Mexico's transgenic maize under fire

Experimental planting scheme has insufficient controls to prevent gene flow to native crops, critcs say. by: Rex Dalton http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091125/full/462404a.html Mexico doesn't have an adequate system to monitor or protect natural maize (corn) varieties from transgenes, say prominent scientists concerned about the experimental planting of genetically modified crops. Activists question Mexico's transgenic maize. M. TOVAR/AP PHOTOIn the past month, Monsanto and Dow AgriSciences have received government permission to plant transgenic maize across 24 plots, covering a total of nearly 13 hectares, in the northern states of Sonora, Sinaloa, Chihuahua, Coahuila and Tamaulipas. The planting of transgenic maize had been prohibited for 11 years in Mexico, where maize was first domesticated. The experiments are meant to test hardier varieties of the crop, and federal officials say that they are implementing controls to prevent gene flow. Ariel Álvarez Morales, executive secretary of the Mexican Inter-Secretarial Commission on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms, described the experimental planting as a compliance trial to see how the companies and the plants perform. "We want to see how the planting will work in these conditions," he says. Plots will be less than half a hectare in area, seed-planting will occur at different times from that of natural varieties, and farmers will be surveyed about the effect on native maize. In Sonora, where Monsanto has begun planting, transgenic maize is kept 500 metres away from conventional maize fields, says Eduardo Perez Pico, the firm's chief of research and regulatory affairs for the Latin American region. However, nearly 2,000 scientists have signed a petition to block the experiments. "There is no way to stop gene flow to the native crops," says signatory Montgomery Slatkin, a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley. Greenpeace and other groups filed a legal challenge, which the government has rejected. "If Mexico experimentally plants transgenic maize, it should be done with ideal experiments and a great capacity to monitor them — but we don't have either," adds José Sarukhán Kermez, a Mexican biologist who has served in top ministerial posts and is a former rector of the Autonomous National University of Mexico (UNAM) in Mexico City. One facet of the debate surrounds the US firm being used by the Mexican government to train and equip staff at two reference labs for transgene testing in Mexico City. The firm, Genetic ID, is a spin-off by John Fagan of the Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa, which favours organic crops and transcendental meditation. Álvarez Morales says the firm was chosen because of its widely known analytical techniques. But geneticist Elena Alvarez-Buylla, of UNAM's Institute of Ecology in Mexico City, questions whether the company's methods are sensitive enough to detect transgenes after several generations of plant growth. Earlier this year, her group reported that Genetic ID failed to detect transgenes in blinded samples1. Genetic ID responded that Alvarez-Buylla's results were due to sample contamination2, which she challenged3. ADVERTISEMENT Jay Reichman, an authority on transgenic testing with the US Environmental Protection Agency in Corvallis, Oregon, says that "overall the combined evidence suggests" that at least two transgenes "were present within the plant tissues" in question. In particular, Reichman noted that Alvarez-Buylla showed newly grown test plants believed to harbour transgenes were resistant to herbicide, indicating that they bore transgenes just like commercial seeds modified to be herbicide resistant. Fagan disputes the criticism. Still, he too is against transgenic planting, citing the potential contamination of native maize: "It is very, very unacceptable." (See also 'Maize genome sequenced'.) References 1.Piñeyro-Nelson, A. et al. Mol. Ecol. 18, 750-761 (2009). