A Report by Global Exchange
April 25, 2002

Researchers from the University of California at Berkeley discovered Mexican native corn varieties contaminated by transgenic DNA (Nature, November, 2001). The Mexican National Ecological Institute (INE) and the National Biodiversity Commission (CONABIO) later confirmed the genetic contamination of native varieties in a preliminary report presented January 23rd, 2002 and on April 19 reported that their subsequent studies shown contamination of corn as high as 35% in 95% of the tests conducted.

Much like the "StarLink Scandal" in the United States, where a GM corn variety not approved human consumption entered the US food supply and contaminated hundreds of varieties consumer products and corn fields, the contamination of native Mexican corn was precipitated by institutional breakdowns along the way. While the StarLink scandal pales in comparison to the contamination of native corn varieties in Mexico, the institutionalized failure by regulatory bodies and corporations paved the way for a foreseeable, however avoidable, disaster.

This report attempts to outline the institutional bodies that, in some way, contributed to the contamination of corn in Mexico and concludes with recommendations.

Mexico:

1. Ministry of Economy (SE)

Mexico's Ministry of Economy (Secretaria de Economia, SE), among other functions, acts as Mexico's representative in the international trade arena. The SE is the Mexican government's equivalent to the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and is legally responsible for guaranteeing compliance in trade agreements.

While confusion abounds with respect to the source of the genetic contamination of Mexican corn, few deny that the primary suspect is the 6 million tons of corn imported from the United States each year. Roughly one-third of corn planted in the USA is Genetically Modified, accounting for some 15,752,286 tons a year. Since the European Union, Japan and South Korea have implemented specific provisions to restrict the entrance certain GM corn varieties originating from the United States, a significant percentage of GM corn exports are sent to countries like Mexico who lack both the legal and physical infrastructure to detain its entrance.

During the negotiation of what would later become the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), corn was one of the most hotly debated issues by governments and farmers in the agreement's signers: Canada, Mexico and the USA. Though NAFTA by and large spelled the end for Mexican farmers, the Agreement did include several, albeit paltry, safeguards to ease Mexican corn producers into the international market. NAFTA's Tariff-Rate Quota (TRQ) system aimed to gradually bring Mexican corn prices in line with international prices by applying a declining tariff scale over a period of 15 years. In reality, corn imports from the United States since 1994 have entered tariff free and Mexico has not charged over $2 billion in tariff revenues. Annual corn imports from the United States now average 6 million tons a year, economically displacing thousands of small and medium scale farmers each year, expediting the distribution of GM corn throughout Mexico, and the subsequent genetic contamination of local varieties.

The concept of "dumping," called International Price Discrimination by the World Trade Organization, occurs when the price of a product sold to the importing country is less than the price of that product in the market of the exporting country. While Mexico is justified, even obligated, under international trade and environmental law to emit an anti-dumping complaint, the Ministry of Economy has yet to take any steps to address the situation.

Based strictly on international trade law, Mexico can not only charge the unpaid tariffs, but charge the United States additional tariffs for employing unfair trade practices. Currently, the United States is under fire from the European Union and other countries like Brazil, who claim that United States' agriculture subsidies are essentially unfair and violate basic 'free trade' principles. To avoid a trade war and eventual sanctions, the United States will likely reduce agriculture subsidies paid to large agribusiness corporations.

'Centers of origin' are regions where a given crop or livestock variety was domesticated and later developed from wild varieties. Centers of origin and diversity are essential to the long-term viability of a given species, acting as a genetic reservoir for crop evolution and development. Given the importance of genetic integrity for centers of origin, Mexico is also in a position to limit or detain corn imports under environmental or biodiversity concerns.

In fact, multiple international trade or environment agreements could justify Mexico's exclusion of US GM corn imports. Under GATT Article XX(b), Mexico could prohibit GM corn imports as "necessary to protect human, animal or plant life and health." Though GATT Article XX and other trade and environment provisions have yet to prove successful as an environmental protection option, Mexico has neglected to contest any illegal trade practices or environmentally damaging imports.

2. Intersecretarial Commission on Biosafety and GMOs (CIBIOGEM)

The Intersecretarial Commission on Biosafety and GMOs (CIBIOGEM), created in 1999 under the Ernesto Zedillo administration, is comprised of the Ministries of Agriculture, Environment, Health, Public Education, Interior and Economy. The CIBIOGEM was created in response to a investigation by the National Science and Technology Commission (CONACYT), detailing potential impacts of GM corn in Mexico. In theory, the CIBIOGEM would provide an intersecretarial commission to address biosafety concerns through coordination of appropriate Ministries, thus facilitating the protection of Mexico's biological integrity. However the CIBIOGEM has yet to live up to the expectations it initially generated when it was founded in 1999.

