Monsanto in Mexico | Report on the grassroots struggle against transgenic crops in a major center of origin

All photos courtesy of CIP

Americas’ Program

Moderator’s Note: 
We are reposting what I consider to be the best report on the history of
the struggle against Monsanto and other purveyors of transgenic crops in Mexico,
which successfully defeated the ‘Gene Giants’ in Mexican courts to ban the
planting of GMO corn and other transgenic crops that represent a real, proven
threat to the native land race varieties in one of the world’s preeminent
centers of origin for numerous domesticated crops including maize, beans,
squash, and many others.

The CIP Americas Program has been
accompanying the grassroots movement of campesinos, indigenous communities,
consumers and scientists to maintain the ban on genetically modified corn for
over a decade. The pushback from Monsanto and other biotech companies has been
constant, but cross-sector organization has succeeded in protecting Mexico’s
native corn and campesino livelihoods from the threat. This report describes
the latest developments.

I believe
that there is much we in the USA can learn from the strategies and tactics used
by indigenous, campesino, and environmental organizations and activists in
Mexico. The first and perhaps most important lesson is that Mexicans have
focused on the banning of transgenic crops to protect native land races in
their center of origin while in the USA, the anti-GMO movement has largely
focused on labeling of GMO crops and ingredients, with the exception of Jackson
County, Oregon and a few other similar efforts. 

The point here is that the USA
also hosts various bioregions that are centers of origin for a number of
important native crops, including maize, beans, and squash/pumpkin. It is time
for our movement to focus on center of origin crop bans as an approach that
goes beyond labeling. This will be a challenge because unlike Mexico, the USA
is not a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), the Cartegena Biosafety Protocols, and ILO Convention 169, a legally binding international
instrument open to ratification, which deals specifically with the rights of
indigenous and tribal peoples.

The original post can be found at: http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/15558. 

Mexico’s GMO Corn Ban and Glyphosate
Cancer Findings

MONSANTO’S
DECEIT COUNTERED BY STRONG LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO
THE COURTS

Alfredo
Acedo |  Mexico City |  July 20, 2015

Twenty-two months ago, Mexico became a GM maize-free territory,
when a Federal Judge issued the precautionary measure that suspended authorizations
to plant any genetically modified seeds of this grain, a staple food in the
country, essential to its culture.

The temporary suspension reinstated in fact the moratorium on GM
maize that had been breached by the federal government in 2009, when it started
approving the growth of GM crops in experimental and pilot stages, continuing
to do so until 2013. In September that year, just as Monsanto and other
multinational corporations turned commercial planting up a notch, the
precautionary measure was issued in response to the collective lawsuit filed by
a group of organizations and citizens advocating for the human right to
biodiversity and a healthy environment.

On July 5 last, the collective lawsuit that stopped GM maize
from being planted in the center of corn origin and diversity entered its
second year after a number of outstanding victories: the collective presenting
the legal actions was granted favorable ruling in all 22 appeals and other
contestations, which amount to nearly a hundred of legal remedies used by the
government and multinational corporations.

The evil duo is not happy. Unspeakable excesses have been
undertaken by the federal government: the legal system (financed with tax
money) was put to the service of corporations to argue in favor of GM maize,
against the national interest. It went as far as hiding information affecting
the interests of multinational corporations in the trial.

Monsanto’s deceit
has reached the courts of the judiciary, claiming that its transgenic
technology reduces the use of pesticides and increases the productivity of
crops for the benefit of farmers. Several studies reviewed during trial show
just the opposite. The defendants are compelled to show that not planting GM
maize is more harmful than planting it. Failure to do so means the
precautionary measure will remain in force.

Movements and organizations have striven to defend the battered
biodiversity and food sovereignty, with the support of a team of young lawyers
that has so far kept the multimillionaire legal team of the corporations and
the government, at bay.

In a press conference, renowned lawyer Bernardo Bátiz
highlighted the work of attorney René Sánchez Galindo, “who has borne the legal
burden that has managed to put a halt to Monsanto’s strategy.”