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort | 2.Schoel, B. & Fagan, J. Mol. Ecol. 18, 4143-4144 (2009). | Article | PubMed 3.Piñeyro-Nelson, A. et al. Mol. Ecol. 18, 4145-4150 (2009). | Article Comments If you find something abusive or inappropriate or which does not otherwise comply with our Terms or Community Guidelines, please select the relevant 'Report this comment' link. Comments on this thread are vetted after posting. #8951 The procedures to detect and prevent 'gene flow' should have been systematically tested, and the results peer reviewed, for each plant involved BEFORE deploying the GMOs. Too late, now — the dinosaurs are loose. Other countries in Central and South America, also centers of domestication for crops vital to human survival, will be pressured to repeat Mexico's tragic mistakes. The disputes over detection and contamination do not pass my 'Smell Test'. Nature and Science magazines have not distinguished themselves regards the possibilities that gene flow could even occur. Report this comment2009-11-28 12:14:01 PM Posted by: joe woodside#8966 I believe the whole article starts with the wrong foot. "Natural maize (corn)" does not exist. Maize is a product of human manipulation which is totally unable, as most crops, to survive in the wild without man's intervention. If they were able, agriculture would not be a difficult job. Now, coming to the issue of landraces and transgenic maize, I have the following comments: ◦The presence alone of a transgenic variety or trait does constitute any risk (for health, environment or biodiversity) per se. Major regulatory authorities and scientific societies accept Bt corn as safe for human and animal consumption on the basis of submitted evidence. Also extensive usage in many countries for around 10 years without complaint at the farm level can be added as evidence. Other insect resitant corn varieties developed by conventional breeding (see 1) are grown and used without any safety test because they are conventional. Have these been demostrated safe (for health, environment or biodiversity) in the name of some natural principle? ◦Modern hybrids have been grown in the region at least for some 3 decades now, and the landraces survived just fine. If cross pollination occurs, hybrids between commercial cultivars and landraces would be obvious (by several morphological differences in the first few generations at least) in their fields and could be either selected or not by the grower. ◦In the original sample collection in the Pineyro (Alvarez-Buylla) paper, the selected ears were confirmed to be landraces by the growers, which would be surprising if the transgenes had been recently introduced by hybridization, as one would expect. This makes the claim of the authors somewhat suspect. ◦if the transgenes are truly mixing, one expects that some of the plants are herbicide tolerant, some are insect resistant and some are both. This can be easily tested and the controversy put to rest. ◦Even if this is the case (that an as yet undemonstrated mixing is occurring), so what? Landaraces will still continue to be landraces and naive people would still believe in natural maize. if the farmers see the Bt trait as beneficial, they will introgress it into their landraces. The Bt trait has been shown to reduce fumonisin content of maize (2) and fumonisin are linked to Neural Tube defects and other severe illnesses (3). If some people reject the possibility of the Bt trait in a landrace as a heresy to natural biodiversity, then they are not only little understanding of crop biology, they also have little concern for human suffering. The old adage "I love humanity, it's people I can't stand" should be now turned to "I love a wrong idea of environment, but I still can't stand people". Best regards, P.M. references 1 Barry, D., Alfaro D., and Darrah L. L. (1994) Relation of European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) leaf-feeding resistance and DIMBOA content in maize. Environ. Entomol. 23:177–182. 2 Wu F. (2006) Mycotoxin reduction in Bt corn: potential economic, health, and regulatory impacts. Transgenic Res. 15:277-89. 3 Wild CP, Gong YY. (2009) Mycotoxins and human disease: a largely ignored global health issue. Carcinogenesis. Oct 29. Report this comment2009-12-02 09:44:04 AM Posted by: Piero Morandini#9098 Corss-pollination is not exclusive of transgenic maize. Modern conventional maize can also pollinate “native” maize varieties. Modern maize have been cultivated for decades next to the “native” maize and cross pollinating it. So, the named “native” maize is not really native. If the nearly 2,000 scientists (Of which speciality?) that think "there is no way to stop gene flow to the native crops" are worried about the conservation of the “native” maize varieties, then they must ask not only to stop cultivating transgenic maize, but also stop cultivating any modern imbreed line of maize in Mexico.

