Currently browsing posts about: GM(Genetically Modified)

If you are a long-time reader, you will know that I have a particularly hard time understanding agricultural trade disputes.  I understand the basic principle: every country wants to protect its own.  Where I need help is with how the rules work and are applied.

Here’s a good place to start on this one: US corn growers secure major victory in USMCA dispute with Mexico: Panel rules Mexico’s GM corn import ban violates trade agreement, marking a triumph for American agriculture..

In a significant win for U.S. corn producers, a dispute panel has ruled that Mexico violated its commitments under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) by issuing a decree banning genetically modified (GM) corn imports in early 2023. This decision comes as a relief to the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) and other advocates who had urged the United States Trade Representative to file the dispute.

The USMCA panel’s decision is here.

How to interpret this?  Fortunately, Chuck Abbott explained the background in FERN’s AgInsider (alas, he’s no longer writing this).

The 2023 [Mexican] presidential decree imposed an immediate ban on imports of GMO white corn used in making dough and tortillas, an everyday food of Mexico, and gradual elimination of imported GMO corn for industrial food uses and for livestock feed. So-called yellow corn is fed to livestock…Corn originated in Mexico and holds deep cultural significance in the country; it has five dozen native varieties. Conservationists, Indigenous communities, and traditional farmers have sought for two decades to keep the country’s heritage seeds free of GMO traces.

And even more fortunately, Tim Wise to the rescue: U.S. Wins Controversial Ruling in GM Corn Dispute with Mexico.

According to the U.S. government, the final report from the tribunal, announced December 20, ruled that “Mexico’s measures are not based on science and undermine the market access that Mexico agreed to provide in the USMCA.” In fact, the trade panel’s ruling was more limited, demanding that Mexico comply with the trade agreement’s procedures for carrying out risk assessments based on “relevant international scientific principles”…The ruling will not settle the debate over the health and environmental risks of GM corn and its associated herbicides, In the course of the dispute, Mexico produced extensive peer-reviewed scientific evidence that showed ample cause for precaution given the risks associated with both GM corn and its associated herbicide glyphosate.

Wise cites recent studies showing negative health impacts, along with the Science Dossier Mexico presented as evidence.  The tribunal rejected this evidence.

Wise describes Mexico’s response:

It remains to be seen how the Mexican government will comply with the ruling. It has 45 days to respond. Already, President Claudia Sheinbaum has reiterated her support for a constitutional amendment to enshrine a ban on GM corn cultivation and consumption in tortillas. A “Right to Food” law passed last year mandates labeling of foods containing GMOs. No tortilla seller wants such a label on its products, because Mexican consumers are clear that they do not want GM corn in their tortillas.

I like President Sheinbaum’s way of putting this: “Sin maíz no hay país” [without corn, there is no country].

In the meantime, President-elect Trump is threatening Mexico with tariffs on exports—also in violation of USMCA rules, but we will have to see how that goes.

As I said, complicated.  Food politics in action, for sure.

I learned about this from one of the last posts from Chuck Abbott’s AgInsider (written for FERN, the Food and Environment Reporting Network), which he is stopping and I will greatly miss.

USDA deregulates GM wheat, says it is safe to grow in the U.S.:  For the first time, the Agriculture Department approved cultivation of genetically modified wheat in the United States on Tuesday, deregulating a drought- and herbicide-tolerant variety developed by an Argentine company. A U.S. wheat industry official said it would be years before the HB4 wheat from Bioceres Crop Solutions was successfully commercialized in the country because of the need to gain acceptance on the domestic front and by wheat-importing nations.

The USDA says the Bioceres Crop Solutions, wheat with drought tolerance and herbicide resistance is “unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to other cultivated plants. As a result, they are not subject to regulation under 7 CFR part 340. From a plant pest risk perspective, this modified plant may be safely grown and bred in the United States.”

The company announced to investors, “Bioceres Crop Solutions Corp. (NASDAQ: BIOX) announced today that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has favorably concluded its Regulatory Status Review (RSR) for HB4 wheat technology.

According to Reuters, this wheat variety has already been approved in several other countries.

The announcements all make a big deal of its drought resistance; none of them say anything about its herbicide resistance.  AI to the rescue!  HB4 wheat tolerates glufosinate, a potent week killer “used for broadcast burndown application before planting or prior to emergence.”  It has been reasonably well studied, kills non-target plants easily, seems OK for insects, gets into water supplies, is moderately toxic to fish and slightly toxic to mammals.  The EPA considers exposure levels to be “below levels of concern.”

Why am I not reassured.

If you want to know why the Non-GMO Project label is seen on so many supermarket products, uncertainties about herbicide effects are surely one reason.

You don’t want to be a guinea pig in this experiment?  Buy Organic or Non-GMO Verified, or foods with both labels.