Though the Berkeley team of investigators reported their results to the CIBIOGEM secretariat and respective members of the Commission in early 2001, the CIBIOGEM made no public announcement, took no steps to ascertain the contamination's source, nor warn farmers in contaminated areas of the situation. In fact, the Mexican government did not confirm positive genetic contamination results until September of 2001, several months after the contamination was uncovered and verified. While not wholly responsible for the GM contamination, CIBIOGEM's negligence exacerbated the already serious situation.

3. The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA)

The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA) is largely responsible for GM crop control, grain imports and Mexico's overall agriculture policy. The Vicente Fox administration, since taking power in December of 2000, has aimed to "modernize" the Mexican countryside, replacing traditional crop systems with high-market export crops, including GM crops.

In 1999 Greenpeace Mexico first alerted the Mexican government to the potential genetic contamination risks presented by uncontrolled and unregulated GM corn imports. Not only were corn imports transgenic, but most, if not all corn samples could still germinate. In fact, a report resulting from the First National Forum on Biotechnology and Biosafety in Mexican Agriculture in January of 1999, the CIBIOGEM called on the SAGARPA to detain corn imports from the United States. The SAGARPA failed to act.

Instead of taking urgent measures to mitigate and remedy corn contamination, the SAGARPA has instead attempted to legalize the "semi-commercialization" of GMOs in Mexico with the presentation of an "Official Mexican Norm" (NOM FITO-ECOL-2001). The initiative was created as a result of a meeting with other government agencies, as well as representatives from the biotech industry, including Monsanto, Grupo Pulsar and AgroBIO. NOM FITO-ECOL-2001 looks to legalize the large scale commercial cultivation of GM crops, while ignoring the inherent risks of widespread GM use in country of mega-diversity. Finally, NOM FITO-ECOL-2001 was created without public participation or debate, save for the token participation of Greenpeace, who eventually withdrew from the proceedings because the process was essentially undemocratic.

4. DICONSA

Diconsa is the government food subsidy program that replaced the CONASUPO (National Staple Products Company -- created in 1972) in 1998. Diconsa manages some 300 warehouses and 23,000 stores for distribution of subsidized food in rural areas, in roughly 93% of Mexico's municipalities. Each year Diconsa distributes roughly 600,000 tons of corn, of which one-third is directly imported from the United States. The other 400,000 tons are purchased from private grain handlers, which in many cases is imported from the United States as well.

Both the Berkeley investigators and the INE/CONABIO tested corn samples from Diconsa stores, with corn samples in both studies testing positive for GM contamination. The INE/CONABIO analysis of corn from the Ixtlán de Juárez Diconsa store revealed levels of contamination at 37%. It is not uncommon for farmers to plant corn kernels in their fields from Diconsa or from other sources in the event that there is not seed left over from their harvest. Based upon the 37% contamination of corn tested at the Diconsa store, the potential for widespread, national contamination is significant.

USA:

1. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the regulatory body largely responsible for general GM crop oversight and control. While GM crops have been rushed to the market with little or no testing, the USDA has sat on the sidelines, responding largely to lobbying by the biotech industry. While the implications for the United States are serious enough, many countries like Mexico, trust on the USDA's biotech regulations, and at times import them for their own.

Recently, the National Academy of Sciences released a report on the USDA's regulations with respect to GMOs titled, "Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation." The report roundly criticized the USDA's lack of transparency with respect crop trials and "generally superficial" analysis of potential environmental impacts and human health risks.

The USDA relies on biotech corporations' good will to share GMO crop trial results on a voluntary basis. History has proven that this is unwise. For example, independent researchers and NGOs have identified mysterious, unintended DNA in Monsanto's RoundUp Ready GM soy. Monsanto stated it was unaware of the DNA's origin, and apparently no analysis was carried out to determine the mysterious DNA's potential impacts.

2. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

On October 15, 2001, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US regulatory agency responsible for agrichemical oversight, extended the approval of Bt corn for 7 more years. Bt corn is a genetically modified variety of corn that expresses a protein, Bt, isolated from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, which kills a specific class insect pests. It is the GMO found in corn in Mexico.

The approval was made despite protests made by civil society organizations regarding the threats to biodiversity, human health and proven alternatives, such as Integrated Pest Management. Additionally, the EPA did not take into account new reports on allergenic impacts of Bt corn, the economic and genetic viability of Bt corn medium to long-term, nor environmental impact studies. Corporations with Bt corn still available on the market include Syngenta, Monsanto, Pioneer/Dupont and Dow. In a puzzling double standard, the EPA has restricted GM cotton in the southeast United States to avoid genetic contamination of native and wild varieties. Cotton is hardly an essential food crop, nor is the southeastern United States a center of origin for said crop.

Recommendations

Despite the implications of the contamination of the first center of origin, neither the Mexican government nor the biotech industry have taken adequate steps to address the issue.