Mexico: Outcrossing of genetically modified maize:

Research Maize PrintSend Mexico: Outcrossing of genetically modified maize: by: http://www.gmo-safety.eu/science/maize/337.threat-biological-diversity.html REFERENCE: http://www.gmo-safety.eu/science/maize/337.threat-biological-diversity.html A threat to biological diversity? In November 2001 the renowned scientific journal Nature published a short article: two Californian scientists had been studying maize from a remote region of Mexico. They claimed to have found DNA from genetically modified maize in their samples. The article triggered a heated debate amongst scientists and the general public alike. Forefather of maize. Maize is descended from the wild grass teosinte. Maize diversity. Maize varieties belonging to a farmer from central Mexico. - Mexico is the centre of biological diversity for maize. (Photographs: Hugh Iltis) .Background: Mexico as the centre of biological diversity for maizeMexico is a special region for maize Using hybridisation and selection, the indigenous people of Mexico developed the precursors of modern maize varieties from the grass teosinte over thousands of years. As Mexican farmers mostly still use traditional breeding methods today, there are countless local varieties with a vast genetic diversity. Mexico is a centre of biological diversity for maize. One of the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity signed in Rio in 1992 is to protect and preserve centres such as this. Signatories pledge to avoid environmental effects associated with genetically modified organisms which could harm the preservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. There has been a moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified maize in Mexico since 1998. The importation of agricultural products, however, is allowed. Every year, several million tonnes of maize are imported from the USA, where in 2001 approximately eight million hectares of genetically modified maize was grown. Foreign genes in native varieties. How do they get there? Ignazio Chapela, an ecologist at the University of California at Berkeley, and his PhD student David Quist studied six maize samples which they had collected in Oaxaca, a mountainous region in southern Mexico. Chapela and Quist found gene sequences typically used in transgenic plants in four of the six samples. This genetic information occurs for instance in insect- and herbicide-resistant maize varieties such as those grown in the USA. Assuming that Chapela und Quist’s findings are true, how can genes from genetically modified maize be found in local varieties in the remote region of Oaxaca? The cultivation of transgenic maize is not permitted in Mexico, so that can be ruled out as an explanation. There are two possible hypotheses: Transgenic pollen was carried by wind and air streams from the USA to Mexico, where it crossed into native varieties. Opinions vary as to how far maize pollen can be transported by the wind. Although theoretical calculations suggest distances of several hundred kilometres per day, in practice however, a study conducted in the USA found no incrossings at just 300 metres from a field of transgenic maize. Maize pollen is also comparatively heavy and only viable for approximately 24 hours. This makes the pollen drift theory seem fairly unlikely.Mexican farmers have used genetically modified maize imported from the USA for crop-breeding. Seed produced by farmers in Mexico could therefore contain genes from GMmaize. It is conceivable that outcrossings to local varieties could arise from maize plants grown from this seed.Incrossing: scientifically proven or junk science? Irrespective of the search for possible causes, many scientists have expressed considerable doubts about the findings of Chapela and Quist. Their flawed investigative methods have been particularly criticised. Back in March 2001, for example, Dr. Urs Pauli from the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health had already pointed out that the data was insufficiently supported by control studies. The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico (CIMMYT) made several references to studies of samples from its own gene bank: foreign genes were not found either in older seed bank samples or in those collected from the Oaxaca region in 2000. In August 2002 scientists from the USA and Canada stated that the test probes (primers) used by Chapela and Quist to detect the foreign DNA were unsuitable for clearly distinguishing between natural maize sequences and transgenic DNA.Other studies commissioned by the National Institute of Ecology (INE) in Mexico confirm Chapela and Quist’s findings. But these studies have yet to be published in a recognised scientific journal. The president of the INE reported that Nature magazine had rejected the article on conflicting grounds, just as they had done with similar studies from other Mexican scientists. A threat to biodiversity? Did Chapela and Quist actually provide evidence for the encroachment of transgenic DNA into local varieties - or was it shoddy science (junk science)? It is now a seasoned debate, which is almost impossible to keep track of and riddled with suspicions on both sides. The Commission for Environmental Corporation of North America (CEC) has made a fresh attempt to clarify the situation: in June 2002 it commissioned a working group to examine the possible gene transfer from genetic maize varieties to Mexican native breeds and teosinte. It is also looking at the economic and health implications and the impact on biodiversity. The final report is expected to be finished by mid 2004. For many scientists there is no question that outcrossings of transgenes to local maize varieties are possible in principle. More