Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech United States Science

Mexico Argues Glyphosate In GM Corn Is Unsafe For Human Consumption (reuters.com) 106

Posted by BeauHD from the safety-first dept.
Mexico is waiting for the United States to provide evidence that shows imported genetically modified corn is safe for human consumption. "In a written submission to a panel of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, Mexico, the top buyer of U.S. corn, argued that science proves GM corn and the herbicide glyphosate are harmful to human health and its native varieties, and that its decree to ban GM corn for human consumption is within its right," reports Reuters. From the report: [Deputy Agriculture Secretary Victor Suarez] said the onus is now on the United States to show GM corn is not harming Mexico's population, which consumes a higher amount of corn than many countries through daily diet staples like nixtamalized dough and tortilla. The United States "argues that the decisions in Mexico are not based on science and that their decisions are," Suarez told Reuters in an interview. "But we still haven't seen the science of the United States or the companies. We are looking forward to that study with great pleasure."

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture said Mexico's approach to biotechnology runs counter to "decades' worth of evidence demonstrating its safety." A senior official for the U.S. Trade Representative said, "Scientific authorities, including in Mexico, have consistently found biotech products like corn to be safe over a period of decades." [...] Mexico's written response cited studies it said showed links between GM corn consumption and glyphosate exposure to liver inflammation in people and impacts to immune response in animals, saying it considers the risk to human health "extremely serious."

The United States in August requested a dispute settlement panel under the USMCA over Mexico's decree to ban GM corn for human consumption, specifically in the use of making flour for tortillas. The decree allows the use of GM yellow corn in animal feed, which accounts for the majority of Mexico's nearly $5.9 billion worth of U.S. corn imports annually. Washington argues Mexico's decree banning imports of GM corn used for tortillas is not based on science and violates its commitments under the USMCA, which has been in place since 2020. "There is no impact on trade," Suarez said of Mexico's decree. "The value and volume of exports of GM corn to Mexico has increased."

Mexico's decree also calls for the gradual substitution of GM corn, a point of contention highlighted by U.S. officials. In its written response, Mexico argued that no specific time frame has been established and therefore it has had no trade impact. "It is a strategic goal, like the United States would like to have energy sovereignty and energy self-sufficiency," Suarez said. The United States is expected to issue a rebuttal to Mexico's response.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mexico Argues Glyphosate In GM Corn Is Unsafe For Human Consumption More

Mexico Argues Glyphosate In GM Corn Is Unsafe For Human Consumption

Comments Filter:

  • Unsafe? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GotNoRice ( 7207988 ) on Friday March 08, 2024 @02:37AM (#64299141)
    Environmental regulations in Mexico are almost non-existent, to the extend that there is a huge underground market of importing things from Mexico that have already been banned in the USA. But they are going to complain about corn, of all things?

    • Re:Unsafe? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Njovich ( 553857 ) on Friday March 08, 2024 @03:43AM (#64299223)

      But they are going to complain about corn, of all things?

      One of the most commonly eaten foods of all things yes. You don't get why they would focus on common crops?

      Environmental regulations in Mexico are almost non-existent, to the extend that there is a huge underground market of importing things from Mexico that have already been banned in the USA.

      Regulations are not 'almost non-existent' in Mexico at all, but enforcement is lacking. They are working on improving both regulation and enforcement. Glyphosate and GM corn are under investigation in various parts of the world. This is one of those elements where mexican regulations go further than the US.

      • Re:Unsafe? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday March 08, 2024 @04:27AM (#64299297)

        Glyphosate is an issue for farmer workers exposed during spraying.

        Using glyphosate as a desiccant is also a concern and is banned in the EU.

        But glyphosate is sprayed on corn months before it is harvested. It is not a persistent chemical and the amount present in harvested grain is infintesimal.

        This is protectionism rather than real concern about health effects.

        • Glyphosate is not persistent in ideal, laboratory conditions.

          In the real world, glyphosate persists in anaerobic conditions in soil.

          Everyone who is interested in this issue knows this.

          If you're not interested, why are you commenting?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 )

            Glyphosate is not persistent in ideal, laboratory conditions.

            In the real world, glyphosate persists in anaerobic conditions in soil.

            Everyone who is interested in this issue knows this.

            If you're not interested, why are you commenting?

