Los primeros tropiezos en la guerra de la tortilla con México

/in , /by

Por Ernesto Hernández López, Contra Línea, 04/07/2024

Estados Unidos ignora las cifras comerciales y tergiversa la política mexicana sobre el maíz.

La semana pasada comenzó una batalla internacional por la tortilla. Por un ingrediente fundamental de los tacos, Estados Unidos inició una disputa comercial con México.

En 2023, mediante un decreto, el gobierno mexicano prohibió el maíz modificado genéticamente (OMG) para consumo humano. Estados Unidos afirma que esto viola las obligaciones comerciales. Preocupado por sus exportaciones de maíz transgénico, formó un panel comercial en el marco del Tratado México-Estados Unidos-Canadá (T-mec). La semana pasada se celebraron audiencias durante dos días.

Incluso antes de esto, la controversia estaba sobrecargada; era un lío chapucero. Hasta la fecha, los documentos jurídicos presentados por Estados Unidos y México contienen 586 páginas, 758 pruebas documentales y casi 2 mil notas a pie de página.

Asimismo, los argumentos abarcan más de 20 disposiciones del T-mec y varios anexos. Canadá y las organizaciones no gubernamentales han aportado documentos adicionales. Es difícil de seguir, ya seas un experto en comercio, un científico o simplemente te preocupe la seguridad alimentaria.

La postura estadunidense tiene dos puntos débiles: errores económicos y tergiversaciones sobre el decreto. Se trata de fallas básicas, propias de una clase de introducción al Comercio Internacional, sobre lesiones y política. Las torpezas sobresalen de la jerga jurídica y científica de los expedientes. Estados Unidos debería abandonar el caso.

Un buen lugar para empezar a entender la lucha es el propio decreto. El artículo sexto prohíbe el maíz transgénico para consumo humano, definido precisamente como ingrediente para tortillas o masa. Detiene las aprobaciones de maíz transgénico para estos dos productos; eso es todo. El decreto es explícito al no tocar los OGM para alimentación animal o uso industrial; mercados a los cuales los productores estadunidenses exportan principalmente.

Las motivaciones del decreto incluyen la protección de la salud humana, la biodiversidad y la seguridad alimentaria. La prohibición responde a los riesgos del glifosato, un herbicida necesario para cultivar maíz transgénico. El mismo es considerado como una causa probable de cáncer por las agencias sanitarias internacionales y los tribunales estadunidenses.

Además, México es el centro de origen y diversidad del maíz, una designación científica que indica una vulnerabilidad genética extrema. En 2021, el Tribunal Supremo de México dictaminó que los OMG amenazan con dañar esta biodiversidad. Más inmediato, el maíz proporciona la mitad de la ingesta diaria de proteínas de los ciudadanos.

Con el artículo sexto, el gobierno reduce estas amenazas al prohibir los OMG en las tortillas y la masa que comen millones de personas cada día. Por estos riesgos científicamente establecidos, adaptó el decreto para que sólo afectara a dos alimentos básicos.

De igual manera, Estados Unidos ignora las cifras económicas recientes. Las importaciones mexicanas de maíz han aumentado desde el decreto. La semana anterior a las audiencias, el Departamento de Agricultura estadunidense informó sobre un “récord” de exportaciones para 2023 y 2024. Asimismo, prevé tendencias similares para el próximo año. Esto confirma los informes anteriores que citaban aumentos del 20 por ciento.

En pocas palabras, el decreto no tiene ninguna repercusión real en el comercio de maíz. ¿Por qué? Porque, en su inmensa mayoría, los agricultores estadunidenses exportan maíz para la alimentación animal y no para el consumo humano. Seamos claros, Estados Unidos lucha a medida que aumentan las exportaciones; no tiene sentido.

Además, tergiversa el decreto. Argumenta que México impone una “prohibición de la tortilla de maíz”, lo cual es falso. Sólo suspende las autorizaciones para el consumo humano; el maíz transgénico puede seguir importándose.