Sánchez Galindo has stated that they are now pursuing a
permanent suspension of GM maize cultivation while in-depth definition of the
process is carried out, but he refused to estimate how long will it take.
“Every time we have made predictions, they were wrong”, he said. “We would not
give a blank check to the judiciary, but so far they have implemented the
collective rights contained in the law and international treaties on this topic
signed by Mexico.”

The attorney briefly summarized court appearances: Monsanto was
compelled to acknowledge that all its GM crop applications involve the use of
glyphosate and it conceded that there is genetic flow between crops. Syngenta
recognized seed exchange as source of transgene dissemination. SAGARPA admitted
that transgenics do not increase yield. CIBIOGEM conceded that GM crops are
more expensive. The Ministry of Finance (Secretaría de Hacienda)
reported that maize imports decreased over the past year. And the Ministry of
Health (Secretaría de Salud) confessed to not conducting any study to
assess the impact on human health of GM maize consumption.

“The lawsuit has sown seeds of hope allowing us to create closer
links and strengthen our long-standing fight for the defense of our maize”, as
expressed by Argelia Arriaga, pharmacobiological chemist and historian from the
Autonomous University of Puebla and one of the plaintiffs in the collective
lawsuit. She also highlighted the involvement of organizations from the
productive sector (such as ANEC and the Vicente Guerrero farmers organization,
from Tlaxcala), which would be the first to be struck by the introduction of GM
technology.

Adelita San Vicente, from the organization Semillas de Vida
(seeds of life) and representative of the collective group, said: “we are not
just some scattered environmentalists in this fight, we have been joined by
many people and organizations, such as UNORCA”, which has presented an amicus
curiae brief requesting the Twelfth District Judge for Civil Matters
of the First Circuit hearing the case, “to grant permanent status to the
precautionary measure that has suspended authorizations to plant any GM maize
in Mexico.”

Although the lawsuit was filed on July 5, 2013, and the
precautionary measure issued on September 17, the trial has just started
because it has taken these two years to attend the legal challenges lodged by
Monsanto, Syngenta, and other corporations along with the federal government,
to overturn the resolution of the court, but to no avail.

Given the immeasurable value of what is at stake for the nation
and humanity, the eyes of the world are now on Mexico.

Right to biodiversity

The collective lawsuit was pioneered by 53 people exercising
their civil rights, and 20 civil organizations engaged in activities related to
production and consumption of maize landraces, all of them advocating for the
human right to a healthy environment for their development and wellbeing. The
lawsuit has faced 93 legal challenges in 17 federal courts.

The legal strategy of plaintiffs, leaded by Sánchez Galindo,
focuses on showing the triple threat looming over Mexico: biodiversity of maize
landraces could go from being a common good to become private property of a
handful of corporations; such biodiversity could be lost, resulting in the end
of a thousand-year-old culture; all this would jeopardize the health of the
Mexican population that, in contrast to the rest of the world, consumes maize
directly and in vast amounts.

Therefore, the plaintiffs are seeking a statement issued by the
judge declaring that there is GM maize in unauthorized locations, as well as
unauthorized activities. Furthermore, that this presence undermines the human
right to conservation, participation, and sustainable use of the biological
diversity of maize landraces, and that with the release of GM maize, biological
diversity will be all the more affected.

Sustainable use is understood as benefiting from the components
of biodiversity in ways and at a pace that do not result in its depletion in
the long run, enabling current and future generations to fulfill their needs
and aspirations.

The ultimate lie

At the end of 2014, after a year with no experimental
cultivation nor authorization for commercial plantings, Monsanto blew off the
dust from its arsenal of lies and relaunched its campaign promoting GM maize
based on the untenable argument of the reduction in pesticide use. It aimed at
generating favorable public opinion and influence trial proceedings, for the
duration of which, and depending on the verdict, are keeping GM maize off the
field.

In November, Luis González de Alba in an article
published by Milenio, “Mexico, cradle of corn and a very poor producer”,
endorses the lies of corporations. In his text, the writer and commentator
ignores the disastrous consequences of the North American Free Trade Agreement
over the Mexican territory, he yearns for the latifundio – or “the large
plantations” – and explains the failure of national production as a result of
land distribution and the minifundio (small estate).