detailed studies of the consequences are more important than pursuing the argument. Can the new genes become permanently established in the genetic pool of regional native breeds? Do the transgenes confer a selection advantageon the plants compared with other members of the same species? Does this threaten the biodiversity, the vast genetic variety of Mexican native species? What consequences might this have? Gene flow, the exchange of genes between cultivated and wild varieties, is a natural process. Genes from conventional cultivated varieties migrate to native breeds and wild populations. It is not just outcrossings between plants in neighbouring fields that are involved in this process – traditional methods of crop breeding also play a part. In Mexico in particular farmers tend to breed their local maize varieties. Consequently genes from different cultivated and native breeds get mixed up. The genetic makeup of Mexican native breeds has always been in constant flux. According to the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico (CIMMYT), incrossings from cultivated varieties do not on their own cause a decline in the diversity of maize species in Mexico. Mexico was not a region of biodiversity for maize simply because many varieties had been “found” there. The diversity was rather a consequence of the crop-breeding skills of farmers, who set great store by growing different varieties. The varieties are subject to a continuous process of change. Whether genes from conventional high-performance strains or transgenic strains can become permanently established in native breeds and thereby decrease the biodiversity ultimately depends on whether they confer a selection advantage on the progeny. It is the genes rather than the breeding technique which determine whether there is a potential threat to biodiversity. ‘Contamination’ of the seed bank? Those opposed to genetic engineering see things differently. They regard every incrossing of transgenes as harmful and a threat to biodiversity. The Non-Governmental Organisations Committee (NGOC) of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) stated for example that the CGIAR and its centres had failed to act against the ‘genetic contamination’ of the Mexican centre of origin for maize biodiversity. The CGIAR is a major amalgamation of public and private donors which finances sixteen agricultural research centres, including the CIMMYT. According to the NGOC, the CIMMYT was called upon to verify the risks of contamination, but chose instead to await further scientific evidence. The CIMMYT, on the other hand, maintains that extensive safety precautions have been taken. Since last year the gene banks set up to safeguard the genetic diversity of Mexican native breeds have only accepted tested seed containing no transgenic sequences. When propagating these seeds, crossing with unknown maize varieties in the environment is prevented in the field by time-consuming hand fertilisation, safety margins and plant cordons.

Maize and Biodiversity: The Effects of Transgenic Maize in Mexico

Assessment of Effects on Genetic Diversity for the Article 13 Initative on Maize and Biodiversity Prepared by Julien Berthaud and Paul Gepts Advisory Group Reviewers: Norman Ellstrand, Peter Raven, Allison Snow and José Luis Solleiro External Reviewers: Lesley Blancas, Rafael Ortega Paczka, Marilyn Warburton and Garrison Wilkes Note: Ten chapters were prepared as background for the work of the Maize Advisory Group and for input to the public symposium, held 11 March 2004, in Oaxaca as part of the CEC Article 13 study on maize and biodiversity. These chapters were later reviewed and revised prior to this release, based on comments received at the symposium and during the subsequent comment period. Responses to reviewers are provided at . This chapter reflects the views of the authors and is not intended to reflect those of the Advisory Group, the CEC Secretariat or the governments of Canada, Mexico or the United States. Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America

STAFF

CV MARICELA SILVA R. 26 Wilbraham Road, Manchester, Great Britain http://fundacioncoatlicue.blogspot.co.uk/ maricelasilvar@hotmail.com Mobile: 0052 9511580595 PERSONAL STATEMENT A Law graduate from Atemajac’s University. I Have skills an knowledge essential in government services. I’m graduate from Granada’s University in International Cooperation Master. I’m a representative for Coatlicue’s Foundations in Oaxaca, Mexico: implement programmes in poor areas, such as, human rights, HIV, prevention programmes and centres set up for the violence against women. Enconagement in recycling: environmental issues which include the prevention of contamination in to de city causes by batteries. EDUCATION 2007- Granada’s University. Master in International Cooperation 2005- Jalisco College. Master in Regional Development. 2003- Atemajac’s University. Graduate in Law WORK EXPERIENCE 2007-2012: President for Coatlicue’s Foundations in Oaxaca, Mexico. We are a non-governmental, civil, non-religious and not-for-profit association whose main mission is to promote the development of marginalised and poor areas. 2011- 2012: Women’s Magazine: article about Multiculturalism 2008-2012: Transparency Statement Institute of Oaxaca. (IEAIP) Law in defences to Freedom of expression and information are fundamental human rights that are central to freedom and democracy. IEAIP creates and facilitates campaigns around the Oaxaca Estate. We provide legal knowledge and representation to those who require it, gather information and share our knowledge. SKILLS Computing: high level in Microsoft Office. Language: Spanish and actually, I m studied In EF school languages. Driving: I have a license to drive an my own car.

