Conflict in Cornfields: The Mexican State's GMO Policy Versus the USMCA

The corn wars between Mexico and the United States persist, ignited by the Mexican State's decision to ban genetically modified (GM) corn for human consumption.

by taller ahuehuete
✎ 11 minutes

The corn wars between Mexico and the United States persist, ignited by the Mexican State's decision to ban genetically modified (GM) corn for human consumption. These restrictions triggered a trade dispute, particularly concerning yellow corn, which is predominantly genetically altered by American producers. In a pre-NAFTA North America, Mexico spent approximately $1.8 billion annually on food imports. After NAFTA, the sum reached $24 billion annually as of 2011. Unsurprisingly, a significant portion of these exports consists of obesogenic foods.

The ban — expected by 2025, as per López Obrador's plan — raised concerns about the economic consequences for American capitalists. Estimates suggest a loss of $3.56 billion in the first year and $5.56 billion in the second year alone. Over a projected 10-year period, the corn sector could experience a monetary loss of $13.61 billion. In December 2020, Andrés Manuel López Obrador issued an executive order that imposed restrictions on GM corn. A modification to the ban in February 2023 allowed its use for livestock feed and industrial purposes but maintained restrictions on corn used for flour, dough, or tortillas. The Mexican state defended its decision by emphasizing its self-sufficiency in white corn production, suggesting that the ban on GMO corn does not serve as a trade barrier. The government maintained that it is safeguarding its traditional food practices and preserving the nation-state’s cultural heritage. However, the United States and Canada argued that Mexico's policy contradicts its commitment to «making science-based decisions on biotechnology¹» in accordance with the USMCA.

Nevertheless, in a 2017 report, Mexico's national biodiversity commission CONABIO emphasized the importance of preserving the diversity of native maize varieties cultivated by approximately 2 million Mexican farmers across diverse agroecological conditions, essential for both present and future food security in Mexico. The commission highlighted that the traditional seed-saving and exchanging practices of small and indigenous producers have played a pivotal role in the development of over 60 types of corn in Mexico, each adapted to specific climates, soils, and pests.

In the Face of Capital, A Common Milpa

Corn, domesticated in what is now southern Mexico around 9,000 to 10,000 years ago, has been the subject of extensive research and ongoing scholarly debate. The earliest evidence of corn cultivation comes from archaeological sites in the Balsas River Valley of southwestern Mexico, where maize pollen and macrofossils dating 9,000 years ago were located, suggesting that early humans in this region were intentionally cultivating and selecting maize for their desirable traits.

The concept of milpa in Mesoamerica extends beyond a mere agricultural system: it is a broader sociocultural approach. It involves intricate relationships among producers, and unique connections with the crops and the land, thus fostering a sense of communal participation with multiple individuals contributing to the various stages of milpa cultivation. Preparation, sowing, tending, and harvesting are fundamental collaborative efforts that strengthen social bonds, reinforce community cohesion, and provide opportunities for knowledge transmission across generations.

This ancient and sustainable practice has been used by originary communities for thousands of years. It is a form of slash-and-burn agriculture characterized by the intentional placement of multiple crops in a small plot of land. The method relies on intercropping, crop rotation, and the integration of various plant species. The three components of a milpa are corn, beans, and squash, known as the equivalent of the Three Sisters. Corn provides structural support for beans to climb. Beans, in turn, fix nitrogen in the soil, benefiting the development of both corn and squash. Squash covers the ground, suppressing weed emergence and preserving soil moisture. The arrangement maximizes available resources and creates a mutually beneficial relationship among the plants.

The farming techniques of the milpa promote long-term soil fertility and reduce environmental degradation. Intercropping minimizes pest and disease concerns, as pests specific to one crop are less likely to spread and cause extensive damage. Additionally, crop residues on the land after harvest helps to replenish organic matter, enhance soil structure, and prevent erosion.