Gonzáles de Alba argues that the lack of GM maize varieties
undermines “the delivery of solutions to the inefficient Mexican farmlands.” He
gathers misleading statements from a news release by
the Entomological Society of America (ESA) claiming that GM maize yield per
hectare in the US is three times higher than in Mexican farmlands. The trick is
averaging seasonal-crop yields of corn fields from the greater part of the
national territory (where GM technology would not work) with irrigated-crop
yields from the northwest of Mexico, where non-GM hybrids produce yields higher
than o equal to those observed in the neighboring country.

ESA discusses a study 
– some of whose authors work for multinational food and agribusiness
corporations – which attributes low yield in Mexico to pests that reduce maize
production, and concludes that the greatest obstacle for implementing
integrated pest management programs is “the diversity of growing conditions”
observed in the minifundio. According to calculations made by the
authors, three thousand tons of organophosphate pesticides are sold annually in
Mexico, only to control fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in maize,
with severe impacts to the environment and public health. But there is nothing
to worry about: Monsanto and crew have the solution with their insect-resistant
GM maize seeds.

The problem is that – Gonzáles de Alba quotes entomologist
Guadalupe Pellegaud – “unfortunately, people who oppose the introduction of
this technology in Mexico do not seem to realize that a far greater
environmental impact is done by applying more than 3,000 tons of insecticide
active ingredient each year.”

The same quote and news release have been used in an article
from Muy Interesante, a magazine published by Televisa, on January (Anti-insect
Corn), which reiterates that “if maize varieties genetically modified to
express proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis – currently
planted in 90% of cornfields in the US – were to be adopted, yields of
(Mexican) farmlands would triple.”

The truth is that GMOs do not have higher yields and, regarding
the use and abuse of chemical pesticides, Monsanto’s cure is worse than the
disease. Contrary to what corporate propaganda claims, GM crops have increased
the application of toxic agricultural chemicals. This has led to an
unprecedented rise in the use of increasingly more toxic herbicides and
insecticides, creating serious problems for the environment and public health.
In the case of Monsanto’s maize, the purpose of the genetic modification is
indeed to obtain a plant resistant to the herbicide formulated by the very
company (Roundup) – a perfect business.

The Benbrook
scientific report, published in 2012, documents the use of toxic agricultural
chemicals in the US in GM maize, soy, and cotton from 1996 to 2011, and it
shows that genetically engineered crops increased the use of toxic agricultural
chemicals by an estimated 183 million kilograms during that period.

Since the US is the largest and oldest producer of GMOs, its
performance data may be extrapolated to the rest of the world. In that country,
a phenomenon derived from natural selection (artificial in this case) has
already become evident: since evolution takes its course, insects and weeds
develop resistance and super-pests emerge, demanding an increase in the volume
and toxicity of pesticides in an endless range of poisoning levels. This is
a fact acknowledged
by the US Department of Agriculture itself.

Privatizing seeds

GM maize was designed to monopolize the cultivation of this
staple crop and it does not increase yields. The adoption of seed that has to
be purchased at the start of each cropping cycle paying royalties to the patent
owner, creates dependence and increases costs. For many corn producers in
Mexico, this is reason enough to end discussions. GM maize is of no use to
them. On the contrary, it would only worsen their deteriorated economy, and be
a further cog in the wheel of a new slave system represented by the placement
of agriculture in the hands of corporations.

The agricultural biotech industry is controlled by six
multinational corporations (Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow AgroSciences, Bayer
y BASF) that hold the monopoly on
seeds by means of patent protection on the most important crops for humanity.
With their vast capacity for lobbying and corrupting governments, they are
privatizing biodiversity in widening the scope of patents to cover living
beings (such as seeds) and not only the technological processes.

But that is not all: if the federal government were to authorize
commercial growing of GM maize in Mexico (whose entire territory is the center
of corn origin and diversity) an enormous agro-genetic and cultural wealth –
represented by nearly 60 Mexican landraces adapted to almost every climate and
soil in the country – would be lost. Such biodiversity, resulting from the work
of thousands of generations, is the best defense against the ravages of the
climate crisis already reducing  the yields
of several grains in
different parts of the country.

