A small farmer checks his corn field in the southern state of Guerrero. The grain is the star of the staple diet in Mexico, consumed in many different forms. CREDIT: Sader

By Emilio Godoy
MEXICO CITY, Mar 14 2024 (IPS)

Mexico has taken important steps to protect native corn, even standing up to its largest trading partner, the United States, to do so. But the lack of a comprehensive legal framework in its policy towards genetically modified crops allows authorizations for other transgenic crops.

In fact, the dispute with Washington over corn exposes the regulatory gaps regarding opposition to the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Mexican agriculture."If we win, we will call into question a model of production. We will take a huge step forward, we will set an international precedent. But if corn is defeated in its center of origin, we will see the same in the birthplaces of other crops, and the offensive strategy of the companies will be strengthened." -- Monserrat Téllez

Experts consulted by IPS concurred with the need for a better legal framework to strengthen the evaluation of GMOs.

Monserrat Téllez, a researcher at the non-governmental Seeds of Life Foundation, pointed out that GMOs appeared after the reform of agricultural and trade policies derived from the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

These free trade policies, she added, harmed Mexican farmers by eliminating subsidies and opening the market to imports.

“There was already a concern about regulation. The aim of the law was to boost planting. Although there is a special regime (for corn), it is not enough. It is not only a genetic reservoir, but also includes a series of traditional cultivation practices. The basis should be the precautionary principle, we would like very careful regulation,” she told IPS.

Téllez was referring to the Law on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms, in force since 2005, which specifies three types of cultivation.

Experimental plantations must be in controlled areas, protected to prevent contamination, with risk assessments and other safeguards. In pilot plantations they are optional, and in commercial plantations they do not exist.

However, Mexico lacks an effective GMO monitoring system, say the experts.

In the case of corn, it applies a special protection regime that, based on the centers of origin and diversity of corn and its wild relatives, prohibits the release of GMOs in certain areas.

Lessons learned

In December 2020, the current government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador issued a decree ordering the replacement of the herbicide glyphosate with environmentally friendly alternatives by Jan. 31, 2024 and putting a halt to permits for the planting of genetically modified corn and its use in the food industry.

In order to ingratiate itself with the industry, and therefore with the United States, the Mexican government softened the decree by endorsing the importation of yellow corn for industrial and animal feed purposes, but it failed to win over the United States.

During the last few months of 2022 and the first months of 2023, both governments held several unsuccessful technical meetings to resolve the conflict.

For this reason, the United States announced last August the opening of a dispute settlement panel within the framework of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), based on the chapter on sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

However, it does not mention the chapter of the USMCA, in force since 2020 and which replaced NAFTA, on biotechnology and its trade, which is the elephant in the room, since in the background lies the use of biotechnological products.

At these meetings, the Mexican government conveyed to its U.S. counterparts that the priority was corn, for environmental, health and cultural reasons, and that they were not concerned about other crops, such as canola or soybeans.

The United States accuses its partner of applying excessive measures, lack of scientific evidence on the effects of GMOs and economic damage to corn exports.

In its response dated Jan. 15 and published on Mar. 5, Mexico presented scientific studies that demonstrate the negative impact of GM crops on animals such as rats and on the environment, while at the same time showing that the economic damage complained about by the U.S. did not exist.

The planting of GM corn has been blocked since 2013, when a group of 53 people and 20 small farmer, indigenous, academic, scientific, artistic, consumer and gastronomic organizations won an injunction in a class action lawsuit filed for damage to the biological diversity of native corn and the rights to food and health.

Mexico depends on corn imports, especially from the United States, to satisfy its high domestic consumption. Despite its attempts, the government has failed to increase production. Infographics: Conahcyt

The three million corn farmers who plant around eight million hectares allocate two million to family consumption, in a country that has 64 varieties and 59 native ones.

Mexico is the world’s seventh largest corn producer and the second largest importer of corn, producing some 27 million tons annually. But it still has to import some 20 million tons to meet domestic consumption.

