Certain states in Mexico have banned the planting and cultivation of genetically modified corn from the U.S. in recent years, in order to preserve heirloom varieties of corn (maize) that have existed in Mexico for thousands of years.
In 2022, Mexico proposed a ban on imports of GM corn as a country, and now the U.S. and Canada are teaming up to protest and to try and force Mexico to keep importing GM corn.
The AP reported last week:
Canada joins US in trade dispute hearings against Mexico’s proposed ban on GM corn
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Canada said Friday it will join a trade dispute panel that the United States requested over Mexico’s proposed limits on imports of genetically modified corn.
The U.S. government asked that the dispute process be formally opened on June 2, after talks with the Mexican government failed to yield results.
The panel of experts would have about half a year to study the complaint and release its findings. Trade sanctions could follow if Mexico is found to have violated the U.S.-Mexico Canada free trade agreement.
Mexico wants to ban GM corn for human consumption, and perhaps eventually ban it for animal feed as well, something that both its northern partners say would damage trade and violate USMCA requirements that any health or safety standards be based on scientific evidence.
“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,” Canada’s Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food said in a statement.
Mexico is the leading importer of U.S. yellow corn, most of which is genetically modified. Almost all is fed to cattle, pigs and chickens in Mexico, which doesn’t grow enough feed corn. Corn for human consumption in Mexico is almost entirely domestically-grown white corn, though corn-meal chips or other processed products could potentially contain GM corn.
Mexico argues GM corn may have health effects, even when used as fodder, but hasn’t yet presented proof. (Full article.)
For U.S. and Canadian politicians to state that the claims that GM corn are hazardous to one’s health “are not scientifically supported” is similar to saying that “the science is settled” when it comes to the “safety” of vaccines.
It is a total lie.
The science showing how dangerous genetically modified food is, including the use of glyphosate herbicides sprayed on GM crops, is ABUNDANT.
But similar to studies showing the toxicity and harms of vaccines, these studies are almost always censored, or if they get published, are usually later retracted due to the pressure of Big Ag interests.
One such study was published in 2012 in the Food and Chemical Toxicity journal in 2012, by French researcher Dr. Gilles-Eric Séralini:
The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats.
In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs.
All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments.
In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy.
Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier.
Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related.
These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences. (Source.)
Big Ag was outraged, and forced the journal to retract the study.
The researchers published their response:
Our recent work (Séralini et al., 2012) remains to date the most detailed study involving the life-long consumption of an agricultural genetically modified organism (GMO). This is true especially for NK603 maize for which only a 90-day test for commercial release was previously conducted using the same rat strain (Hammond et al., 2004).
It is also the first long term detailed research on mammals exposed to a highly diluted pesticide in its total formulation with adjuvants.
This may explain why 75% of our first criticisms arising within a week, among publishing authors, come from plant biologists, some developing patents on GMOs, even if it was a toxicological paper on mammals, and from Monsanto Company who owns both the NK603 GM maize and Roundup herbicide (R).
Our study has limits like any one, and here we carefully answer to all criticisms from agencies, consultants and scientists, that were sent to the Editor or to ourselves.
At this level, a full debate is biased if the toxicity tests on mammals of NK603 and R obtained by Monsanto Company remain confidential and thus unavailable in an electronic format for the whole scientific community to conduct independent scrutiny of the raw data.
In our article, the conclusions of long-term NK603 and Roundup toxicities came from the statistically highly discriminant findings at the biochemical level in treated groups in comparison to controls, because these findings do correspond in an blinded analysis to the pathologies observed in organs, that were in turn linked to the deaths by anatomopathologists. GM NK603 and R cannot be regarded as safe to date. (Source.)
So once again, the term “science” is used as a weapon to attack truth, where REAL science should welcome debate, and not suppress it.
The North American Corn Supply is All Contaminated
I have operated an online ecommerce store selling healthy food and products for over 21 years now, called Healthy Traditions.
We began testing all the food we sold online for the presence of glyphosate and other herbicides and pesticides in 2014, when we discovered that even USDA certified organic grains were contaminated with these herbicides and pesticides.
And if a particular food we sell has a GMO equivalent in the market, we also test the product for the presence of GMO DNA.
It took a long time to find agricultural products that were not contaminated, and today most of these products that we sell and test clean, are imported from outside the U.S. from countries that have a stricter policy regarding these herbicides and pesticides, and the use of GMOs.
Corn was the hardest one for us to source, because literally every sample we tested in the U.S., even when USDA certified as organic, or certified as GMO-free, were ALL contaminated. For about two years we did not sell any corn products, because we could not find a source in the U.S. that consistently tested clean from GMOs and glyphosate.
We finally found an heirloom white corn variety from a state in Central Mexico, where GMO corn was banned by the governor of that particular state, and today that is the only corn we sell.
Mexico needs to STAND FIRM against the corrupt American and Canadian corporations trying to enforce their will on them, and proceed with a total ban on imported GM corn.
Mexico is known as the birth place of “maize”, which is their staple, and many of their traditional heirloom varieties are already being threatened by cross contamination from GM corn imported from the U.S. and Canada.
If the American consumer will become more informed about the quality of the food they purchase, and seek out uncontaminated food, such as GMO-free corn from Mexico, the poorer countries of Central and South America, which all still have a much higher percentage of their populations involved in sustainable, traditional small-scale production, could find a very lucrative market in the U.S. among the informed public that demands healthier and cleaner food.
But that will only happen if the American consumer decides to take their food purchases more seriously, and not settle for cheap, contaminated and subsidized mass-produced commodity food.
**By Brian Shillhavy