ESTRATEGIC PROGRAMMES

1.-Productive Development Creation and consolidation of new productive projects Social Development: Prevention violence’s woman Program Creative little child artist 2.-Enviromant: bateries contaminated, recycle’s products. etc Housing and water Reforestation Exchange of cultural and productive experiences 3.-Education: donations of books, school furniture, computers and didactic material Health: medical brigades, medical workshops and donations of medical equipment Sparkles: scholarships, toys and donations of clothes ands books Path of the main: medicines, clothes, pantries and blankets Fostering a Culture of Saving

In Defense of the Humble Tortilla

On January 31, 2007, tens of thousands of Mexicans filled the central plaza of the capital in the March for Food Sovereignty and In Defense of a Minimum Wage and Employment. This megamarcha in Mexico City was a mass expression of similar protests that have mobilized all over the country since the beginning of January when the price of tortillas increased drastically. Marchers chanted, “We want tortillas, not PAN”- pan means bread in Spanish and is also the acronymn for Felipe Calderón’s party, currently in power at the national level. A kilogram of tortillas over the last year cost around 6 pesos, but during the first week of January shot up to 15 pesos in many parts of the country. Given that tortillas constitute the base of the Mexican diet- the average Mexican consumes around a half a kilo of tortillas per day and up to a kilo per day in rural areas- and that the minimum wage remains at 45 pesos per day, such a price increase is bound to have detrimental consequences for the nutritional status and general well-being of Mexican families. The public outcry led President Felipe Calderón to sign a pact on January 18th with major companies like MASECA as well as the biggest chains of tortillerías, to “stabilize” the price at a 40% increase: 8.50 pesos per kilo of tortillas. At the July 31st megamarcha in the Zócalo, protestors demanded a new pact, to include a plan for increased support to producers, subsidies on tortillas, and the blocking of importation of tariff-free corn and beans, which is to begin officially under NAFTA on January 1, 2008, and according to Lopez Obrador, who spoke at the march, will be the “definitive blow for 4 million peasant families”. Ethanol, Hoarding and Speculation Everyone is pointing fingers. Some indicate the rise in U.S. corn prices. Corn as a source of ethanol for bio-diesel fuel has pushed up the price. The expansion of ethanol-processing refineries in the corn belt of the U.S. during 2006 led market analysts to predict a 25% increase in the price of corn and even greater increases in the future (“Maiz: Cosechar Tempestades” Oaxaca Libre, 1/18). More than the actual increase in real demand for corn for ethanol, some analysts suggest, is the speculation about the large scale deployment of ethanol vehicles. If it is true that corn prices are on the rise in the U.S., the prices that industry can pay for corn for fuel will likely be much higher than what average Mexican consumers can pay for corn to eat. So, paving the way for increased tariff-free corn imports from the U.S., which in turn further damage domestic producers, is ultimately counterproductive and harmful. Plenty of Corn Others cite corruption and hoarding in the giant corn flour and tortilla monopolies as the principal culprit. According to official data, this year Mexican farmers produced a substantial harvest of the white corn typically used for making tortillas (“Monopolies and Tortillas,” The Economist, 1/19). The fall-winter harvest, especially with the sizeable production of Sinaloa, proved to be sufficient to satisfy the national demand including the seasonal breach between September 2006 and May 2007. The tortilla industry, however, is dominated by a few private companies, and the government has done little to deter monopolistic practices. Knowing that the price of corn on the national market was predicted to rise, authorities did little to protect domestic supply. ASERCA, the government organization for agricultural commercialization, permitted the exportation of 500,000 tons of grain. Cargill, the biggest grain distributor in the world, was permitted to buy six hundred thousand tons of corn at 1,650 pesos per ton. Later, Cargill began to sell the corn in the valley