Corn is not only a native and predominant crop in Mexico, but a staple in the diet of its 129 million inhabitants that goes beyond the culinary sphere and is part of the country’s cultural roots.

Despite the promises made, GMOs have not raised agricultural yields, improved pest resistance or offered greater resistance to the effects of the climate crisis, such as drought. Moreover, there is evidence of damage to health.

The planting of genetically modified soybeans offers lessons on regulation. In 2012, US biotech transnational Monsanto obtained a commercial planting permit for some 235,000 hectares in seven Mexican states.

After a legal battle, the Mexican Supreme Court blocked the authorization in 2015 due to potential environmental damage and lack of consultation with affected indigenous communities.

But in the southeastern state of Campeche the crop has expanded, with strong impacts on biodiversity and beekeeping, as foreseen by the government’s National Commission for Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, which recommended not approving the permit in 2012.

Despite the loopholes, the lawmakers of the governing National Regeneration Movement (Morena) have not modified the legal framework.

“The formal regulatory framework has shortcomings. There are no clear criteria, and there is a lack of clarity on precautionary measures. The law includes special protection for corn, but it is not defined in the regulations. So any authority can interpret it in its own way,” Alma Piñeyro, a researcher at the public Autonomous Metropolitan University, based in Xochimilco, south of Mexico City, told IPS.

This country is the origin and center of corn and cotton cultivation and the government bases its control on this, but the history of GM soybeans shows the lack of breadth of the approach. Therefore, GMOs should be regulated more strictly than corn and with specific measures for each crop.

Unbalanced figures

In Mexico, the release of GMOs into the environment began in 1988, with an authorization for a tomato planting trial, which has since expanded to 19 crops. Since then, agribusiness has focused on crops such as cotton, corn and soybeans.

Statistics from the government’s Interministerial Commission on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms on requests and approvals are inconsistent, contradictory, if not inaccurate, which hinders evaluation, according to the review by IPS.

Between 2005 and 2021, Mexican authorities issued 671 permits, of which 359 were for cotton, 202 for corn, 50 for wheat, 44 for soybeans and the rest for other varieties. The vast majority consisted of experimental licenses, although the total does not match the reported number of permits.

Mexico’s official response to the U.S. complaint, made public on Mar. 5, lists 651 permits, of which 53 percent are for cotton and 30 percent for corn, suspended by the 2013 class action lawsuit.

The administration of López Obrador, who took office on Dec. 1, 2018 and whose term ends on Oct. 1, slowed the pace of approval of GM crops.

In 2022, it rejected six applications for corn, five for cotton, one for soybeans and one for canola. But between that year and the next, it endorsed four permits for canola, two for cotton, two for potatoes and one for soybeans.

On the corn panel, five Mexican and five U.S. non-governmental organizations are preparing to submit comments by Friday, Mar. 15, in an attempt to support the Mexican position.

Piñeyro said it is necessary to analyze each species in the Mexican context.

“Canola, as a crop, can become invasive, because it survives weeds and can displace other native species. It has undergone genetic dispersal, which has happened in Canada, where they have an agronomic problem, and it could happen in Mexico. The monitoring data are opaque. Without sufficient data, it is very difficult to evaluate the whole picture,” she said.

Téllez said the panel with the United States is decisive. “If we win, we will call into question a model of production. We will take a huge step forward, we will set an international precedent. But if corn is defeated in its center of origin, we will see the same in the birthplaces of other crops, and the offensive strategy of the companies will be strengthened,” she stressed.

The USMCA review is scheduled for 2026 and its future appears to be tied to that of corn.

By Frederic Mousseau
OAKLAND, California, Jan 11 2016 (IPS)

Millions of African farmers don’t need to adapt to climate change. They have done that already.

Frederic Mousseau

Like many others across the continent, indigenous communities in Ethiopia’s Gamo Highlands are well prepared against climate variations. The high biodiversity, which forms the basis of their traditional enset-based agricultural systems, allows them to easily adjust their farming practices, including the crops they grow, to climate variations.