México describe esto como una “limitación de uso final”, ya que regula cómo se utiliza el maíz transgénico, lo cual se aplicaría a cualquier lugar, incluidas las granjas nacionales.

Además, Estados Unidos exagera lo que hace el decreto. Asimismo, discute sobre cuestiones que no vienen al caso. Lo que denomina “instrucciones de sustitución” para obligar a sustituir el maíz OGM en la alimentación animal. La queja es que las instrucciones no son claras.

Problema: el decreto no obliga a la sustitución. Lo que hace es describir las acciones futuras y los requisitos previos necesarios, con el objetivo de sustituir los piensos modificados genéticamente.

El artículo séptimo dice que la Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (Cofepris) seguirá aprobando el maíz transgénico en la alimentación animal, siempre y cuando no sea para tortillas. Aclara que las dependencias federales llevarán a cabo cualquier posible sustitución. Implícitamente, los gobiernos estatales no tienen ningún papel.

El artículo octavo explica los elementos necesarios antes de cualquier sustitución. También, designa los parámetros para sustituir el maíz OGM para animales. Las condiciones previas incluyen determinar la seguridad alimentaria nacional y cualquier impacto en la salud humana. En dos presentaciones, México explica que los prerrequisitos no se han dado. Por lo tanto, no ha fijado ninguna fecha para la sustitución, y mucho menos ninguna orientación.

El decreto no exige en ninguna parte alternativas a los OMG; no afecta al maíz para el ganado. Las quejas estadunidenses no dan en el blanco.

La disputa acaba de empezar a calentar el comal. El informe final del panel llegará en noviembre. Hasta entonces, espere un lío con más argumentos científicos y jurídicos amontonados. En términos más sencillos, Estados Unidos ignora la realidad comercial y tergiversa el decreto. Errores básicos que agravan los obstáculos en las normas de seguridad alimentaria del T-mec.

Esto debería inspirar resolución frente a la repetición de derrotas comerciales para Estados Unidos. Los agricultores estadunidenses y los consumidores mexicanos merecen algo mejor. Poner fin a la disputa asegura un comprador de maíz en un país vecino y promueve la salud pública en México. El rumbo actual sólo produce incertidumbre.

Ernesto Hernández López*

*Profesor de la Facultad de Derecho, de Chapman University, en California, Estados Unidos; investigador de derecho internacional privado

After a 4-year Legal Battle, Monsanto Drops Lawsuit Against Mexico’s GM Corn Ban

/in , , /by

June 28, 2024 | Source: Mexico News Daily | by MND Staff

In what is being called a significant victory for Mexico, Monsanto has withdrawn its legal challenge against the 2020 presidential decree aimed at banning glyphosate and genetically modified (GM) corn for human consumption.

The National Council of Humanities, Sciences and Technologies (Conahcyt) heralded the decision as “a triumph for life, health and food sovereignty.”

Monsanto’s subsidiaries, Semillas y Agroproductos Monsanto and Monsanto Comercial, ratified their withdrawal on June 25.

Monsanto produces the herbicide Roundup, one of several glyphosate-based products that are used in the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) such as Roundup Ready corn, cotton and soybeans. A common genetic modification makes crops resistant to glyphosate, allowing farmers to apply large amounts of the weed-killer to GMO crops.

The legal battle was initiated in response to President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s 2020 decree to ban the widely used but controversial herbicide, which the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified as a “probable carcinogen,” though its safety remains a subject of debate.

The battle included over 30 amparo (judicial protective order) suits aiming to declare the decree unconstitutional. In July 2022, for example, Bayer, which acquired Monsanto six years ago, obtained a court order against the application of the decree.

CONTINUE READING ON MEXICO NEWS DAILY

Early US Fumbles in Tortilla War With Mexico Over GMO Corn

/in , , , /by

June 27, 2024 | Source: Common Dreams | by Ernesto Hernández-López

An international battle over tortillas is taking place this week. For an ingredient in tacos, the United States gins up a trade dispute with Mexico. Last year, in a Decree Mexico outlawed genetically modified (GMO) corn for human consumption. The U.S.argues that this violates trade obligations. Worried about its GMO corn exports, it formed a trade panel under the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA). Hearings started Wednesday.