of Mexico at 3,500 pesos the ton (“Pactortilla,” Reforma, 1/21/07). Profits resulting from the price hike were clearly reaped by the major grain distributors but not by corn producers. Article 253 of the federal penal code prohibits hoarding, and excessive profits based on price-fixing, but the Federal Competition Commission has done little to enforce the laws (“Maiz: Cosechar Tempestades,” Oaxaca Libre, 1/18). Calderón’s pact includes a promise to investigate and punish responsible hoarders, but considering the intimate relationship between big business and the PAN, it is unlikely that the investigation will uncover anything that turns out to be politically inconvenient. “Let Them Eat Cake” For his initiative to increase imports of tariff-free corn, Calderón has been criticized as merely adding fuel to the fire. The North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, has not made its way to the forefront of the debate but is certainly at the heart of the problem. Part of the idea behind the signing of NAFTA was a plan to shift the economy away from corn production and towards more lucrative goods aimed at the export market. In the years leading up to NAFTA, protected communal lands were parceled off and all support for small farmers and corn production was withdrawn, thereby escalating the expulsion of farmers from their lands. Mexico has increased its dependency on U.S. corn dramatically since NAFTA went into effect in 1994 from approximately one and a half million tons in 1994 to six million in 2004 with steady increases over the last few years (Esteva: “We are People of Corn”). Since NAFTA went into effect, many small farmers have stopped producing corn, given that they cannot compete with the heavily subsidized corn coming in from the U.S. Mexico has, therefore, increased its dependency on U.S. corn while losing its domestic production capacity and consequently its ability to provide the people with their basic staple grain. Because of peasant pressure, NAFTA included a section for the protection of the domestic corn market, for 15 years, with import quotas increasing gradually until 2008 when the imposition of any tariffs on agricultural products will be prohibited. The current proposed solution to import greater quantities of corn free of import tariffs now gives the impression that Mexico requires imports to provide Mexicans with affordable tortillas. Creating such an impression among the populace has its political advantages for Calderón by potentially weakening the (currently strong) resistance to the tariff-free dumping of American corn on the Mexican market scheduled to begin next year. GMOs in Our Backyard Mexico is the birthplace of corn. The oldest archeological remains of corn date back to around 9,000 years ago and come from Oaxaca (Esteva: “We are People of Corn”). During the following thousands of years, corn spread over the Americas and emerged as the primary form of sustenance for people everywhere. Many of the genesis stories of the indigenous people refer to corn as the Mother, the principal giver of life- humans were made from corn, the corn silk was the hair of the goddess. In the Mayan Popul Vuh, the flesh of humans is made of corn. All kinds of praise and rituals are associated with corn. Despite the infinite significance of corn in Mexican culture, the tortilla crisis has given way to further discussion in another major issue affecting food sovereignty: the debate over genetically modified seeds and food. Cultivation of genetically modified corn in Mexico was prohibited by law in 1998, following a long popular struggle in the 1990s. However, the government does import GM corn from the U.S. Though outraged, no one was overly surprised when GM corn was discovered in the Sierra Norte of Oaxaca in 2000. A woman had bought some cheap imported corn for consumption, but then decided to experiment with it in her field, and suddenly GM corn had found its way to the birthplace of corn in the world (Esteva: “We are People of Corn”). Now, the debate has resurfaced: should Mexico loosen its policy to allow the cultivation of GM corn, given the many promises of higher yields? Popular opinion in Mexcio, however, still seems to be that the risks of introducing GM corn far outweigh any potential gains. Problems associated with GM corn constitute an issue of food sovereignty on several levels and include