People in Gamo are also used to managing their environment and natural resources in sound and sustainable ways, rooted in ancestral knowledge and customs, which makes them resilient to floods or droughts. Although African indigenous systems are often perceived as backward by central governments, they have a lot of learning to offer to the rest of the world when contemplating the challenges of climate change and food insecurity.

Often building on such indigenous knowledge, farmers all over the African continent have assembled a tremendous mass of successful experiences and innovations in agriculture. These efforts have steadily been developed over the past few decades following the droughts that impacted many countries in the 1970s and 1980s.

In Kenya, the system of biointensive agriculture has been designed over the past thirty years to help smallholders grow the most food on the least land and with the least water. 200,000 Kenyan farmers, feeding over one million people, have now switched to biointensive agriculture, which allows them to use up to 90 per cent less water than in conventional agriculture and 50 to 100 per cent fewer purchased fertilizers, thanks to a set of agroecological practices that provide higher soil organic matter levels, near continuous crop soil coverage, and adequate fertility for root and plant health.

The Sahel region, bordering the Sahara Desert, is renowned for its harsh environment and the threat of desertification. What is less known is the tremendous success of the actions undertaken to curb desert encroachment, restore lands, and farmers’ livelihoods.

Started in the 1980s, the Keita Rural Development Project in Niger took some twenty years to restore ecological balance and drastically improve the agrarian economy of the area. During the period, 18 million trees were planted, the surface under woodlands increased by 300 per cent, whereas shrubby steppes and sand dunes decreased by 30 per cent. In the meantime, agricultural land was expanded by about 80 per cent.

All over the region, a multitude of projects have used agroecological solutions to restore degraded land and spare scarce water resources while at the same time increasing food production, and improving farmers’ livelihoods and resilience. In Timbuktu, Mali, the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) has reached impressive results, with yields of 9 tons of rice per hectare, more than double of conventional methods, while saving water and other inputs. In Burkina Faso, soil and water conservation techniques, including a modernized version of traditional planting pits­zai­ have been highly successful to rehabilitate degraded soils and boost food production and incomes.

Southern African countries have been struggling with recurrent droughts resulting in major failures in corn crops, the main staple cereal in the region. Over the years, farmers and governments have developed a wide variety of agroecological solutions to prevent food crises and foster their resilience to climatic shocks. The common approach in all these responses has been to depart from the conventional monocropping of corn, which is highly vulnerable to climate shocks while it is also very costly and demanding in purchased inputs such as hybrid seeds and fertilizers. Successful sustainable and affordable solutions include managing and harvesting rain water, expanding conservation and regenerative farming, promoting the production and consumption of cassava and other tuber crops, diversifying production, and integrating crops with fertilizer trees and nitrogen fixating leguminous plants.

The enumeration could go on. The few examples cited above all come from a series of 33 case studies released recently by the Oakland Institute. The series sheds light on the tremendous success of agroecological agriculture across the African continent in the face of climate change, hunger, and poverty.

These success stories are just a sample of what Africans are already doing to adapt to climate variations while preserving their natural resources, improving their livelihoods and their food supply. One thing they have in common is that they have farmers, including many women farmers, in the driver’s seat of their own development. Millions of farmers who practice agroecology across the continent are local innovators who experiment to find the best solutions in relation to water availability, soil characteristics, landscapes, cultures, food habits, and biodiversity.

Another common feature is that they depart from the reliance on external agricultural inputs such as commercial seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and chemical pesticides, on which is based the so-called conventional agriculture. The main inputs required for agroecology are people’s own energy and common sense, shared knowledge, and of course respect for and a sound use of natural resources.

Why are these success stories mostly untold, is a fair question to ask. They are largely buried under the rhetoric of a development discourse based on a destructive cocktail of ignorance, greed, and neocolonialism. Since the 2008 food price crisis, we have been told over and over that Africa needs foreign investors in agriculture to ‘develop’ the continent; that Africa needs a Green Revolution, more synthetic fertilizers, and genetically modified crops in order to meet the challenges of hunger and poverty. The agroecology case studies debunk these myths.