The controversy is overstuffed and a sloppy mess. So far, American and Mexican legal filings contain 586 pages, 758 exhibits, and nearly 2,000 footnotes. Arguments span over 20 separate USMCA provisions and multiple annexes. Extra submissions come from Canada and non-governmental organizations. It’s hard to follow, whether you’re a trade expert, scientist, or just care about food safety.

The U.S. position has two weaknesses: economic errors and misrepresentations about the Decree. These are basic mistakes, from a Trade 101 class, regarding injuries and policy. The fumbles stand out from the legalese and scientific jargon in the filings. And let’s be clear: he U.S. should drop the case.

A good place to start making sense of the fight is the actual Decree. Article 6 outlaws GMO corn for human consumption, precisely defined as corn for tortillas or masa (dough). It stops approvals for GMO corn for these two items. That is it. The Decree is explicit in not touching GMOs in animal feed or industrial use—the kind U.S. corn farmers mostly export.

CONTINUE READING

How Bright Morning Light Can Influence Your Weight Loss Efforts

/in , , /by

June 25, 2024 – Mercola.com – by Dr. Joseph Mercola

If you need a good reason to go out and spend more time in the sun, here’s something that may help convince you — getting enough sunlight during daytime could potentially help you lose weight.

An article published in NutritionFacts.org1 explores this potential benefit, and explains the driving factor for this effect is your circadian rhythm.2 Dr. Michael Greger, the author of the article, posits, “If weakening our circadian rhythm can cause weight gain, might strengthening it facilitate weight loss?”

The Circadian Rhythm’s Role in Your Health

Before we go deeper into this topic, let’s quickly review what the circadian rhythm is. Basically, circadian rhythms act as internal clocks in your body. According to the Sleep Foundation:3

“Circadian rhythms [are] the natural patterns that take place in your body over the course of each 24-hour cycle. [They] are controlled by biological clocks located in organs and glands throughout the body, but all of these peripheral clocks are commanded by a ‘master clock’ in a region of the brain called the suprachiasmatic nucleus.”

In most adults and adolescents, the circadian rhythm operates on a cycle that is slightly longer than 24 hours. However, it relies on external stimuli to help entrain this rhythm daily, and the two most powerful stimuli are light and darkness.

Your circadian rhythm affects numerous biological processes, one of which is your sleep-wake cycle. Based on signals of light and darkness, your brain’s suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) tells your pineal gland when it’s time to secrete melatonin — promoting sleep — and when to turn it off.

Hormone secretion, cellular function and gene expression all rely on your circadian rhythm, so once it’s thrown off, all these processes are severely affected. Today, the two primary culprits that affect your circadian rhythm are exposure to light at night and insufficient exposure to natural light during the day.

Lulu Guo, a Sleep Medicine physician, says, “Changing the amount and times of sunlight exposure, or changing our routines, can send signals to our ‘master clock’ and shift our natural circadian rhythms.”4

Exposure to light leads to advances or delays in your circadian rhythm, known as phase shifts. Typically, exposure to light early in the morning causes a phase advance, which leads to earlier waking. Light exposure at bedtime will lead to a phase delay, or later wakening.

Exposure to Light at Night Can Cause Weight Gain

Since the beginning of time, humans have been exposed to light from sunlight during the day and near complete darkness at night. Once the sun sets, early humans only relied on light from the moon, stars and fire.

Today, it’s difficult for most people to avoid light exposure at night, as we have televisions, computers and cellphones within arm’s reach, along with light pollution and the advent of LED bulbs. While these do offer convenience in some cases, excessive exposure can cause a cascade of health problems, including diabetes, heart disease and obesity.

In the featured article,5 Greger highlights how a weakening circadian rhythm due to inappropriate light exposure can lead to a higher risk of obesity. He refers to a 2016 study,6 which used wrist meters to take note of the participants’ ambient light exposure. The researchers discovered that a heightened exposure to light at night was correlated with a subsequent increased risk of developing obesity over time.