Food trade is always a big issue, but it’s one I have a hard time keeping up with.  It’s in the news right now because President-elect Trump is threatening to increase tariffs with unsettling effects.   His vows, vows to slap new tariffs on U.S. trading partners on Day One, according to Politico, “has sent ripple effects through the U.S. agricultural industry, which relies on exports to boost profits for vital commodity crops like soy and corn.”

On top of that, the USDA predicts a record $45.5 billion deficit in food trade this year: U.S. Agricultural Exports in Fiscal Year 2025 Forecast at $170.0 Billion; Imports at $215.5 Billion.

As Agricultural Dive explains,

An already record agricultural trade deficit in the United States is expected to get even bigger, the Agriculture Department said Tuesday.  The U.S. farm trade deficit in fiscal year 2025 is on track to reach $45.5 billion, according to an updated USDA outlook. Government analysts were previously forecasting a $42.5 billion deficit in August….

While U.S. producers have been able to modestly increase exports of livestock, dairy, corn and sorghum since the USDA’s August forecast, trade of other major commodities — namely cotton and soybeans — has declined. Crop farmers have been hit the hardest by a decline in global prices and are expected to bear the brunt of the widening trade deficit….

Trade with two of the U.S.′ biggest markets faces additional risks next year as President-elect Donald Trump threatens 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Trade with both countries has soared in recent years, with Mexico replacing China as the top U.S. agricultural market.

Much of the deficit is our fault, apparently.  We have a voracious demand for “ever-larger amounts of imported fruits, vegetables, wine, alcohol, coffee, and beef.”

The issue of Mexico as our top market raises questtions about the GMO corn we send there.  US Right to Know has published or reproduced a series of articles on this issue.

• GM corn and glyphosate science: Documents from Mexico-US trade dispute 
• New scientific analyses underpin Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn and glyphosate due to health risks
• Mexico’s Scientfic Dossier on GMO Corn and its Effects
• Leading scientist defends Mexico’s food sovereignty from GM corn and glyphosate

The trade dispute works both ways: US suspends Mexico cattle imports after New World screwworm detected: The United States has relied on livestock from the country as ranchers struggle to rebuild depleted cattle herds.

Finally, for now, a new FAO report offers guidance and data on integrating nutrition goals into food trade policies: The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2024.

While trade liberalization has numerous benefits for food security, questions linger about whether it is conducive to healthy diets. An analysis for SOCO 2024 using FAO’s Cost and Affordability of a Healthy Diet indicator found that higher import tariffs are associated with higher food prices irrespective of the healthy qualities of the foods, indicating that, in general, trade openness does not have a disproportionate effect on high-energy low-nutrition foods.

A reader, Katya Bloomberg, suggested I take a look at Bored Cow, “animal-free dairy milk” pumpkin spice flavored, no less.

Animal-free dairy milk sounds like an oxymoron.  What could this be?  Mostly, the website says what it does not contain.

So what’s in this?  The website doesn’t say, but Target’s does.

Ingredients: water, cane sugar, whey protein (from fermentation), sunflower oil, less than 1% of: cinnamon, vitamin a, vitamin b2 (riboflavin), vitamin b12 (cyanocobalamin), vitamin d2, citrus fiber, salt, dipotassium phopshate, acacia, gellan gum, mixed tocopherols (antioxidant), calcium potassium phosphate citrate, natural flavor.

An ultraprocessed drink, for sure, with 20 grams of sugar per 12 ounces.  The whey (the main protein in milk) is made by microorganisms, not cows. 

The process is called precision fermentation.  It involves 5-steps:

• Genetic modification of bacteria or yeast (the Bored Cow website says nothing about this)
• Cell growth
• Protein production
• Purification (centrifugation, homogenization, filtration)
• Whey production

How precise is the fermentation?

Iowa-based Health Research Institute (HRI) tested a Bored Cow product, which is described as “a milk alternative made with milk protein from fermentation instead of cows.” Using full spectrum molecular analysis technology, HRI found 92 small molecules in the product that are unknown to science, according to John Fagan, chief science officer at HRI.

Katya points out:

People are still largely confused and have no understanding what a bio-identical whey protein created by means of fermentation is. Largely though people also think that fermentation is good for health. Many vegans think this milk is vegan since it’s animal free, but it wouldn’t be a good choice for those on a plant based diet as it’s identical to actual cow milk protein. Not to mention that it’s a mix of protein with water and added oil which is hardly good for anyone… It’s a milk information war at its finest!!! Just keep confusing the consumer.

So how does this stuff taste?  I went to the Ithaca Target to look for it but could not find it.  If you can and try it, let me know.

I am deluged with emails urging me to say something about the trade dispute between Mexico and the United States over genetically modified (GMO) corn.