            There is an elephant in th eroom that doesn't seem to be pursued much. Autism.

            While the kooks were busy ending herd immunity with their porn star aided fake claims that it was vaccines, there had been found a causation between glyphosate and "autism-like behaviors" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov] And I suspect that the autism-like behaviors might have been written that way to avoid offending Monsanto. It's autism.

            There is a spike in autism in children living near areas sprayed with glyphosate. The

            • Those same fields are sprayed with neurotoxins, namely, insecticides. And lots of them. On the face of it, heavy exposure to neurotoxins could cause autism too, it seems. Has the same correlation as exposure to glyphosate.

              Seems more plausible than immunizations: neurtoxins that we spray around by the ton cause autism, not the occasional jab that prevents diseases.

              Conspiracy theory: Russians try to persuade USA that immunization causes autism, concealing the true cause, leading to double harm:
              1) People

            • The link between glysophates and autism has been heavily tested and never established. Autism is becoming more common even in places where people are not exposed to glysophates.

        • I wonder if anyone else recalls the Mexico had a huge problem with NAFTA because the US insisted on being able to sell this shit there. Mexico's economy isn't the only thing that got destroyed by so-called "free trade".

    • But they are going to complain about corn, of all things?

      I might think that too if I hadn't seen a documentary a few years back that talked about the importance of corn in the culture. It goes back to ancient times before the Conquistadors, and various regions all have local varieties. I'm given to understand that the introduction of US corn, GMO'd or not, caused a lot of cross pollination that made it difficult for them to maintain local strains. It's been a long time, but they seemed to indicate tha

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If it really is that bad then it makes sense to start with corn, a staple food.

      • If it really is that bad then it makes sense to start with corn, a staple food.

        It is that bad.

        Glyphosate is involved in autism. While people where whining aboug vaccines aided by a woman whose medical chops were limited in her exposing her body for pR0n, it was found that women who lived in areas with large amounts of glyphosate gave birth to autistic children at a rate tied to their proximity to the places being sprayed. It has been confirmed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]

        The correlation has been known since the early part of this century. The causation has been shown.

    • Mexico is not complaining about corn. They are complaining about Glyphosate.

    • But they are going to complain about corn, of all things?

      "People in the US get killed by gunfire every day. But cops still write parking tickets of all things?"

      If not for Monsanto's lobby spending tons of money of glyphosate lobby, it would have long been banned from this planet.

      Are you Round-up Ready yet?

    • they are going to complain about corn, of all things?

      Protectionism for Mexican farmers violates the free trade treaties unless they can come up with a plausible excuse.

    • Environmental regulations in Mexico are almost non-existent

      False. Mexico has a lot of environmental regulations. They are just set at a typically lower bar than those in the USA, and do not cover the same specific things as the USA.

      In this specific case glyphosate has been banned in Mexico for a variety of products already as well as for local corn production. It's not specifically about corn. The only ones complaining specifically about corn was the USA due to their large corn exports to Mexico, and the only reason we're specifically talking about corn now is beca

    • They aren't complaining about corn, but the weed killer that is sprayed all over crops that are also genetically modified to not die from weed killer. Does that help?

    • The first duty of a government is to protect the citizens of it's nation. If the government of Mexico believes that this is a true hazard to it's citizens, it should take action.

      However, this is disingenuous:

      Deputy Agriculture Secretary Victor Suarez] said the onus is now on the United States to show GM corn is not harming Mexico's population

      It is impossible to prove a negative. What can be shown is that there is no evidence that US GM corn is harming Mexico's population... but an absence of evidence is n

  • argued that science proves

    Well, that's a lie... Last I checked, the consensus was there is no strong, causal, link established. Plenty of bad studies claiming this to be the case but... those tend to stick out like an infected scrotum.

    GM corn and the herbicide glyphosate are harmful to human health and its native varieties

    So is water, oxygen, living, cell dvision, sunlight, marriage..... I mean.... the list that isn't harmful is far, far, shorter.

    The poison is in the dose.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pahles ( 701275 )

      argued that science proves

      Well, that's a lie...

      That's an opinion...