political, economic, environmental, and health concerns. Genetic modification focuses on the homogenization and standardization of corn, which is exactly the opposite of the diversity of corn that has flourished in Oaxaca and the rest of Mexico for thousands of years. Since Oaxaca is the world center of the creation of corn, that’s where the greatest diversity of corn is found. The introduction of GM corn risks destroying that diversity through cross-pollenization- a single GM plant puts the whole area in danger. The dependence on multinational companies for seeds would also constitute a serious threat to the autonomy of farmers. Brewster Kneen in -Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology-, explains, “To say that seeds are sold by the companies is misleading. It is more like they are rented to the farmer for a season. The farmer is not allowed to keep any of the crop for replanting or sharing with neighbors, because the patent on the seed belongs to a major transnational corporation” (Kneen 107). This prohibition of seed-saving reduces farmers’ autonomy and creates a dangerous dependency by farmers on multinational companies like Monsanto. Effects of GM products on health have yet to be thoroughly researched. However, according to Greenpeace, Maseca and Minsa, the two biggest producers of corn flour, use GM corn without either guaranteeing its safety or informing the consumer (Greenpeace Boletín 0703). What’s called Bt corn tends to be the main GM corn on the market in the U.S. and kills pests by releasing Bt toxins that bind to a receptor molecule in the insects’ digestive system, causing the insect’s gut wall to disintegrate. However, overtime, insects could become resistance by evolving a differently-shaped receptor that no longer binds the toxin (106). There is, therefore, a serious risk of the creation of “super pests” as the insect bellies adapt to the Bt over several seasons, and there is virtually nothing the companies are doing to prevent insect resistance (108). Carlos González Esquivel, of the Center for Research on Agronomy at the UNAM, refutes that the idea that transgenic corn would be a solution for the low supply of corn. While the Bt corn that is currently planted in the U.S. contains an enzyme that protects it against certain insects, these kinds of insects are not present in most of Mexico, although he doesn’t disregard the possibility that they could be introduced by Monsanto to oblige producers to acquire genetically modified seeds. Additionally, he asserts, these types of corn have not been shown to produce superior harvests (“Refuta que el maíz transgénico sea solución para México,” La Jornada. 19 enero 2007) In addition to the extreme risks of the introduction of GM corn cultivation in Mexico, it’s important to note that farmers in Mexico don’t have much to gain from GM corn in the first place. If there is a reduction in the amount of corn produced in Mexico, it’s not crop failure that is at the root of the problem, but rather social, economic and political factors that pose serious challenges to corn’s continued production. The peasants of Mexico have been producing thousands of varieties of corn for thousands of years, clearly possessing profound knowledge about its cycles and needs. Food Sovereignty The term “food sovereignty” was coined by Via Campesina to refer to “the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture,” in contrast to dominant discourse that puts food supply and quality constantly at the whim of market forces (Rosset, “Food Sovereignty”). The idea of “food security” has been defined differently according to varying analyses of political economy. Proponents of free trade policies argue that food security is not dependent on food self-sufficiency- a nation’s ability to provide for its food needs-, but rather, food “self-reliance”- a nation’s capacity to buy its food from other countries- (Shiva 14). The capacity to buy food theoretically comes from production based on “comparative advantage”; that is, structuring production around whatever goods can be produced most efficiently and therefore be sold to other nations to make the most profit. Protestors against the rising tortilla prices demand food self-sufficiency and food sovereignty. They want guarantees that the power to ensure corn for tortillas, tamales, totopos, tlayudas, pozole and hundreds of other regional dishes is in their hands. They