The United States on Monday threatened legal action against Mexico’s plan to ban imports of genetically modified corn in 2024, saying it would cause huge economic losses and significantly impact bilateral trade. Citing the “deep concerns” of US farmers over Mexico’s impending ban on genetically modified corn, US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said following a meeting with Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador: “I emphasized in no uncertain terms that – absent acceptable resolution of the issue – the US Government would be forced to consider all options, including taking formal steps to enforce our legal rights under the USMCA [US-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade pact]." The planned ban would halve Mexico’s imports of yellow corn from the United States, a Mexican agriculture official said. Supporters of the plan say genetically modified seeds could contaminate Mexico’s age-old native varieties. The Western Producer

 

 

The Cornell Alliance for Science is a public relations campaign funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that works to increase acceptance of genetically engineered foods around the world. Its primary focus is to train fellows in many countries, especially in Africa, to promote and defend genetically engineered crops and agrichemicals in their home countries. The group is based at the Boyce Thompson Institute, an independent nonprofit research institute that is affiliated with Cornell University. A new fact sheet by US Right to Know documents inaccuracies, deceptive tactics and corporate partnerships of the Alliance and its fellows. The examples described provide evidence that the Alliance is using Cornell’s name, reputation and authority to promote false and misleading messaging and to advance the PR and political agendas of the world’s largest chemical and seed corporations. US Right to Know

 

 

The biotech sector is using climate change as an argument for more government funding, public support and fewer regulatory hurdles. But the urgency of climate change creates risk of superficial claims and actions, write PhD candidate Tessa Hiscox and Prof Jack Heinemann. Climate change is an “attractive” problem because there are many technological ways to solve it. That quality makes societies vulnerable to the siren song of technology pushers. For example, if climatic change is described as a threat to food production, then technologies that promise to increase food production despite climate change would be appealing. One such prospect is to increase photosynthesis. Genetic modification of the key enzyme in photosynthesis could improve its binding of carbon dioxide. More plant biomass might result. However, increased photosynthesis may not increase yield, nutritional value or micronutrient levels in crops. Even if this approach worked outside the lab, the plants would be no less vulnerable to drought and flood stresses. These plants will also demand more nitrogen fertiliser, leading to more greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe we could have more biomass, but not better or more food for people. Some crops could make better use of the additional carbon in the atmosphere, but lack of access to sufficient and desirable food would continue. By not addressing this fundamental problem, we will need more crops and livestock, undermining any efficiency gains. Identifying the fundamental social goal, rather than the technological objective, is essential to achieving sustainability. “Goal pull” rather than “technology push” approaches do this. The Conversation

 

We hope you’ve enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible by readers’ donations. Please support our work with a one-off or regular donation. Thank you!