Evidence is there, with irrefutable facts and figures, that millions of Africans have already designed their own solutions, for their own benefits. They have successfully adapted to both the unsustainable agricultural systems inherited from the colonial times, and to the present challenges of climate change and environmental degradation. Unfortunately, a majority of African governments, with encouragement from donor countries, focus most of their efforts and resources to subsidize and encourage a model of agriculture, largely reliant on the expensive commercial agricultural inputs, in particular synthetic fertilizers mainly sold by a handful of Western corporations.

The good news is that an agroecological transition is affordable for African governments. They spend billions of dollars every year to subsidize fertilizers and pesticides for their farmers. In Malawi, the government’s subsidies to agricultural inputs, mostly fertilizers, amount to close to 10 percent of the national budget every year. The evidence that exists, based on the experience of millions of farmers, should prompt African governments to make the only reasonable choice: to give the continent a leading role in the way out of world hunger and corporate exploitation and move to a sustainable and climate-friendly way to produce food or all.

(End)

Excerpt:

The corn is cooked with limewater to eliminate aflatoxins that cause liver and cervical cancer. Here a worker at the Grulin company is stirring the corn before it is washed, drained and ground, in San Luís Huexotla, Mexico. Credit: Emilio Godoy/IPS

By Emilio Godoy
TEXCOCO, Mexico , Dec 18 2015 (IPS)

Every day in the wee hours of the morning Verónica Reyes’ extended family grinds corn to make the dough they use in the tacos they sell from their food truck in Mexico City.

Sons, daughters-in-law and nephews and nieces divide the work in the family business that makes and sells cecina (dried, salted meat) tacos, longaniza (a kind of Spanish sausage), quesadillas and tlacoyos (thick stuffed oval-shaped corn dough tortillas).

“We cook the corn the night before and we grind it early in the morning, to serve people at 8:00 AM,” said Reyes, who has made a living selling food for years.

The family loads up the metal countertop, gas cylinders, tables, chairs, ingredients and over 60 kg of corn dough in their medium-sized truck before heading from their town of San Jerónimo Acazulco, some 46 km southwest of Mexico City, to whatever spot they have chosen that day to sell their wares.

When the taco truck packs up, it has sold just about all the food prepared that day.

The cooked corn dough takes on a yellow tone, an effect caused by a process called nixtamalisation – the preparation of corn or other grain, which is soaked and cooked in an alkaline solution, usually limewater, and hulled.According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 25 percent of world food crops are contaminated with aflatoxins.

This technique dates back to before the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors in Mexico in the 15th century, when local indigenous people cooked corn this way.

Nixtamalisation significantly reduces aflatoxins – any of several carcinogenic mycotoxins produced by molds that commonly infect corn, peanuts and other crops.

“In Mexico aflatoxins are a serious problem,” Ofelia Buendía, a professor at the department of agroindustrial engineering at the Autonomous University of Chapingo, told IPS. “A major effort has been made to eliminate them. The most effective is the traditional nixtamalisation technique.”

She has specialised in “nixtamalising” beans, quinoa, oats, amaranth, barley and other grains, and in producing nutritional foods.

Mexico’s corn dough and tortilla industry encompasses more than 78,000 mills and tortilla factories, over half of which are concentrated in just seven of the country’s 31 states.

Nearly 60 percent of the tortillas sold were made with nixtamalised dough.

Corn is the foundation of the diet in Central America and Mexico, where the process of nixtamalisation is widely used.

But consumption of tortillas has shrunk in Mexico, from 170 kg a year per person in the 1970s to 75 kg today, due to the inroads made by fast food and junk food.

Mexico is now cooperating with Kenya in east Africa to transfer know-how and technology to introduce the technique, to help that country reduce aflatoxins.

Mexico and Kenya signed two cooperation agreements, one of which offers technical support and involves the sending of mills by Mexico’s International Development Cooperation Agency.