Perhaps worse, GM maize and its inextricably related package of
toxic agricultural chemicals (mainly glyphosate, whose use has consequently
increased) causes damage to the environment and human health.

Each of these statements is backed by the experience of farmers
from Mexico and other countries, as well as by serious studies conducted by
reputable institutions around the world. Some of the studies are cited below.

Poor crop performance

Research conducted by the University of Canterbury compared
maize 50‑year yields in the US and Europe, showing greater increases in the Old
Continent in contrast to our neighbor to the north. This in spite of the fact
that the European Union grows very little GM varieties, while in the US they
represent more than 80% of maize varieties grown. The study turns out to be
more significant when taking into account that it is comparing areas with the
same technological development level and at similar latitudes.

Even in the US, where GM maize has been commercially grown for
two decades, according to a report from
the Union of Concerned Scientists, agricultural developments based
on GMOs have failed to increase yields after some thirty years of experiments
and nearly twenty years of being put on the market.

The study finds that the propaganda carried out by biotech
corporations, such as Monsanto, lacks support when it states that genetic
engineering is necessary to increase productivity, in the context of food price
increases and food shortage in some regions.

The research concludes that none of the GM technologies under
assessment offers an increase in productivity over alternative crops, while it
encourages scientific research oriented to other approaches proven to increase
yield, such as “sustainable and organic farming, and other sophisticated
farming practices that do not require farmers to pay significant upfront
costs.”

Rescuing landraces and native seeds as well as an optimal use of
seeds improved through national non-transgenic technologies remain the key to
increase yields and face the challenges of climate change in the field, as
shown by research conducted
by Mexican scientists, such as Dr. Antonio Turrent, from the National Institute
for Forestry, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Research (INIFAP, its Spanish
acronym) and president of the Union of Scientists Committed to Society.

The corporate defense strategy in the trial is based on a lie,
claiming that GM maize produces a higher yield than conventional maize; and
that if it were grown commercially, it would solve the country’s dependence on
this grain, since Mexico is currently importing 30% of its maize consumption
from the US. The truth, as shown by Turrent and
others, is that Mexico has a potential to produce 57 million tons
annually (nearly three times its current production) without the need of GM
maize, using only landrace seeds and hybrids, adding some 3 million hectares to
the extent of land under cultivation in the southern-south-eastern region, within
the frame of a State policy to regain food sovereignty.

The author states that GM crops are faced with a dead-end future
in which the Mexican government has invested valuable resources, but to no
avail. Modern agricultural science is creating new paths towards food
sufficiency based on the cultivation of perennial varieties of staple grains to
replace current annual crops.

“When planting perennial varieties of maize, wheat, rice,
sorghum, millets, and several legumes, the land will be ploughed and planted
only once every five or six years. The system will be more environmentally
friendly, and food production more stable,” he stated. He also points out two
reasons why corporate biotech can expect to have an expiration date: the seed
market will be brought to a fifth of its size and the complex inheritance of
the permanent trait will distance it from finding a solution by engineering a
handful of genes.

Attack on the center
of origin

The whole Mexican territory is the center of corn origin and
diversity, thus no cultivation of GM maize should be allowed within the
national territory, since the openly crossed-pollination that characterizes
this plant would endanger the continuity of landraces and native varieties.
Coexistence of maize varieties resulting from conventional crossings and those
genetically engineered, contrary to what government and corporations are trying
to prove during the trial, is impossible. Transgenic pollen would contaminate
everything.

As early as 2000, Ignacio Chapela and
David Quist, researchers at Berkeley University, detected transgene
contamination in native maize in communities of the Sierra de Oaxaca.
Subsequent investigations confirmed the
data, and such contamination was also found in other states. This happened
while there was a moratorium on GM experiments, we can easily imagine what
would happen, if commercial growing of GM maize were approved, i.e. planting in
large open-air extensions of land with no restrictions.

