“A step towards a healthy environment and a fair, sustainable and healthy food system”, according to the collective Sin corn there is no country (“No maize, no people”). In front of it, the version of the representative of the Mexican agroindustry Proccyt: “An absolute opportunistic injustice that not only affects the entire Mexican countryside, but threatens price stability and the availability of a strategic food.”

On December 31, 2020, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador spoke of the decree that has prohibited both the production and import of transgenic maize and the use of glyphosate. They will gradually cancel or reject permits for the use of GMOs, gradually reducing imports, so that they are not used in more than three years. Glyphosate is also banned by 2024, providing space for the development of alternatives in this three-year transition phase. For its part, the government has pointed out that “the measure of protecting indigenous maize” and “the way for food to reach sovereignty”.

If, in this country, the cradle of corn, the decision has caused the joy of those mobilised for long years against GMOs, it has also caused the complaint of the agro-industry. Despite passing the law, lobbies in the sector are channeling everything they have in their hands to put pressure on the government. A clear example of this is that the Environment Minister, Victor Toledo, had to resign in September. In this sense, in the opinion article of The War of the Glyphosate: Actors and Drama (“The War of the Glyphosate: Actors and Drama”), published by Toledo in La Jornada, the following could be read: “It must be understood that this powerful company has an army of scientists, technicians, publicists, commercial agents, lobbyists, spies and promoters that channels in each country very effective cooptation campaigns of researchers, academics, companies, producers, journalists, legislators and members of the government.” It refers to the multinational Bayer, which bought Monsanto, owner of transgenic seeds and glyphosate, closely linked because they have genetically modified seeds in order to receive the herbicide pigeon and survive.

U.S. violent lobby

The Guardian media released this lobbying work focusing on pressure from the US Federal Government: “It is becoming increasingly clear that the pesticide industry uses the government EE.UU. to advance its international goals and to curb peoples’ efforts for food sovereignty.” Nathan Donley is the word of Nathan Donley, a member of the American Center for Biology for Biodiversity. As the Mexican market is prosperous, strong pressure is taking place in recent months – and Joe Biden’s new government, for the time being, has not shown any other position.

Mexico is no longer independent year after year and the volume of imported maize has increased: In 2019 it imported 15.5 million tonnes of maize, and in 1994 it introduced 2.7 million tonnes, and increased its production from 6 to 27 million tonnes, many of them for industrial livestock and biofuels. The vast majority of what is imported is GM and US. What was initially devoted to livestock farming has gradually been introduced into the food industry, as it is more expensive to buy the indigenous: being subsidized, EE.UU. can sell below the cost of production, and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which also has customs duties, lacks protective measures against unfair competition. NAFTA, signed in 1994, has been “devastating” for Mexican farmers, since it has lost the food autonomy on which maize was based, making them dependent on the free market.

Less bad, that in 1998 the resistance carried out by the citizens gave rise to a moratorium, banning the production of transgé nicos.Se maintained until 2009, when the government of Felipe Calderón gave in under the pressure of Monsanto, distributing the permits of experimentation. The group Without corn there is no country, formed by 300 structures in 2007, managed in 2013 to redirect the ban on GMOs, ratified by the Decree of 31 December 2020 and also extended to imports.

Agro-industry is still adhering to free trade agreements. Instead of NAFTA, they have a free trade agreement ACEUM 2018 for the period: “The ban on GMOs and glyphosate are incompatible with the requirements of Mexico within ACEUM,” can be read in the letter sent by the CropLife lobby of the biotechnology sector to the USTR structure in charge of U.S. trade in March last year. Shortly thereafter, in May, the representative of the USTRO sent a letter to the Mexican Minister of Economy to warn him that the prohibition caused “the deterioration of relations between the two peoples”. The ACEUM agreement can be denounced by the Mexican National Council of Agriculture and Livestock (CNA), claiming that the president's decree is an obstacle to free trade. It would not be surprising, knowing that Bayer is among the members of the CNA. In addition, they also have allies in government: Minister of Agriculture, legal adviser to the President or former President of the Presidency Cabinet, all with responsibilities and interests in agro-industry.

Glyphosate, pesticide difficult to ban

But, in addition to GMOs, the ban on glyphosate is an impediment. The World Health Organization described this herbicide as “a possible creative cancer” in 2015 and since then the inequalities of this herbicide begin to emerge. Litigation against Bayer also starts in eleven parts of the world. The world map published last year in the journal Science of the Total Environment of scientists from the University of Sydney reveals a worrying reality: three out of four of the cultivated lands are treated with glyphosate – the western regions of Europe, Brazil, Argentina, and China and Indonesia, which differ in monoculture and transgenic.

In recent years, few have banned heroin: Austria, Luxembourg, Togo, some states of India, Vietnam... But despite being associated with the passage of the ban, there are more backsliding under pressure: European Union, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Salvador, Argentina, etc. Mexico cannot be given up, and the protection and pressure of citizens should help those from the government who support healthy food sovereignty.