The US has started a food fight with Mexico  

It’s officially a food fight. 

On June 2, the U.S. filed for consultations with Mexico over its bans on genetically-modified (GM) corn and the herbicide glyphosate, invoking rules under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). On June 9, Canada announced it will join as a “third party,” and is siding with the U.S. 

The U.S. and Canada will argue that Mexico’s bans are unscientific. Mexico will argue about bees, biodiversity and the environment. This same food fight is playing out around the globe, which is why the United States needs the legal win, as well as a convincing rebuttal of Mexico’s narrative. 

The bans were set out in a decree in 2020, which called for “achieving self-sufficiency and food sovereignty.” Mexico’s president, Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador, wanted these bans in place by 2024. Last February, however, a new decree was issued, putting the ban in place immediately on GM corn for human consumption. GM corn in animal feed and industrial uses, such as cosmetics, textiles and paper, is exempt until substitutes are found. The ban on glyphosate will take effect on March 31, 2024. 

The U.S. will make several arguments. First, Mexico’s approach to GM corn and glyphosate isn’t based on international standards. There are several global bodies that are active in this policy space, but neither decree mentions them or explains why Mexico needs to depart from their guidelines and standards. Curiously, Mexico does mention international standards when trying to justify its “food self-sufficiency” policies, although the source and content of these are a complete mystery. 

Second, Mexico argues that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen,” but this is from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which arrived at this conclusion using a “hazard approach.” A hazard approach just looks at whether there’s a possibility of harm. USMCA requires a “risk assessment,” which looks to determine the probability of harm under real-world conditions. 

Third, there is nothing more trade restrictive than a ban. USMCA prefers that countries not default to a ban, and that, if possible, they use less trade-restrictive measures to achieve their health safety goals. To argue that a ban goes too far, the U.S. has to give an alternative that meets Mexico’s needs in a less trade-restrictive way. Canada, as a third party, can be of help on this. Health Canada issues guidelines on glyphosate, for example, that emphasize best farming practices, which Mexico could build on.    

Mexico’s decrees hint at a defense. The 2020 decree invokes the “precautionary principle,” citing the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit. Mexico says the bans are needed to safeguard its environment against the unknown. This won’t fly. USMCA allows a provisional measure if the science is “insufficient.” But the science isn’t insufficient. In fact, Mexico has done many of its own studies, having authorized 177 projects to research and experiment with GM corn. 

Plan B is for Mexico to change the conversation to bees, biodiversity and the environment. The country’s deputy agriculture minister, Victor Suarez, says glyphosate is bad for bees and other pollinators. This is straight out of Europe’s playbook. Brussels argues the same thing in justifying its ban on the outdoor use of two pesticides, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. The problem for both Mexico and Europe is that this bee theory isn’t grounded in science. Canada, for example, has seen its bee populations do well under guidelines on how to use neonicotinoid pesticides.

On the environment, Mexico says that it has to protect native varieties of corn from imports, for the sake of biodiversity. U.S. companies can’t plant in Mexico, so there’s no (legal) prospect of direct cross-pollination. Illegal seeds could pose a problem, but this doesn’t seem to be a concern. It’s really about food sovereignty. But it is competition that keeps domestic farmers from growing “ancient” strains of corn, not environmental degradation. Biodiversity shouldn’t get conflated with import substitution. 

Keep in mind that many Mexican stakeholders oppose the bans, too. The Consejo Nacional Agropecuario de México, which represents the country’s agribusinesses, insists that domestic food chains will collapse without U.S. imports and that banning glyphosate could result in as much as a 45 percent decline in Mexico’s agricultural output. These stakeholders are the key to settling this dispute, either before or after a ruling. 

Food fights are messy, and take a long time to clean up. This one isn’t going to be different, but it’s long overdue. 

Marc L. Busch is the Karl F. Landegger Professor of International Business Diplomacy at the Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, and a global fellow at the Wilson Center’s Wahba Institute for Strategic Competition. Follow him on Twitter @marclbusch.