The milpa is deeply rooted in traditional knowledge and cultural practices. Originary communities have developed a wealth of systematic cognition and techniques for crop selection, planting, timing, and harvesting. This knowledge is often passed down through generations, contributing to its preservation. The system guarantees food security and self-sufficiency for originary and peasant communities. The combination of corn, beans, and squash offers a balanced nutritional profile, with each complementing the deficiencies of the others. Additionally, the milpa system reduces dependence on external inputs, such as synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, enhancing resilience and autonomy.

While the milpa embodies a holistic approach to farming that integrates ecological principles, traditional knowledge, and social cohesion, the system not only provides sustenance. It strengthens community ties, encouraging and celebrating biodiversity, self-sufficiency from global supply chains, reduced labor time, and the defense of the environment. But for the Global North, this sophisticated mode of production is perceived differently. For instance, Canada’s Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food said in a statement to the Associated Press this month: «Canada shares the concerns of the U.S. that Mexico’s measures are not scientifically supported and have the potential to unnecessarily disrupt trade in the North American market».

Similarly, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative declared Mexico’s ban was «not grounded in science» and «threatens to disrupt billions of dollars in bilateral agricultural trade, cause serious economic harm to U.S. farmers and Mexican livestock producers».

Insatiable Hunger for Profit

Despite occasional fluctuations, the overall trend of U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico has been one of growth in both volume and value. In 2022, the U.S. exported 38.9 million metric tons (MMT) with a value of $28.5 billion, a substantial increase compared to the early years of NAFTA. Texas has played a vital role in this trade relationship, accounting for 19% of total U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico in 2022, equivalent to $5.55 billion. However, despite the overall volume growth, the trade value of these stagnated during the mid and late 2010s, attributed to factors such as increased mechanization and reliance on advanced technology, leading to a higher organic composition of capital and a lower rate of profit.

In its statement, the Mexican branch of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC Mexico) warned that sanctions against Mexico could put the country's $15-billion trade surplus with the United States in jeopardy. Mexico’s exports to the United States reached a record $44 billion in 2022, the group said, citing U.S. Census data, while imports totaled just under $29 billion.

Congressman Dan Kildee's viewpoint on Mexico's attempt to restrict genetically modified (GMO) corn emphasized that decision comes too late, as "it should have been addressed before agreeing to the terms of the USMCA". He argued that the deal does not grant Mexico the authority to disregard internationally accepted scientific standards for the protection of Mexican corn. Kildee asserted that Mexico is unlikely to go to a dispute panel as the USMCA's language and scientific evidence favor the U.S. position, and expressed concern that allowing Mexico to change its stance on GMO corn could set a precedent for other trade terms in the agreement.

Pop[ulist] Corn

After expressing skepticism regarding the impact on human health and discovering traces of genetically modified elements in imported white corn from South Africa, López Obrador's alleged interest in safeguarding native corn varieties intensified. Cross-pollination between GM and non-GM maize results in the loss of genetic diversity, and the prospect that GM traits may predominate traditional corn variants increased the urgency of the policy. The announcement followed protests by corn producers, who have demanded price guarantees from the Mexican government for corn, wheat, and sorghum.

The agreement between López Obrador and Mexican tortilla manufacturers aims to «ensure the use of non-GM white corn, bolstering domestic production and reducing dependence on imported yellow corn». Tariffs on white corn imports from countries without trade deals with Mexico will «further incentivize domestic purchases», stated the State executive. However, it remains uncertain whether these restrictions might lead to price increases, raising worries for the Mexican population dependent on this staple food, and for the broader agricultural field.

Nevertheless, "the bread of the poor is always quite different from that of the rich", as stated by Karl Marx. Under López Obrador, more than 10% of the population in Mexico experiences food insecurity². In nine of the poorest Mexican states, the percentage rises to between 25 and 35%. Pre-NAFTA, Mexico imported corn and other staple foods only when domestic demand was not met by local supply. For the millions of rural residents whose lives depended on agriculture, the price paid for the maize they farmed decreased by 66 percent as a result of the surge of cheap U.S. corn, causing many of them to give up on the activity to survive. Simultaneously, although the price paid to Mexican farmers fell as a result of NAFTA, the price of tortillas, a staple meal in Mexico, increased 279 percent in the first 10 years of the agreement. This contrasts against the predictions of bourgeois free trade theory, which holds that liberalization will benefit imports because all consumers will pay less.