In 2009, UNAM, UACM, Colegio de Posgraduados and CONABIO
published the book “Origen
y diversificación del maíz, una investigación bibliográfica analítica” (Origin
and Diversification of Maize, an Analytic Review) covering 150 years of
published literature on the topic. In the foreword, José Sarukhán Kermez,
director of CONABIO, wrote:

Mexico and the Mesoamerican region are the center of corn origin
and diversification into more than 50 landraces recognized in our territory.
Where, precisely, when and how did corn originate in Mexico are questions that
cannot be accurately answered. What seems to be clear is that the process
occurred simultaneously in several regions and it spread throughout the
national territory inhabited by hundreds of indigenous peoples that constitute
the historical roots of what our country presently is. [Translated]

In the Executive Summary, the text reads: “Approximately 60
races are catalogued in Mexico which are distributed through out the country.”

The authors conclude that in the light of scientific evidence
and systematized information, definitions and articles related to centers of
origin and diversity, and – especially – the special regime for the protection
of maize from the Law on Biosafety and Genetically Modified Organisms will have
to be amended because “they do not comply with their commitment to protect and
safeguard native maize germplasm and its wild relatives in Mexico.”

Poison à la carte

One of the two GM maize varieties (Roundup Ready, the most
widely used) was designed to resist massive applications of glyphosate, the
active ingredient of Roundup or Faena. Lying again, the industry claimed that
it is not toxic to humans, but in 2013 – to cite an example – a study revealed
something very different:

Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide around the world, is
highly toxic to mammals and residues have been found in the main components of
the western diet, such sugar, corn, soybean, and wheat. It inhibits enzymes
that play a crucial role in the proper functioning of organisms and interferes
in the synthesis of amino acids in the intestine, causing several diseases
ranging from gastrointestinal problems, obesity, diabetes, heart disease,
depression, autism, and infertility to cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was conducted by an independent scientist and a
researcher from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and published in the
journal Entropy. The authors reviewed nearly 300 research studies.

In addition, a group of scientists from Caen University in
France, led by Eric Séralini, published the results of the most extensive study
of laboratory mammals fed with GM corn (NK603, the same variety Monsanto wants
to plant in Sinaloa) and a glyphosate formulation that had a concentration
lower than the permitted levels in drinking water in the European Union.

The study summarizes:

“The health effects of genetically modified (GM) maize
cultivated with or without Roundup application” were only assessed for two
years in rats. “In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold
increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier than control groups” (…)
“Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls.”
(…) “[T]he sex hormonal balance was modified.” “In treated males, liver
congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher.” (…) There were also
“marked and severe nephropathies.” “Males presented up to four times more large
palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier.”

Séralini’s team concludes that such disorders can be explained
by the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of glyphosate, but also by the
overexpression of GM maize transgenes and other metabolic consequences.

The report caused quite a global commotion and aroused the anger of
Monsanto and other multinational corporations. Due to the pressure exerted by
the industry, the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology withdrew the
publication, between the debate on science independence and the rejoicing of
biotechnologists advocating for GM seeds. The study was republished last year
without any modifications by the journal Environmental Sciences Europe.

In addition to glyphosate teratogenic effects documented by Andrés
Carrasco in
South America and published in 2009, last year Nancy L. Swanson published
a study in which she searched US government databases for GM crop data,
applications of Monsanto’s herbicide commercialized since 1974, and
epidemiological data of diseases such as thyroid cancer, liver cancer, bladder
cancer, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, as well as diabetes, strokes, autism,
and hypertension.

The highly significant correlation coefficients observed between
glyphosate, GM crops and the increase in the incidence of chronic diseases in
the US in the last 20 years, led her to conclude that the topic must be studied
in greater depth.

Once again, the World Health Organization reacted too late. It
was only on March 20, through the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC), that it included glyphosate in
the list of substances “probably carcinogenic to humans” (IARC Group 2A.)

By an official statement IARC indicated: “For the herbicide
glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for
non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures,
mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. In
addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in
laboratory animals.”

After the WHO announcement, France banned
over-the-counter sale of glyphosate some weeks ago, while Colombia decided to
eradicate its use as a coca defoliant. Ecuador and Peru expressed their
intentions to make progress in the fight against pesticides.

Poisons sold by corporations are components of the upcoming
horror-show that Mexico is currently facing in court. The battle is already
being recognized as the most relevant legal challenge against GM crops around
the world having significant global implications, due to the importance of
maize in the diet of the peoples and in world economy.

Translated by Andrea Maldonado