US Asks for Dispute Consultations Over Mexican GMO Restrictions

The U.S. asked for formal dispute settlement consultations with Mexico over its policies on biotech products, but did not commit to moving forward with a panel request if the consultations are not fruitful within 75 days. That's the earliest a panel could be requested under USMCA.

While Mexico narrowed its decree on genetically modified corn so it only applies to corn used in tortillas and the flour used to make tortillas -- a sector for which the U.S. is not a big exporter -- senior officials at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative told reporters that's not acceptable, because the decree also talks about the administration working to gradually substitute all genetically modified corn in the Mexican market, whether for Fritos or animal feed.

The U.S. also said Mexico has broken its commitment to make sanitary and phytosanitary decisions based on science when they rejected requests to sell genetically modified canola, cotton, corn and soybeans, 14 rejections in all.

“The United States has repeatedly conveyed its concerns that Mexico’s biotechnology policies are not based on science and threaten to disrupt U.S. exports to Mexico to the detriment of agricultural producers, which in turn can exacerbate food security challenges. Mexico’s biotechnology policies also stifle agricultural innovation that helps American farmers respond to pressing climate challenges, increase farm productivity, and improve farmers’ livelihoods,” U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said in a press release announcing this step.

A senior USTR official also said these rejections could stifle innovation used to adapt to changing pests and crop diseases.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said, “We fundamentally disagree with the position Mexico has taken on the issue of biotechnology, which has been proven to be safe for decades."

During a June 2 call with reporters, a senior USTR official noted that the U.S. government doesn't have to ask for a dispute panel after 75 days, and that there is no time limit on consultations. When a reporter asked if these consultations could drag on for years, the official replied, "We’re hopeful that we will find a solution to our concerns in the course of those consultations," and said they didn't want to prejudge what the administration would decide if the U.S. is not satisfied at the end of the 75 days.

The Mexican Embassy did not respond to a request for comment after the USTR action was made public at 2 p.m. on June 2.

The Associated Press reported in March that Mexico's president said the country would not bend in consultations, and would argue their position in front of panelists. “Because this is a very important issue for us,” the president said, adding “it is the health of our people.”

In addition to the language of the SPS chapter in USMCA that the U.S. says is being violated, the formal request asserts that it expected to be able to export GMO corn into Mexico, because its officials "had a reasonable expectation at the time the USMCA was concluded that Mexico would not adopt the Substitution Instruction. Accordingly, the United States considers that a benefit it could reasonably have expected to accrue to it under Chapter 2 or Chapter 9 of the USMCA is being nullified or impaired as a result of the application of this measure."

Ohio State University agriculture professors and an agriculture extension agent wrote a piece published in April in the University of Illinois's "farm doc daily" publication that they expect a panel would rule for the U.S., since the World Trade Organization ruled that EU bans on GMO crops were not science-based.

The National Corn Growers Association welcomed the dispute's advance. “Mexico’s actions, which are not based on sound science, have threatened the financial wellbeing of corn growers and our nation’s rural communities,” NCGA President Tom Haag said. “We are deeply appreciative of Ambassador Katherine Tai and USTR for moving this process forward and thankful for the efforts of Secretary Tom Vilsack and members of Congress for standing up for farmers in such a meaningful way.”