Tribunal Rules Against Mexico In GM Corn Dispute With U.S. And Canada

An international tribunal has ruled that Mexico violated the terms of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) by imposing a ban on the import of genetically modified (GM) corn for human consumption. The decision, handed down by a commission under the trade agreement, has sparked significant criticism from civil and environmental groups, who maintain that Mexico’s decision was rooted in valid health and environmental concerns.

Mexico has long argued that the ban is necessary to protect both its citizens and the environment. Earlier this year, the country submitted a 189-page document to the tribunal, outlining potential risks posed by GM corn and its association with glyphosate, a widely used herbicide. The Mexican government insists there is substantial scientific evidence linking GM corn to harmful health effects, especially from its inclusion in staple food products like corn flour and tortillas.

“Mexico has legitimate concerns about the safety and innocuousness of genetically modified corn… and its indissoluble relationship with its technological package that includes glyphosate,” the Mexican government stated in its submission. “There is clear scientific evidence of the harmful effects of direct consumption of GM corn grain,” the report added.

Despite the ruling, Mexico has indicated it will comply but has reaffirmed its position that the ban aligns with the nation’s public health and indigenous peoples’ rights. “The Government of Mexico does not share the panel’s determination, as it considers that the measures in question are in line with the principles of protection of public health and the rights of indigenous peoples,” a government statement read.

The U.S. and other GMO proponents have argued that genetically modified corn is essential for food security, particularly as the crop is widely grown in the U.S. and engineered to resist pests and herbicides. However, critics, including agricultural expert Chuck Benbrook, argue that the U.S. has not conducted sufficient research on the long-term health effects of GM corn. “The U.S. government never did an appropriate risk assessment of GM corn,” Benbrook said.

The tribunal’s decision did not extend to Mexico’s delayed ban on glyphosate, nor did it challenge the scientific concerns raised by Mexico. U.S. trade officials have praised the ruling, with CropLife International, representing agrochemical companies, calling it a victory for free trade. “This is the clearest of signals that upholding free-trade agreements delivers the stability needed for innovation to flourish and to anchor our food security,” said Emily Rees, president of CropLife International.

However, the ruling has drawn sharp criticism from public health and environmental advocates, including Timothy Wise, a senior research fellow at Tufts University. “The tribunal’s ruling will not undo the fact that Mexico’s precautionary policies are justified by a wealth of scientific evidence,” Wise stated. He argued that the decision undermines Mexico’s sovereignty in regulating its food safety standards and could further damage the legitimacy of trade agreements seen as favoring multinational corporations over public welfare.

In response to the ruling, Mexico has vowed to continue its research into the health impacts of GM corn and plans to produce a comprehensive risk assessment, which could further complicate relations with the U.S. and the biotech industry. The dispute also underscores growing tensions over the global influence of agrochemical companies, particularly Bayer, which owns Monsanto, and their push to maintain market dominance.

Environmental and indigenous rights groups, which had supported Mexico’s stance, expressed disappointment with the ruling. Angela Huffman, president of the advocacy group Farm Action, criticized the decision as an example of the U.S. using its trade leverage to benefit large agrochemical corporations. “Mexico’s ban on GM corn and glyphosate presented a tremendous premium market opportunity for non-GM corn producers in the U.S.,” Huffman said, adding that the U.S. government’s continued support for GM crops has effectively forced them onto populations that oppose their use.

As the USMCA trade agreement approaches its 2026 re-negotiation, this ruling highlights the ongoing global debate over GM crops, food safety, and the influence of multinational corporations in shaping agricultural policies.