Kenya needs 45 million 90-kg bags of corn a year, and only produces 40 million.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 25 percent of world food crops are contaminated with aflatoxins, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that more than 4.5 billion people in the developing world have chronic exposure to them.

Studies by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) suggest that approximately 26,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa die every year of liver cancer associated with chronic exposure to aflatoxins.

At 3:00 AM, the machines are turned on in the processing plant of the Comercializadora y Distribuidora de Alimentos Grulin food processing and distribution company in the town of San Luís Huexotla, some 50 km east of Mexico City.

The work consists of washing the corn cooked the night before, draining it, and grinding it to produce the dough for making tortillas and toast, which are packaged and distributed to sales points in the area.

“Nixtamalisation respects the nutrients in the corn, although some are lost in the washing process,” José Linares, director general of Grulin, told IPS. “There are faster systems of nixtamalisation, but they’re more costly. The technology is shifting towards a more efficient use of water and faster processing.”

His father started out with one tortilla factory, and the business expanded until the Grulin company was founded in 2013.

Grulin processes between 32 and 36 50-kg balls of dough a day. One kg of corn produces 1.9 kg of dough.

The corn is cooked for 90 minutes and then passes through a tank of limewater for 30 seconds before going into tubs with a capacity of 750 kg, where it remains for 24 hours. It is then drained and is ready for grinding between two matching carved stones.

Officials from the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation (KALRO) have visited Mexico to learn about nixtamalisation and test corn products.

The experts who talked to the Kenyan officials said the technique could be adopted by nations in Africa.

“In Africa they want to know about the process, because of its tremendous uses for food. Some variables can be influenced, such as texture and taste,” said Buendía. “The Chinese eat tortillas, so this technique could be adopted. These opportunities cannot be missed.”

Besides cultural questions, the availability of water and generation of waste liquid – known as ‘nejayote’ – can be problems. For every 50 kg of corn processed, some 75 litres of water are needed. The nejayote, which is highly polluting because of its degree of alkalinity, is dumped into the sewer system.

Academic researchers are investigating how to make use of the waste liquid to produce fertiliser, to reuse it in washing the corn, and to make water use more efficient.

“It would be necessary to overcome the cultural barriers, and make sure the taste of lime isn’t noticeable….The technique is replicable,” said Grulin’s Linares.

In 2009, the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service developed a biological control technology called AflaSafe, to fight aflatoxins in corn and peanuts. It is so far available in Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Gambia, Kenya, Senegal and Zambia.

Edited by Estrella Gutiérrez and Verónica Firme/Translated by Stephanie Wildes

Native varieties of maize, like these drying in San Cristóbal de las Casas, in the southern state of Chiapas, are key to preserving crop diversity. Credit: Mauricio Ramos/IPS

By Emilio Godoy
MEXICO CITY, May 8 2013 (IPS)

In the 2011 action-thriller “Unknown”, scientists are persecuted by the biotech industry because they plan the open release of a drought- and pest-resistant strain of maize that could help eradicate world hunger.

There are certain parallels with the situation today in Mexico, the birthplace of maize, which is at the centre of the global fight to protect the crop’s diversity from the onslaught of genetically modified varieties.

“It’s the first time in history that one of the most important harvests in the world is threatened in its centre of diversity,” Pat Mooney, the head of the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group), an international NGO, told IPS.

“If we let the companies win, there will be no chance to defend them in other parts. What is happening here is of key importance for the rest of the world.”

Civil society organisations are raising their guard against the possibility that the government of conservative President Enrique Peña Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) may approve commercial cultivation of transgenic maize, a move widely condemned by environmentalists and other activists, academics, and small and medium producers due to the risks it poses.

In September, the U.S. corporations Monsanto, Pioneer and Dow Agrosciences presented six applications for commercial plantations of transgenic maize on more than two million hectares in the northwestern state of Sinaloa and the northeastern state of Tamaulipas.

Moreover, in January these companies and Syngenta presented 11 applications for pilot and experimental plots to grow transgenic corn on 622 hectares in the northern states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, Sinaloa and Baja California. And Monsanto has applied for an additional plantation in an unspecified area in the north of the country.

