Latin Trade, February 2000.

3. Greenpeace Mexico, Cuando el destino nos alcanzó: OGM en México (July 1999).

4. Laura Carlsen, "The Biodiversity Dispute: Mexico Joins the Fight over GMOs." Unpublished article distributed by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, September 1999.

5. Bob Coffman, "Mexico Mulls Labeling Law." AgWeb.com, December 6, 2000.