    • Once it was said smoking was good for you. So many doctors recommended the product and studies found no harm. Did NOT cause lung and mouth cancer etc. Drug companies have hidden side effects - by omission, out of scope - whatever. Fentanyl is not addictive - it was once claimed. Previously approved for sale - does not and never did prove it was ever safe. Mexico will reverse its decision real fast - if given access to the unredacted studies - or the ones that were never published - but buried. Just like

      • Once it was said smoking was good for you. So many doctors recommended the product and studies found no harm. Did NOT cause lung and mouth cancer etc.

        More with the presentation of rigorous studies. Less with the false equivalence.

        Please.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Uh, there's a lot of bullshit there.

        First, you really can't compare ye olden days with today. Tobacco companies ran a lot of ads with actors in white coats claiming cigarettes were good for you. The reason they did that was that the public generally recognized they weren't. Some actual physicians did believe that cigarettes were only bad for some people, but those were opinions only. Scientific study of health was pretty hit or miss until at least the 50s, and really didn't get going properly until the 80s.

    • The poison is in the dose.
      That ridiculous argument was tobacco industry's last straw.

      Alcohol still is sold like that, but the current agreement on such safety label on alcoholic beverages here is about to expire, and whatever new compromising shit breweries comes up with for suggestions, health bodies disagree. Eventually they'll have to face the facts, and advertise that there is no healthy dose possible. It's just increasingly more toxic as more of it is consumed.

      • The poison is in the dose. That ridiculous argument was tobacco industry's last straw.

        Everything is harmful to humans, depending on the dose.

        Are you *seriously* arguing this is not the case?

    • argued that science proves

      Well, that's a lie... Last I checked, the consensus was there is no strong, causal, link established. Plenty of bad studies claiming this to be the case but... those tend to stick out like an infected scrotum.

      Good to have an expert here - you need to call the NIH and tell them that they are full of shit.

      After you peruse the document and provide your scholarly debunking of the lie. Everyone knows that autism is caused by vaccines.

      • Good to have an expert here - you need to call the NIH and tell them that they are full of shit.

        Argument from authority. So original.

        I assume you have a point, aside from the meaningless babble?

  • Two separate issues... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Friday March 08, 2024 @03:58AM (#64299239) Homepage

    The article mashes two issues together, that really need to be considered separately.

    First, glyphosate. From a paper reviewing know results: "a scientific community consensus does not exist at the present time, and glyphosate’s safety and health consequences are controversial." Certainly, it is not dramatically dangerous, but the discovery that it persists much longer in soil than expected, and the sheer mass of exposure that we have, means that small dangers may accumulate. This is not an open-and-shut issue.

    Second, GM. GM is not, in and of itself, a problem. The question is: what genetic changes have been made? Each individual change to a plant's genetics can have its own consequences. Which means that each individual genetic change needs to be individually reviewed. Just as an example: some kinds of pest resistance involve introducing pesticides into the product. Externally applied pesticides can be washed off. If they are an integral part of the grain, well...

    • The issue Mexico has is how long this herbicide stays with the vegetable. Here is a Canadian study on the subject [mdpi.com] They study's authors note states its not a judgment of weather or not glyphosate is bad or not. Just that it stays very long in the environment and that it spreads to the wild life up to a year after application.

      No one is saying the GM crops themselves are bad. The GM corn they use is specifically designed to resist this one particular herbicide. The problem is not just glyphosate itsel

    • The article mashes two issues together, that really need to be considered separately.

      The two things are mashed together. The GM ban specifically being looked at is corn that is genetically resistant to glyphosate since it is universally used with glyphosate. There's no generalised GM ban being proposed.

  • From what I read GM food requires less glyphosate...

    Unless I am mistaken and GM is so that corn can survive higher doses of glyphosate...

    • Yes, this is the Roundup-ready corn. (Score:5, Informative)

      by robbak ( 775424 ) on Friday March 08, 2024 @04:53AM (#64299323) Homepage

      This is the corn that is highly resistant to glyphosate, so farmers can spray it over their cropland liberally and kill only the competing weeds.

      Normally, you do not spray your crop with glyphosate; so roundup-ready GM crops increase the amount of it dramatically. How big a problem this is, is another question completely.

      • While that might sound logical to people with no farming experience the opposite is true in practice. Pesticides are an expense and every farmer wanting to get a profit wants to spray just as little pesticides as possible and one of the key points that makes gm crops so interesting for farmers is that it allows for less pesticide usage.