And if some would think that insufficient sleep is to blame and not light exposure, Greger quotes another study,7,8 this time involving more than 100,000 women. It found that, independent of the participants’ sleep duration, higher nighttime light exposure still led to an increased risk of obesity.

“You can’t know for sure if nocturnal light exposure is harmful in and of itself until you put it to the test. When that was done, those randomized to exposure to bright light for a few hours in the evenings or exposed even just for a single night suffered adverse metabolic consequences,” he said.

Getting Bright Light in the Daytime Can Help With Weight Loss

Greger then raises another intriguing question — Can syncing your circadian rhythm through morning bright light therapy potentially help you lose weight? Studies — some even dating back to the 1990s9 — say it can.

In 2007, the first randomized controlled trial10,11 regarding daytime light exposure and obesity was published. Participants were divided between those who were asked to get an hour a day of bright morning light and those who only received normal indoor lighting. All of them were then asked to undergo an exercise program. The researchers found that the group who received bright morning light lost more body fat than the indoor lighting group.

“[T]he findings of this study indicate that the temporal pattern of light exposure during the daytime can influence body weight independent of sleep timing and duration …

[L]ight is a powerful biological signal and appropriate timing, intensity and duration of exposure may represent a potentially modifiable risk factor for the prevention and management of obesity in modern societies,” they concluded.12

Another study13 involving female participants notes that even getting bright light in advance can boost performance and stimulate weight loss. The participants were divided into two groups; one group was exposed to dim light and the other was exposed to bright light during the daytime.

The following day, both groups were asked to do a handgrip endurance test. The researchers noted that the bright light group’s mean number of contractions was 864.5, while the dim light group was 766.63.

“Regardless of the mechanism, bright morning daylight exposure could present a novel weight-loss strategy straight out of the clear blue sky,” Greger said.14

Getting Proper Sun Exposure Is a Cornerstone of Optimal Health

As the studies mentioned above highlight, optimal sun exposure in the daytime can help adjust your body’s internal clocks and sleep-wake cycles, allowing you to get high-quality sleep at night.

The near-infrared light you get from sunlight also activates cytochrome c oxidase (CCO), which in turn enhances the production of melatonin in your mitochondria. There’s actually an intimate link between sunlight and melatonin. In fact, there are two types of melatonin — circulatory, which is produced by your pineal gland and secreted in the blood, and subcellular, which is made in your mitochondria where it is locally used.

However, both types are connected and controlled by either the absence or presence of sunlight. If you fail to expose your skin to sufficient near-infrared light from the sun, then your mitochondria will have seriously depleted melatonin levels that can’t be corrected through supplementation.

For you to reap the benefits of sunlight for better sleep, I recommend getting plenty of bright sunlight exposure in the morning and at solar noon. Exposure to bright light first thing in the morning for at least 10 to 15 minutes, stops melatonin production and signals your body that it’s time to wake up.

While you can simply open your window and let the sun’s rays in, going outdoors is better — you might even want to take a quick morning walk. Then, a few hours later, you can step outside again, around solar noon, to get more sun.

I highly recommend getting at least an hour of sensible sun exposure daily to reap optimal benefits, including optimizing your vitamin D production. This is why spending time outdoors is one of the cornerstones of optimal health, as it can have a profound impact on your mind and body.

Get Rid of Poor Nighttime Habits and Avoid Blue Light at Night

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)15 states that lack of sleep is now a public health epidemic, as it’s linked to a wide variety of health problems, including stroke and heart disease. It also affects your cognitive performance,16 triggers depression17 and even puts you at risk of accidents.18

Unhealthy nighttime habits, such as using your cellphone and/or tablet and watching TV before bedtime, are a significant contributing factor why many people are not getting enough sleep. These modern gadgets also emit blue light wavelengths, which have been linked to eye damage,19 obesity, diabetes and heart disease.20

I highly recommend adopting simple strategies to reduce your exposure to blue light, especially hours before bedtime. Once the sun has set, dim your lights and turn off your electronic devices. Ideally, keep these devices out of your bedroom.