In light of the serious threats of genetic contamination of corn, Mexico must:

1. Detain all corn imports originating from the United States.

   On December 4th, 2001 the Mexican Senate passed a resolution for the immediate halt to all corn imports from the United States to detain the entrance of GM corn. The resolution calls for SAGARPA Secretary, Javier Usabiaga, to detain all US corn imports and present the Senate with an updated report with respect to current government investigations of GM corn contamination. Not only has the SAGARPA and Usabiaga not provided current information on the investigation's progress, nor have corn imports from the United States been detained, the SAGARPA recently granted Diconsa's request to import 69 thousand tons of corn in the first trimester of 2002. While Diconsa imports 69 thousand tons of industrial corn from the United States, numerous Mexican corn producers are left without a market. Based upon the first trimester's import data, US corn imported by Diconsa will reach record amounts this year. In the short term, the genetic integrity of corn is dependent upon detaining corn imports from the United States. A moratorium must be placed on corn imports from the USA to stop the further contamination of corn.

2. Ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

   On 30 January 2000, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was adopted in Montreal, Canada by delegates of 128 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), including Mexico. The Protocol is a necessary tool for the protection of global biodiversity from genetic contamination. The Protocol includes basic precepts such as transboundary regulation of GMOs, the Advance Informed Agreement, the Precautionary Principle, as well as specific labeling and segregation requirements.

   While not the definitive answers in biosafety legislation, Mexico's ratification of the Cartagena Protocol would establish a minimum legal mechanism (including the regulation of GMOs) for the biosafety of one of the world's most biological and culturally diverse countries yet it appears to be stalled in the Mexican Senate in light of corn contamination crisis. Mexico must ratify the Biosafety Protocol to establish minimum legislative tools to address biodiversity crisis' like the genetic contamination of native corn varieties.

3. Amend Public Health Law 82

   At present, more than 35 countries have laws either in place or announced which require the labeling of food containing GM ingredients, or which restrict the import of some GMOs. These countries combined include more than half the world's population. In an August 2001 poll by Sigma Dos and Greenpeace Mexico, 88% of Mexican citizens demanded labels for GM products.

   Currently an amendment to Public Health Law 82, requiring labels for products with GM ingredients, is being deliberated in the Mexican Senate. GM crops are inherently dangerous, with potential health risks including allergic reactions, antibiotic resistance, unexpected toxicity and reduced nutritional quality. The amendment of Public Health Law 82 to require the labeling of GM foods is of utmost importance to protect Mexicans from the potential human health implications of GMOs.

   In addition, amending Public Health Law 82, requiring GM products to be labeled, will establish and important legal foundation for the implementation of the Biosafety Protocol.

4. Clarify and enforce National Penal Code 420.

   The Federal Register (Diario Oficial) published a modification to the Federal Penal Code, making the introduction (importation), commercialization, transportation, or release of GMOs illegal. The modification of Article 420 of the Penal Code requires the segregation, and subsequent labeling of all GMOs in Mexico and is appears to be a solid advancement to Mexico's biosafety laws that could establish a solid foundation for the eventual ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. However it is unclear how it would be enforced, who would enforce it, and this draws into question how effective it may be without adequate enforcement.

   Article 420 must also be clarified with respect to liability. For example, farmers who are victims of "gene flow," or genetic contamination from neighboring fields via open pollenation, must not be liable under the new addition to the Penal Code. Farmers in the United States and Canada have been plagued by genetic contamination, and subsequent lawsuits by biotech corporations, like Monsanto.

   To benefit from the modifications to Article 420 of the Penal Code, the changes must be clarified in relation to enforcement and liability.

5. Declare an absolute moratorium on the release of GMOs in Mexico

   While a moratorium on the commercial cultivation of GM crops, save for GM cotton, is currently in place, Mexico has carried out dozens of GM crops trials over the last decade, including 34 corn trials. Though Mexico banned GM corn trials in 1998, other GM crop trials continue. Given Mexico's status as a country of mega-biodiversity and center of origin for over 100 plants and animals, it is of utmost importance to suspend GM crops trials and commercialization to avoid further genetic contamination of other species.

   Mexico must ban the cultivation of GM crops in its country.

6. Support local farmers and guarantee national food security.

   Not only are corn imports the primary source of genetic contamination, but also they economically displace local farmers and erode the genetic diversity of the thousands of native Mexican corn varieties. The Mexican agriculture sector has been systematically dismantled as a result of structural adjustment policies and Free Trade Agreements, like NAFTA, despite the fact that Mexico has a the capacity to be self-sufficient in basic grain production, especially corn. Three million Mexican farmers still dedicate the vast majority of their cropland to corn production, but are being neglected by government institutions and subsidy programs. Currently a handful of countries like Brazil could fill the gap with GM-free corn while Mexico reinvests in national self-sufficiency and overall food security.

   True food security is the ability to meet national demand, while farming in a socially and ecologically sustainable fashion. By purchasing domestic corn for national consumption, Mexico can alleviate poverty in rural areas, maintain genetic diversity of local corn varieties and meet the national demand for corn, the nation's staple crop.

Sources:

Centro de Estudios para el Cambio en el Campo Mexicano (Ceccam)
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
Greenpeace Mexico
Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN)
Pesticide Action Network (PAN)
Public Citizen