        With a non-gm crop you cannot spray on the crop itself or it dies, so once the weed reaches your crops you are fucked. To solve this you create safe zones around the crops an

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          While that might sound logical to people with no farming experience the opposite is true in practice. Pesticides are an expense and every farmer wanting to get a profit wants to spray just as little pesticides as possible and one of the key points that makes gm crops so interesting for farmers is that it allows for less pesticide usage.

          With a non-gm crop you cannot spray on the crop itself or it dies, so once the weed reaches your crops you are fucked. To solve this you create safe zones around the crops and those zones you have to spray vigilantly to keep them weed free and to prevent any weed to spread from there to your crops.

          With a gm crop however there are no dangers of letting the weed reach your crops, so instead you simply spray on the entire crop field on a much more lenient schedule to just keep the weed in check

          For corn, once it gets established, I wouldn't think weeds matter that much. Corn is taller than I am, assuming it gets enough water, so it isn't as though weeds are competing for light meaningfully, and the weeds may be tilled under at the end of the year anyway along with the corn stalks, so there's potentially little to no long-term soil nutrient depletion, either, though there might be if you're doing no-till.

          Either way, though, the existence of the GM crops means there's an incentive to use glyphosate

          • and what would those alternative more safe herbicides be? One of the reasons glyphosate got so widely used was specifically due to it's low toxicity to humans and it replaced some really toxic ones.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              and what would those alternative more safe herbicides be? One of the reasons glyphosate got so widely used was specifically due to it's low toxicity to humans and it replaced some really toxic ones.

              I'm not aware of anything (though there might be some — I just grew up next to a farm, not on one, so I have no idea). But on the other hand, there also wasn't as strong a financial incentive to develop alternatives, because glyphosate had such a strong first-mover advantage from glyphosate-resistant crops already being on the market.

              I'm not saying that a ban on glyphosate-resistant crops would necessarily have reduced its use, and there's really no way to know, because we don't have a control-group

              • yes you have a control group, the round-up ready crops are banned from Europe (due mostly to eastern europe and Germany being very anti gmo).

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by dgatwood ( 11270 )

                  yes you have a control group, the round-up ready crops are banned from Europe (due mostly to eastern europe and Germany being very anti gmo).

                  Glyphosate-tolerant crops still diminish the motivation for developing other herbicides in 91% of the world even if the remaining 9% refuse to consume them, because food is mostly a world market. Now if Europe banned glyphosate outright, things might change significantly, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

                  • Besides Europe, round-up ready crops are also banned in Russia, China and India. It's banned in far, far more than 9% of the worlds farming market. Still all of those markets use Glyphosate since that is currently the best herbicide there are (when it comes to low toxicity, price and efficiency). The patents have expired for ages ago and yet no one have so far been able to create the next big herbicide and GMO combo. So far the best alternative seems to be AI driven drones that removes weed with a physical

        • ... not a pesticide. Not that that matters to your argument. I guess it does change matters - without it, you would nuke the field with glyphosate, then plough and plant as soon as it degrades. With it, you can plough the weeds in, plant, and if enough weeds come up to cause a problem, spray then, and only what and where you need. As long as you don't let weed plants mature and set seed you'll stay on top of it.

          • basically yes (unless I'm misreading your comment, English is not my first language), however looks like some weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate which means that some farmers are back to the same levels of herbicide in total as they where before, something that ofc is disconnected from the gmo question, but it means that that this is a constantly moving problem. So far though glyhosate is less toxic to humans than the herbicedes it replaced and for the future it looks like AI trained machines cou

  • Good on them (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I don't get all the hate that commenters here send towards the Mexicans. It reminds me of a mindset where someone makes a choice and then wants to force everyone else to make the same choice, even if others have different priorities when making a choice.

    While I'm not in Mexico, I'm in a country that is comparable in how maize is a staple for large parts of the population. I choose to avoid glyphosate, and thus "Roundup Ready" GM crops. The mechanism how glyphosate negatively impacts human health is meanwhi

    • The mechanism how glyphosate negatively impacts human health is meanwhile well known (human gut biome is decimated by the same Shikimate pathway disruption that kills plants).