“In our age, the superfluous is easier to produce than the necessary,” wrote Marx. Food insecurity is a pressing issue that affects numerous nations worldwide, but its impact is particularly pronounced in Mexico according to the International Community Foundation’s reports. Despite significant progress in addressing chronic hunger, many Mexican families still struggle with irregular access to the essential types of foods required for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

Feeding the Infant

The relationship between food insecurity and obesity is a complex phenomenon prevalent in Mexico. Limited economic resources often force food-insecure households to prioritize quantity over quality, leading to the consumption of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods. After the implementation of NAFTA’s agricultural restrictions, reliance on inexpensive processed foods high in fat and sugar contributed to the prevalence of obesity. As a result, seven out of ten Mexicans are classified as overweight, and more than one-third of the population is clinically obese.

Rob Lucas' remarkable essay Feeding the Infant seems pertinent. In his analysis, the principal prerequisite for the perpetuation of the capitalist mode of production is market dependence. Overcoming this is crucial for transcending capitalism itself, as it bases its reproduction on our separation from the means of subsistence. While there is nominal reciprocity between workers and capital, with both needing each other, the inherent dynamics of this relationship often result in a surplus population. The proletariat — likened to a dependent child of capital — is infantilized by capitalist society and insecurely attached to a parent that constantly threatens to withdraw its support.

While the capital relation creates a state of complete reliance, even an infant, despite alimentary dependency, engages in complex processes of neural development, learning to integrate sensory inputs, regulate bodily functions, and orient itself in space. Likewise, capital's dependents could develop a posture, orientation, and tools to ensure their survival beyond the demise of their parent system. They cannot simply wait for that moment; instead, they strive to stand, become mobile, and establish their own terms whenever possible. People find ways to construct and reconstruct themselves through their interaction with the world, even within the constraints of capitalist society. However, capitalist structures often inhibit or restrict the development of autonomy.

For Lucas', the modern state, with its identifiable institutional articulations, represents a more determinate totality compared to society as a whole. It contributes to shaping and regulating social relations, including those related to production. The repressive apparatuses prevent individuals from simply leaving the workplace and seeking alternative means of sustenance, anchoring them within specific relations of production. Yet, the primary issue lies not only with the state but also with the mode of production. Exiting the workplace is not solely a matter of evading state control but correspondingly entangles the question of access to land, which is already owned by others. The maintenance of land ownership becomes crucial in this context, highlighting the fundamental agrarian basis of capitalism, as Marx stressed by the conclusion of Capital Vol. III. After all, private land ownership, and thereby expropriation of the direct producers from the land, is the basis of the capitalist mode of production.

The milpa — an assemblage of space communally experienced, lived, and worked — transcends the category of land merely hosting cultivated crops³. The milpa, as described by L. Harguideguy, can be summarized in terms of «reproductive logic, which is directed toward meeting the demands of the social subject, in this case, a collective subject». It implies the creation of consumable items as well as the expenditure of time and energy in the creation of environments meant to satisfy a range of social needs. Because they contribute to a balanced diet, health and therapeutic uses, diversity and autonomy are valued in the productive domain; in other words, «they are useful, as opposed to being only efficient⁴».

The milpa, as a form of agricultural practice and social reproduction, should not be thought of as an off-the-rack model, but as a paradigm or abstract assemblage, emerging as a consistent multiplicity of practices and values that we could apply to our particular and distinct circumstances.

---

Related essays:

1. Settler colonial states Enlightenment-pilled, as usual.

2. Hernández-Díaz, S; Peterson, KE; Dixit, S; Hernández, B; Parra, S; Barquera, S; Sepúlveda, J; Rivera, JA (1999-11-29). "Association of maternal short stature with stunting in Mexican children: common genes vs common environment". European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 53 (12): 938–945.

3. Harguindeguy, Laura Collin. LA MILPA COMO ALTERNATIVA SUSTENTABLE ORIENTADA AL BUEN VIVIR. Scripta Ethnologica, vol. XLIII, pp. 9-36, 2021. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas.

4. Id.