raise important questions like: What if we lose our 5,000 varieties of corn that have adapted niches in every region of the country? Because corn doesn’t reproduce itself without being planted by human hands, what happens to our biodiversity when farmers leave their lands to migrate? What if we have to instead accept the single U.S. yellow variety meant for pig feed? And once we have lost our capability to produce corn, what happens when U.S. corn is increasingly diverted towards industry and the price shoots out of our reach? What if the U.S. stops subsidizing its corn? What if there is a drought or blight or war or any of the other thousands of disasters that have had drastic effects on food supply throughout human history, and there is suddenly not enough corn for the U.S to export to its lowly southern neighbors? Economic policies based in the theory of comparative advantage frequently fail to bring in the promised profits, while the profits reaped fail to trickle down to the poorer sectors of society. Because staple grains represent the most necessary basis of life, the role of the government to guarantee sustained supply should necessarily be focused on ensuring production on local, regional, and national levels. Tariffs on imports of corn to protect non-subsidized Mexican farmers are only the most basic step. Integrated policies that make farming a viable livelihood are essential. “Aunque Sea Tortilla con Sal” In Tanetze de Zaragoza, in the Sierra Norte of Oaxaca, just like in most rural villages all over Mexico, women wake up at 5am to begin preparing the stacks of tortillas that their families will consume during the course of a day. In some villages, women grind the corn by hand, while in others they carry a bucket filled with the grain that their family has harvested to the local mill. They carry the dough back to their homes, spread it out on the stone metate and continue mixing, patting, pressing out by hand or in a tortilla press, and carefully laying the tortilla over the comal on the wood burning stove. They turn the tortilla several times before laying it in the cloth-lined gourd. The tortillas are deep yellow or white or purple or red or dark blue, reflecting the great diversity of corn varieties grown in the region. The blue tortilla inflates and one of the women flips it over as she tells a story about her husband, “When we got married, we had nothing. But we were in love, so we decided to go ahead with it. We told each other “aunque sea tortilla con sal”- even if all we have is tortilla with salt.” That is, as long as we have the bear minimum of the basis for survival, we’ll be all right. Demand for tortillas in Mexico is virtually inelastic. It is what there must be in life even if there is nothing else- the basic life force, the essential sustenance. Ultimately it remains up to the government to adopt integrated strategies to protect local agriculture- placing the wealth of experience of small farmers at the center of those policies- and to be accountable for providing for the most basic and essential needs of the people. References: Esteva, Gustavo. “We Are People of Corn: Life, Metaphor, Autonomy”. In Motion Magazine. April 8, 2006. “Exigimos miles en el zócalo nuevo pacto social” por Patricia Muñoz, Matilde Pérez y Fabiola Martínez. La Jornada. 19 enero 2007. Granados Chapa, Miguél Angel. “Pactortilla, pacotilla.” Reforma. 21 enero 2007. Kneen, Brewster. Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology. New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, B.C., 1999. “Mientras en México empresas y gobierno intentan imponerlos, crece el rechazo mundial a los transgénicos.” Greenpeace Boletín 0703. 18 de enero de 2007. “Monopolies and Tortillas.” The Economist. From The Economist Intelligience Unit ViewsWire. January 19, 2007. Nada, Alejandro. “Maiz: cosechar tempestades” Oaxaca Libre. 18 enero 2007. “Pactan un alza de 40% a la tortilla” por Claudia Herrera Beltrán. La Jornada. 19 enero 2007. “Refuta que el maíz transgénico sea solución para México,” por Carlos González Esquivel. La Jornada, 19 enero 2007. Ribeiro, Silvia. Maiz y Mentiras de Fondo. Oaxaca Libre. 24 enero 2007. Rosset, Peter. “Food Sovereignty: Global Rallying Cry of Farmer Movements.” Backgrounder: Volume 9, Number 4. Fall 2003. Shiva, Vandana. Stolen Harvest: the Hijacking of the Global Food Supply. South End Press: Cambridge, 2000.