      Here are findings from studies on which this claim is based - prepare yourself.. .it's shocking: "potentionally"

      Nothing of value outside of that. If this is your concern, I hope you've never eaten anything - ever - or had an upset bowel because.. wow... you don't WANT to know the damage done!

  • Now I know why my corn tortillas never seemed to hold together unless I mix heavily with wheat flour.
    Apparently the proper traditional method is to use nixtamalized corn / maize flour which is boiled in calcium hydroxide for nutritional benefits and apparently better texture, flavor etc. I wish someone had told me about it. Could never figure out how my roommate made those incredible masa tortillas in a frypan with no oil and they were the most incredible thing.

    As far as Mexico's point, yeah obviously. If it was the EU about privacy or OSS about binaries in the food chain you would be all for it but heaven forbid a country is concerned about something that already has a lot of controversial health safety worries attached to it. Anything associated with Roundup / Monsanto, you can assume money is what's talking and steamrolling over any other concerns.

  • The Slashdot headline is like parody of yellow journalism.

    Mexico Argues Glyphosate In GM Corn Is Unsafe For Human Consumption

    I looked in vain for any citation in the story that the genetic modifications are causing the corn to make its own glyphosate ...

    • > I looked in vain for any citation in the story that the genetic modifications are causing the corn to make its own glyphosate ...

      Did you really spend time seeing if RoundUp-ready corn produces RoundUp?

      Really?

      • > I looked in vain for any citation in the story that the genetic modifications are causing the corn to make its own glyphosate ...

        Did you really spend time seeing if RoundUp-ready corn produces RoundUp?

        Really?

        "Mexico Argues Glyphosate In GM Corn Is Unsafe For Human Consumption"

        To a normal human reader of English, this headline implies that there is something magical about the GM corn that makes it contain glyphosate. There isn't.

  • If Americans are happy to eat poisonous shit, let them. Not for nothing are they all obese! Monsanto's execs should be made to drink gliphosate to prove it is safe. The world would be rid of some evil morons!

    • Monsanto's execs should be made to drink gliphosate to prove it is safe. The world would be rid of some evil morons!

      Wow. Just.. the level of glaring ignorance in this comment is... comical

      From context, I assume you don't drink water?

  • I'm not up to date on this kind of subject, but I think they are mixing two things here. One thing is GM (Genetically modified food) and a different thing is the herbicide Glyphosate. Glyphosate may be a danger for human health, while GM had not been proved to be dangerous for health. But yes, Monsanto may be a danger for human life. Are there serious updated studies about GMs causing health problems? Because I think that Glyphosate should be equally dangerous for GM and not GMs foods.
  • Glyphosate negatively affects our gut's microbiome. [sciencedirect.com] It seems likely it would affect our microscopic organisms, it's supposed to be a poison. The gut microbiome is so important to our health that they are considering classifying it as another human organ. Even millennia ago Hippocrates said that all disease begins within the gut.
  • IARC concluded that Glyphosate in its commercial formulation was a Likely Human Carcinogen. A report that compared EPA and IARC's diametrically differing opinions is here: https://enveurope.springeropen... [springeropen.com]
  • The food we have, has been tested on humans for millions of years. The humans who could not eat it--died, and we were improved. All it would take is one hidden prion to wipe out a great segment of the human population. In the same way, Thalidomide deformed so many Canadian children, but the FDA's process saved the United States from the brunt of it. Unfortunately, we were not spared from Diethylstilbestrol. There is minimal long-term harm caused by making food is safe.

  • The United States in August requested a dispute settlement panel under the USMCA over Mexico's decree to ban GM corn for human consumption, specifically in the use of making flour for tortillas.

    Surely everyone can agree, corn should never be used in the making of flour tortillas!

  • The GM has absolutely NOTHING about it that is an issue. The problem is applying round up to the corn which is foolish as it comes. Why? Because this is mostly sprayed via aircraft which means huge amounts of it. This runs off, as well as slowly leeches into aquifers.

    So notice the real BS with this:
    1) it is Germany’s bayer that manufactures and pushes it here. America should require that it not be allowed to be sprayed, but only directly applied to the weed. And yes, this IS possible.
    2) notice how

Slashdot Top Deals

Force needed to accelerate 2.2lbs of cookies = 1 Fig-newton to 1 meter per second

Close