Since 2009, the Mexican government has issued 177 permits for experimental plots of transgenic maize covering an area of 2,664 hectares, according to the latest figures provided by the authorities.

But large-scale commercial release of GM maize has not yet been authorised.

“They are going to serve up transgenic maize on every table in spite of the fact that food sovereignty depends on growing native corn,” said Evangelina Robles, a member of Red en Defensa del Maíz (Maize Defence Network) which campaigns against GM corn. “As a result, we have to demand its prohibition by the state,” she told IPS.

Mexico produces 22 million tonnes of maize a year, and imports 10 million tonnes, according to the agriculture ministry. The country purchased about two million tonnes of GM maize from South Africa over the last two years, and is set to import another 150,000 tonnes.

Three million maize farmers cultivate about eight million hectares in Mexico, two million of which are devoted to family farming. White maize is the main crop for human consumption, while yellow maize, for animal feed, is largely imported.

The National Council for the Evaluation of Social Policy (CONEVAL) estimates the country’s annual consumption of maize at 123 kg per person, compared to a world average of 16.8 kg.

The historical link with pre-Columbian indigenous cultures gives maize a strong symbolic and cultural significance throughout Mesoamerica, the area comprising southern Mexico and Central America, where it was domesticated, producing 59 landraces or native strains and 209 varieties.

In the state of Mexico, adjacent to the capital city’s Federal District, small farmers have found their native maize to be contaminated with GM maize, according to tests carried out by students at the state Autonomous Metropolitan University.

“We swapped seeds and decided to do some tests. Now we are more careful when exchanging, and over who participates in the fair, although we still have to carry out confirmation tests,” activist Sara López, of the Red Origen Volcanes (Volcanoes Origins Network), an association of small farmers that has been organising producers’ fairs since 2010, told IPS.

Environmental, scientific and small farmers’ organisations have discovered GM contamination of native maize in Chihuahua, Hidalgo, Puebla and Oaxaca.

Contamination is “a carefully and perversely planned strategy,” according to Camila Montecinos, from the Chile office of GRAIN, an international NGO that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems.

Transnational food companies “chose maize, soy and canola because of their enormous potential for contamination (by wind-pollination),” said Montecinos, one of the experts participating in the preliminary hearing on transgenic contamination of native maize at the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, an international opinion tribunal which opened its Mexican chapter in 2012 and will conclude with a non-binding ruling in 2014.

“When contamination spreads, the companies claim that the presence of transgenic crops must be recognised and legalised,” in order to pave the way for marketing the GM seeds, to which they own the patents, she said.

Mexico’s environment minister, Juan Guerra, has said that all available scientific information will be examined before a decision is made.

But that will not be easy. The National Confederation of Campesinos (Small Farmers), one of the main internal movements in the ruling PRI, has had an agreement with Monsanto since 2007 under which the company is to “conserve” native varieties.

Meanwhile, the Peña Nieto government still has not approved regulations for the format and contents of reports on the results of releasing GM organisms, and the possible threats to the environment, biodiversity, and the health of animals, plants and fish.

“For 18 years, corporations have been unsuccessful in convincing the people that their products are good. Maize is being used as a means of political and economic control. People need maize to be alive,” the ETC Group’s Mooney said.

The transgenic seeds on the market are herbicide-resistant Roundup Ready and Bt (for the Bacillus thuringiensis gene they carry for pest resistance) versions of cotton, maize, soy and canola. While they are legally grown in Canada, the United States, Argentina, Brazil and Spain, they are banned for example in China, Russia and the majority of the EU countries.

Recent studies published in the United States show that transgenic crops do not significantly increase yield per hectare, do not reduce herbicide use, and do not increase resistance to pests, in contrast to biotech industry claims.

“We are analysing what legal action to take against the new applications (to plant GM maize),” said Robles, of the Maize Defence Network.