Normally, your brain starts secreting melatonin between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m., and these devices emit light that may stifle that process. After sundown, shift to a low-wattage incandescent bulb with yellow, orange or red light if you need illumination. You can also use a salt lamp illuminated by a 5-watt bulb, as it will not interfere with your melatonin production.

If you need to use a computer or smartphone, I advise installing blue light-blocking software like Iris,21 which is an improved version of f.lux. However, an easier solution is to wear blue-blocking amber-colored glasses. I found an Uvex model (S1933X)22 on Amazon that costs less than $9 and works like a charm to eliminate virtually all blue light.

This way you don’t have to worry about installing programs on all your devices or buying special light bulbs for evening use. Once you have your glasses on, it doesn’t matter what light sources you have on in your house.

More Tips to Create a More Conducive Sleep Environment at Night

Sleeping in total darkness can be challenging, especially if you live in an urban area. Even if you eliminate all light sources in your bedroom, including your digital alarm clocks, the streetlights, city lights and headlights of cars passing by outside can still penetrate your sleeping chamber. One solution is to use blackout shades to keep lights out. For a less expensive alternative, simply wear a sleep mask when you go to sleep.

In areas of your home that you always frequent, I recommend installing incandescent bulbs, as these are less efficient at suppressing melatonin. Leave the LEDs for places like in closets, garage and porch, where you have minimal exposure to them.

For more tips to optimize your sleep, I recommend reading my article “Tips and Tricks to Help You Fall Asleep Faster.” Applying these adjustments to your daily routine and bedtime habits can go a long way toward ensuring you get uninterrupted, restful sleep every night, allowing you to achieve better health.

Addressing This Can Help You Maintain a Healthy Weight Naturally

Aside from optimizing your sleep habits and getting enough sunlight during the day, making healthy changes to your diet is a significant factor in helping you lose excess weight. Remember that the primary factor driving the overweight and obesity epidemics today is the excessive amounts of linoleic acid (LA) in our diet.

LA is the most common omega-6 fat found in seed oils like canola, soybean, corn, sunflower, cottonseed and safflower. Reducing your intake of seed oils and all processed foods is a powerful way to support a healthy weight.

Ideally, consider cutting your LA intake down to below 5 grams, or better yet, 2 grams per day. This is close to what our ancestors used to get before chronic health conditions became widespread.

To do this, you will need to avoid all ultraprocessed foods, fast foods and restaurant foods, and to prepare your meals at home. For more information on the dangers of linoleic acid, I recommend reading my article, “Linoleic Acid — The Most Destructive Ingredient in Your Diet.”

Sources and References

CONTINUE READING

Land Grabbing Is Not Just Back With a Vengeance. It Is Taking on New Guises Such As Carbon Offsets, Green Hydrogen Schemes, and Other “Green Grabs”

/in , , /by

In recent years, Africa has been at the epicentre of an alarming global trend: the land squeeze. The 2007-8 global financial crisis unleashed a huge wave of land grabbing across Africa and the world. Though the crisis eased, the pressures on farmland never went away. Now 15 years on, global land prices have doubled, land grabbing is back with a vengeance, and farmers are being squeezed from all sides.

As a major report by IPES-Food reveals, today’s land squeeze is escalating dangerously in new and varying forms – including for carbon and biodiversity offsetting schemes, financialisation and speculation, resource grabs, expanding mines and mega-developments, and ever-more industrial food systems. We are seeing a new rush for land that is displacing small-scale farmers, Indigenous Peoples, pastoralists, and rural communities – or removing their control over their land. The consequences are dire, exacerbating rural poverty, food insecurity, and land inequality across the continent – and putting the future of small-scale farming at risk.

