by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:
It’s been quite a while since we’ve had occasion to blog about GMO geopolitics here, the last time being our warnings about the hidden issue of GMOs lying behind the conflict between the Ukraine and Russia. You’ll recall that Russia said nyet and the Ukraine said da to the whole issue of GMOs, the latter extending special mercantilist privileges to western “agribusiness” corporations and concerns, particularly companies like I.G. Farbensanto, and special port privileges to those concerns on the Black Sea. Indeed, from that point of view, one might view the Russo-Ukrainian war as a war in part over the respective nations’ GMO policies (and associated economic and trade issues)… and you’ll note that much of Russia’s military operations have been designed to shut down the Ukraine’s ability to trade its agriculture via routes through the Black Sea.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
It goes without saying, of course, that that trade is bound to be significantly less: it’s hard to farm and harvest crops when you’re sending the very people that would normally do so to the slaughterhouse of a war of attrition you were stupid enough to allow the West to talk you into as a thank you for the West’s support in the coup d’etat that overthrew the previous legitimately elected pro-Russian Ukrainian government. While I’m far from suggesting that the GMO issue was the principal issue for the Ukrainian or the Russian governments’ actions, I do still think that it is one of the many major issues that divide the two.
Why am I so confident in this? Watch for it: if the Ukraine and Russia negotiate a peace that manages to bypass any involvement of the European (dis)Union or Swampington DC, then you can fully expect that Russia will insist on a revision of the Ukrainian government’s GMO policy and openness to big agribusiness companies like I.G. Farbensanto. And where might the Ukraine be able to buy natural non-GMO heirloom seeds? Why, from Russia, of course. This is another way of saying “Goodbye Victoria; thank you for the Maidan coup, the secret biolabs, the GMO foods and policies, the Nazi revanchism, and the war we can’t win. It’s been not-so-nice, now go away – forever – and enjoy your retirement, and here, try some GMO-based salve for your conscience.”
With that background of our absence of GMO geopolitics lately, we can turn our much-needed update attention on GMO Geopolitics to Mexico, where according to this article shared by E.E. (with our thanks), Mexico is continuing to refuse to play in the GMO sandbox, citing disturbing things like … oh, I don’t know… “the Science”, with a notable lack of appearance by Mr. Science Himself, Dr, Fausti:
Genetically modified corn trade dispute continues with formal submission from Mexico
You’ll note the following (which I cite at some length because it’s just too juicy to ignore):
On March 5, the Mexican government’s formal response to the United States in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade dispute was published by the USMCA secretariat. A 2023 Mexican decree called for the phaseout of the herbicide glyphosate, elimination of the use of genetically modified (GM) corn in flour and tortillas for direct human consumption, and eventual substitution of GM corn for industrial use and animal feed. Mexico’s USMCA submission defends its decree, which was issued as part of a broader slate of food system reforms in response to years of concerted efforts by social movements to prevent planting of GM corn and protect the country’s cultural heritage, biodiversity and food sovereignty.
The submission provides evidence to justify precautionary measures to protect consumers from potential health impacts of GM corn imported from the U.S. and residues of glyphosate. According to the submission, Mexico’s policies will have minimal impacts on U.S. producers: the policies affect only 1% of U.S. corn exports, white corn used for human consumption, with the overwhelming share of exports going to livestock feed. Mexico also documents the potential health risks from GM corn and glyphosate for a population that consumes ten times the amount of corn consumed by people in the U.S.
Key elements of Mexico’s submission include:
- The scientific evidence of GMO safety presented by the U.S. is out of date, much of it from industry studies not supported by peer-review. According to Mexico, the U.S. did not present any peer-reviewed study showing it safe to eat large quantities of GM corn exposed to glyphosate in minimally processed form over a lifetime. Mexico makes the case that the U.S. regulatory process is not stringent enough ensure that products are safe for Mexicans to consume at high levels.
- On public health, the submission details that GM corn, especially Bt corn engineered to kill insect pests, can have adverse impacts on non-target animals. Mammals have been shown to suffer damage to their digestive systems from a GM trait that kills its targets by attacking their guts.
- Mexican tortillas have been proven to be contaminated with GM corn and glyphosate, the latter in residues from treatments of GM corn engineered to tolerate the herbicide featured in Roundup. Mexico shows that even low-level exposures can have negative long-term health impact.
Well, three cheers for Mexico, because not only is the American regulatory process not stringent enough, it’s bought and paid for by the very corporations promoting “the science” that there’s no health hazard to GMOs. And yes, we’re still waiting for their long term inter-generational studies to document that fact, a nasty little fact that was pointed out by – here it comes – Russia when it refused to license the production of GMOs within Russia. Then Mexico has the effrontery and unmitigated gall to point out that Bt corn interferes with the digestive system of mammals: dogs, cats, cows, horses, pigs, whales… let that sink in: could there be a correlation between the sudden expansion of GMOs into the American food supply beginning under the administration of George Herbert Walker Schrubb, and the onset in subsequent decades of rampant obesity in the American population? While correlation is not causation, it cannot be gainsaid that it is often an indicator of it.