Maize on a small farm in Yaluma, Chiapas. Credit: Mauricio Ramos/IPS

By Emilio Godoy
MEXICO CITY, Oct 24 2012 (IPS)

It has been many years since Mexico, the birthplace of maize, has been self-sufficient in this staple food that plays a central role in its cuisine and culture. But new studies indicate that it could produce enough maize to meet its needs within 10 to 15 years.

For farmer Carmelo Pacheco, in the southern state of Guerrero, what he and other Mexican maize producers need is more irrigation to increase crop yields.

“For this year the prospects are average,” said Pacheco, leader of the Pach-Vill growers organisation in the municipality of Ayutla de los Libres, where the harvest is about to begin. “Production has fallen because of changes in the climate, and prices are not solid,” he told Tierramérica*.

Investing in irrigation and infrastructure projects in the southeast and providing financing for small- and medium-scale farmers would allow this Latin American country to regain its self-sufficiency in maize production, according to the study “Achieving Mexico’s Maize Potential”, released this month.

“The predominance of the extractive use of resources has resulted in erosion and inefficient irrigation. The country could take better advantage of its land and freshwater reserves, available technology, peasant agriculture and genetic diversity,” said Antonio Turrent, a senior researcher at the National Institute of Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock Research and one of the study’s authors, along with Timothy Wise and Elise Garvey, director of policy research and researcher, respectively, at the Global Development and Environment Institute (GDAE) at Tufts University, in the United States.

Within 10 to 15 years, Mexico could increase its annual maize production to 33 million tons, meeting the current deficit of 10 million tons, and could even add another 24 million tons to meet its growing demand, expected to reach 39 million tons a year by 2025, states the study, published in English by the GDAE and in Spanish by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, based in Washington.

Mexico currently needs to import between eight and 10 tons of maize a year, mostly from the United States.

The country has some three million maize producers who raise the crop on an area of eight million hectares. But more than two million grow maize for their own family consumption. Domestic production focuses primarily on white maize, while yellow maize, used for animal feed, is imported.

Maize (Zea mays) is a symbolic crop in Mesoamerica, the region covering southern Mexico and Central America, because of its vital importance in pre-Hispanic culture.

Mexico is the birthplace of maize, and has 59 landraces (native strains) and 209 varieties of the grain. Only 10 landraces have been used in genetic improvement.

If the efficiency of irrigation were improved by 60 to 70 percent, it would be possible to extend cultivation to another 4.1 to 4.9 million hectares, using runoff water, which is abundant in south and southeast Mexico.

Small farmers “manage the biodiversity of maize,” Turrent told Tierramérica. “The lands they work are the first contact in the water cycle. Their knowledge is compatible with agroecology and, unlike the agribusiness sector, they have significant potential for increasing their production.”

The researchers rule out the need for biotechnology, the government’s strategy for raising productivity and resistance to the effects of climate change.

Transgenic maize is a “false and dangerous promise” that has not led to higher yields than native or traditionally improved seeds, represents a threat to native varieties and biodiversity, and has not proven to be more resistant to drought than other varieties, they maintain.

Since 2009, the Mexican government has authorised 177 permits for experimental and pilot planting of genetically modified maize on an area of 2,664 hectares.

In September, the U.S.-based transnationals Monsanto, Pioneer and Dow Agrosciences submitted six requests for authorisation of commercial planting of transgenic maize on some 1.7 hectares of land in Sinaloa (northwest Mexico) and Tamaulipas (northeast).

Mexico has some eight million hectares of arable farm land that are not being used and which “offer an opportunity to start from zero to confront the food crisis and high food prices,” researcher Antonio Yunes from the College of Mexico, a public institution, told Tierramérica.

“This potential could be harnessed without the need for subsidies, by using sustainable practices,” he said.

In 2011, 549 million dollars in subsidies were granted to producers, including 15 million dollars to the organic agriculture sector.

The report concludes that the most effective strategy is “the provision of basic farmer-led extension services on rain-fed lands using existing technologies.”