Land isn’t just dirt beneath our feet: it’s the bedrock of our food systems keeping us all fed. It is not like any other commodity to be bought and sold. It is the basis of diverse cultures, livelihoods, and rural traditions for millions of Africans. It is a home to biodiversity. Yet, according to the Land Matrix Initiative, Africa is at the forefront of the land grab crisis in the Global South, with nearly 1,000 large-scale land deals for agriculture recorded across the continent since 2000. Mozambique is worst affected with 110 large-scale agricultural land deals, followed by Ethiopia, Cameroon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

The land rush is not merely for agricultural purposes. This time it’s also being driven by “green grabs” where governments and powerful corporations appropriate land for dubious tree planting, carbon sequestration, and biofuel and green hydrogen schemes (requiring large amounts of water). These activities, masquerading as environmental initiatives, are ultimately bad for climate and sustainability, as they shift the burden for cutting carbon emissions from Global North polluters onto Africa’s lands. They do this while directly threatening the very communities bearing the brunt of climate change by displacing local land users and farmers. Already 20% of large land deals are “green grabs”, often targeting indigenous lands – and this could soar in the coming years. Governments’ pledges for land-based carbon removals worldwide already add up to almost 1.2 billion hectares of land – about as much land as is used to grow crops worldwide today.

“Green grabs” bring new powerful actors into Africa’s finely balanced land dynamics – creating a dangerous interface between small-scale farmers and rich governments, fossil fuels companies, large conservation groups, and real estate developers.

Take Blue Carbon, a Dubai-based firm backed by the ruling royal family that is buying up the rights to forests and farmland in order to trade carbon offsets. Blue Carbon has acquired some 25 million hectares of African land through agreements with the governments of five countries: including for 20% of Zimbabwe’s land, 10% of Liberia, and swathes of Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia. Pastoralist and indigenous communities are particularly at risk. In Kenya, the forceful relocation of up to 700 members of the Ogiek People has been reported in connection with Blue Carbon’s investments. In Liberia, local leaders have denounced the lack of any consultation since the Memorandum of Understanding was signed.

The land squeeze also involves rampant encroachment for mining, urbanisation, and mega-developments. Prime agricultural land continues to be lost to rising urbanisation and large-scale infrastructure projects, leading to degradation and loss of biodiversity.

This is also a problem for our food security. A 2018 report showed that large-scale land deals in Ethiopia and Ghana are forcing smallholder farmers to become wage labourers, downsize onto smaller fragmented plots, or migrate to cities – undermining their ability to feed themselves and their communities. Around 90% of large-scale land deals divert land from local food production to producing biofuels, cash crops for export, mining oil, gas and minerals, or carbon offsetting. The vague terms of these deals exacerbate risks to smallholders and food availability.

The land squeeze is not just an environmental crisis; it’s a fight for justice and survival. This widespread appropriation of land underscores the urgent need for equitable and sustainable land governance across Africa. Transformative action is needed. Policymakers must protect and include local communities as part of climate change mitigation and biodiversity protection, supporting them to steward the land, rather than displacing them. This can be achieved by:

  1. Removing speculative capital and financial actors from land markets to get land back into the hands of farmers. This should include capping land acquisitions, giving farmers first right of refusal, and cracking down on bogus land-based carbon offsets.
  2. Incorporating the Right to Land in countries’ constitutions and environmental and agricultural policies – including in climate plans (Nationally Determined Contributions [NDCs]) and biodiversity strategies.
  3. Establishing inclusive land and food systems governance to halt green grabs and re-centre communities. New mechanisms must place local communities and human rights at the heart of land governance. Democratic spatial planning and accountable land agencies are essential for this.
  4. Making community-managed land conversation systems the flagship tool of the Global Biodiversity Framework to meet global biodiversity goals while protecting local food production.

Africa’s smallholders, pastoralists, and Indigenous communities are the stewards of its land and biodiversity. Their inclusion and empowerment are vital to feeding Africa, as well as to climate action – yet they lack rights and social protections. The powerful new “carbon colonialism” fights the climate crisis against communities rather than with them.

Bold action and leadership are needed to ensure farmers and communities have meaningful and equitable access to land. Africa’s land is not just an economic asset to be sold to the highest bidder. By empowering local communities and safeguarding their lands, we can pave the way for a sustainable and equitable future for all Africans.