Let me confess immediately to a particular difficulty understanding international food trade.  I find the abbreviations (NAFTA, USMCA) and odd terminology (Sanitary, Phytosanitary) off-putting and confusing.

With that confessed, here is my understanding of what this trade dispute is about.

Under the terms of USMCA (the U.S. Mexico Canada Free Trade Agreement), passed in 2020, the three countries must accept each others’ products without tariffs or other unnecessary barriers.

Unnecessary is subject to interpretation.

In February 2023, Mexico published a presidential decree prohibiting the use of GMO corn in Mexico’s dough and tortilla production.  It also announced its intention to phase out the glyphosate herbicide.

These decrees affect imports of corn from the US, which is mostly GMO.

The US says the USMCA does not allow Mexico to ban GMO corn because doing so has no scientific justification.

In response, Mexico issued a 189-page report reviewing and detailing the scientific basis for the ban.

A trade tribunal has been set up to adjudicate this dispute., with the decision expected later this year.

Almost everyone I’ve heard from views Mexico’s analysis as highly convincing.

• Tim Wise of the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy argues that Mexico’s scientific defense is strong.
• Carey Gillem sees Mexico’s report as a firm rebuttal to the US position: Mexico smacks US over GM corn and glyphosate; she also writes: “We are defending your products:’ Emails reveal coordination between US government, industry in foreign trade disputes
• The Center for Food Safety has produced its own analysis of the positions: U.S. Tries to Force Potentially Hazardous GM Corn on Mexico
• The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network supports Mexico’s position.
• Friends of the Earth submitted supporting analysis and documentation.

The biotechnology industry, unsurprisingly, supports the US position:

• Biotechnology Innovation Organization: BIO Reiterates Lack of Basis for Mexico’s Ban on Genetically Modified Corn

This dispute raises serious issues of national food sovereignty—who gets to decide how a country’s food system works.

• Mexico wants to protect the genetic integrity of its native corn landraces.
• Mexico also wants to protect its population against what it sees as hazards of GMO corn and the glyphosate herbicide used with it.
• The US wants to use this trade agreement to force Mexico to accept its GMO corn.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  Stay tuned.

In case you haven’t been keeping track, virtually all corn, cotton, and soybeans (and sugar beets not on this graph) are genetically modified. 

Not only that, but they take up more than half of all cropland in the United States.

And half the corn is used to fuel automobiles.

Monoculture, control of the food supply, and lack of biodiversity, anyone?

A post on X (the site formerly known as Twitter) displayed this graph.

It comes from a policy report published on FarmDocDaily: Concentration of US Principal Crop Acres in Corn and Soybeans.

The bottom line: 30% of harvested acres is devoted to corn, and another 30% to soybeans.

These, of course, are largely genetically modified.

This is industrial agriculture at a glance.

And here’s one more, worth seeing again in this context.

Regenerative agriculture anyone?

I was fascinated to see this article in Ag Funder News (to which I am now subscribing):  FDA warns molecular farming startups of risks if food allergens are not properly managed.  

If companies are putting the genes for animal proteins into crops, they need to be super careful not to introduce proteins known or likely to be allergenic.

The FDA’s  warning letter reminds companies to:

• Consider the food safety risks posed by allergens
• Plan early in development to manage the risks
• Label products properly
• Pay attention to legal requirements and food safety responsibilities

This took me right back to 1996 when I wrote an editorial for the New England Journal of Medicine about one such incident (scroll down to the third editorial in the pdf).

Investigators thought it would be clever to add a Brazil nut protein to soybeans to enrich the beans—used for chicken feed—in sulfur-containing amino acids especially needed by chickens for feather formation.  Unfortunately, some people are allergic to that protein.

The investigators were especially diligent about checking the allergenicity of the transferred protein.  By a truly remarkable coincidence, everything they needed to establish allergenicity was available.  The soybeans were withdrawn from the market, but all of this was somewhat of a miracle.

As I concluded,

This situation illustrates the pressing need to expand basic and clinical research on food allergies. More information about incidence, prevalence, dietary exposure, antigenicity, immune responses, diagnosis, and treatment would help researchers, regulators, and biotechnology companies predict whether transgenic proteins are likely to cause harm. In the special case of transgenic soybeans, the donor species was known to be allergenic, serum samples from persons allergic to the donor species were available for testing, and the product was withdrawn. The next case could be less ideal, and the public less fortunate. It is in everyone’s best interest to develop regulatory policies for transgenic foods that include premarketing notification and labeling. Industry benefits when the public is convinced that transgenic foods are safe, and stronger federal regulations would encourage such public confidence.

That was in 1996.  I could have written it yesterday.  No wonder the FDA is worried.