In the southern state of Guerrero, maize producers also plant hibiscus, sesame and squash. But “there are no guarantees of production, we need to be better organised,” said Pacheco.

* This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank.

Excerpt:

Rising corn prices in the United States brought about by biofuel mandates have cost developing countries 6.6 billion dollars over the past six years, according to new research released here on Wednesday.

The subsequent increase in food costs has drastically affected levels of world hunger and, in some countries, political stability, according to the report, published by the global watchdog ActionAid. The report also warned of the consequences of current U.S. policies.

“What this report really highlights is our inability to keep up with the current demands of corn for food and fuel – and most certainly future demands,” Kristen Sundell, a policy analyst at ActionAid USA, told journalists Wednesday.

Rising corn prices in the United States have triggered global hunger and political turmoil. Credit: Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Health Campaign/ CC by 2.0

Timothy Wise, director of the Research and Policy Program at Tufts University and the study’s lead author, noted, “Increased food prices triggered the Arab Spring, and U.S. ethanol production contributed to those food spikes.”

Corn prices in the United States have steadily increased since 2007, when new legislation known as the Renewable Fuel Standard began requiring the use of a percentage of corn in the production of a biofuel called ethanol. Today, ethanol is added to petrol across the country.

According to the report, 40 percent of all U.S.-grown corn is now being used to fulfil these ethanol mandates – up from just five percent a decade ago. And because 40 percent of all U.S.-grown corn translates to 15 percent of global corn production, corn prices have increased by 21 percent over the past six years. That increase has cost the global economy 11.6 billion dollars, 6.6 billion of which fell on developing countries.

This year, the situation in the United States has been exacerbated by the worst drought in fifty years, which resulted in a harvest about 20 percent smaller than expected. Even so, the Renewable Fuel Standard requirements have not changed.

Unfortunate weather circumstances in the United States will only add to the burden felt by developing countries importing U.S.-grown food, Sundell said. “Our ethanol policy cannot be based on a prayer for good weather,” she warned.

Mexico and Egypt have reportedly suffered the highest costs. Over the past six years, the Mexican government has paid an extra 1.1 billion dollars to import corn, and Egypt, 727 million dollars.

Guatemala, which is particularly dependent on corn imports, paid 28 million dollars in 2010 alone, or more than 10 percent of the Guatemalan government’s annual expenditures on agricultural development. That was also six times the amount of U.S. agriculture aid received and almost equalled the amount of food aid that Washington gave to Guatemala.

Nearly half of children under five in Guatemala reportedly suffer from malnutrition.

Even developing countries that grow enough corn to export it are feeling the effects of the U.S. biofuel mandates. Uganda, for instance, has seen a small net gain in its corn exports, but the majority of its population is still seeing a spike in corn prices due to global demand.

“To the extent international prices transmit to Ugandan markets, U.S. ethanol expansion is contributing quite directly to food insecurity among the urban poor, even in a net corn exporting country,” the ActionAid report concluded.

Grain and fuel are not the only staples affected by these biofuel mandates. The U.S. meat industry is suffering from steep feed prices as well. American farmers have been forced to slaughter cattle and poultry they cannot afford to feed. Analysts warn that these actions will affect prices for eggs, dairy products and meat well into next year at least.

“In the last two years, we have seen a one-billion-dollar increase in the two major feed ingredients in the turkey industry,” Damon Wells, with the U.S. National Turkey Federation, said Wednesday. “The U.S. is world’s largest poultry exporter, and any price increase of this level is going to be felt around the world.” Government forecasters have predicted up to a 4.5 percent increase in poultry prices next year.

Still, ActionAid’s researchers stress that such staggering increases to U.S. corn prices should be preventable in the future. In November, for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the governing body over these biofuel mandates, will rule on whether or not to grant a waiver for the Renewable Fuel Standards. Such a waiver would decrease the amount of corn being used to make ethanol and lead to lower corn prices.

“Putting a shock into the system will reduce the food costs here in the U.S.,” Wise said. “The ripple of such a shock will be felt around the world – everyone feels the impact of American prices.”