Exploring the complex collision of cutting-edge science, economic interests, cultural traditions, and environmental concerns shaping our global food system
In December 2024, an international trade tribunal handed down a ruling that placed two neighboring countries on a collision course over a fundamental question: Who gets to decide what we eat? The dispute pitted the United States against Mexico over genetically modified corn, with the U.S. arguing that Mexico's ban on GM corn imports violated their trade agreement 1 .
Despite the ruling, Mexico's legislature responded months later with a defiant move—a constitutional amendment identifying native corn as "an element of national identity" and banning the planting of GE seeds 5 .
Genetically modified crops have spread to over a quarter of the world's farmland, making trade rules a new frontier in international relations.
of world's farmland grows GM crops
At its simplest, genetic engineering allows scientists to take specific genes from one organism and insert them into another, creating traits that wouldn't develop through natural reproduction.
The global divide over GM crops isn't just about science—it's about fundamentally different approaches to regulation and risk assessment.
Governs environmental concerns about "living modified organisms" and adopts the precautionary principle that allows countries to deny importation if they consider insufficient scientific evidence exists to prove safety 2 .
Priority: Environmental protection over trade
Requires that measures be based on scientific principles and not maintained without scientific evidence 2 .
Priority: Trade liberalization with scientific justification
| Agreement | Governed By | Key Principle | Primary Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPS Agreement | World Trade Organization | Science-based measures | Food safety, human/animal health |
| Cartagena Protocol | Convention on Biological Diversity | Precautionary principle | Environmental protection from LMOs* |
| USMCA | United States, Mexico, Canada | Trade liberalization | Regional trade and market access |
*LMOs = Living Modified Organisms
When Mexico faced challenges to its GM corn restrictions under USMCA, the country responded with a comprehensive Scientific Dossier on Genetically Modified Corn and Its Effects—a remarkable document that represents one of the most extensive government-compiled analyses of potential GM risks 5 .
The dossier particularly emphasized that genetic engineering remains a surprisingly imprecise technology. The process of inserting foreign genes into a host genome is haphazard, with little control over where in the genome the genetic package lands 5 .
| Area of Investigation | Key Finding | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Genetic Precision | Transgenesis is imprecise with unexpected effects | Genetic modifications aren't as controlled as claimed |
| Gene Transfer | Horizontal gene transfer occurs | GM genes can spread to native varieties |
| Toxin Impacts | Bt genes harm non-target insects | Ecological effects extend beyond pest species |
| Yield Claims | No significant yield increase in real conditions | Benefits don't match advertising claims |
Evidence showed migration of transgenic DNA into native corn varieties found in the remote mountains of Oaxaca as early as 2001 5 . For the center of origin and diversity of corn, this represented not just environmental risk but the potential impoverishment of a gene pool carefully curated by Indigenous peoples over millennia.
Corn has approximately twice the number of genes as humans, making the randomness of genetic modification particularly problematic and creating unpredictable effects that are difficult to anticipate or measure 5 .
Research into the safety and impacts of genetically modified crops requires specialized materials and methodologies. The Codex Alimentarius Commission—the international food standards body—has established guidelines for assessing GM food safety that direct researchers to examine multiple aspects of these novel products 2 .
| Research Material | Primary Function | Role in Risk Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Control Varieties | Non-GM counterparts | Baseline for comparison in experiments |
| PCR Equipment | Detects genetic modifications | Identifies and quantifies GM material |
| Mass Spectrometry | Analyzes chemical composition | Detects changes in nutrients/toxicants |
| Animal Models | Tests toxicity/allergenicity | Assesses potential health impacts |
| Field Trial Sites | Real-world growing conditions | Evaluates environmental interactions |
Characterization of genetic modifications and their stability
Comparing key nutrients and anti-nutrients in GM and non-GM varieties
Evaluation of potential impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem health
The tensions revealed in the U.S.-Mexico dispute are playing out across the world as countries grapple with balancing food security, consumer safety, and agricultural sovereignty.
In Kenya, the Court of Appeal delivered a major victory for food sovereignty in March 2025 by blocking the government from importing GMOs 3 . Small-scale farmer David Otieno celebrated the ruling, stating: "GMOs are not the solution to food insecurity in our country. Instead, they deepen dependency on multinational agribusinesses, threaten biodiversity, and compromise farmers' ability to control their food systems" 3 .
The trade disputes have revealed concerning collaboration between industry and governments. Emails obtained between Corteva AgriScience and the U.S. Trade Representative, along with communications showing CropLife America proposing the use of USMCA to achieve industry goals, suggest that corporate interests may be shaping what purports to be objective trade enforcement 5 .
The Kenyan case highlighted how the food security argument often used to promote GMOs creates a false choice, ignoring successful alternatives like agroecological methods that integrate cover crops and legumes to enhance soil fertility through natural processes 3 .
United States, Canada, Brazil
European Union, many African nations
Australia, Japan, India
Russia, some Middle Eastern countries
The debate over GMO trade represents more than just technical disagreements about science—it's a fundamental conflict over values, control, and vision for our global food system.
As the Mexican saying goes, "Sin maíz, no hay país" ("Without corn, there is no country") 5 , capturing how deeply food is intertwined with cultural identity.
As genetic engineering technologies continue to evolve, these disputes are likely to grow more complex, not less. The question remains whether the global community can develop more sophisticated mechanisms for reconciling these competing values—respecting both scientific evidence and cultural sovereignty—or whether our trade relationships will continue to be battlegrounds for defining what counts as safe, acceptable food.