Additional steps, including field trials, are still needed prior to U.S. commercialization of HB4 wheat that is modified to tolerate drought, industry group U.S. Wheat Associates said. It will take years for Bioceres to complete the additional steps, the association said.

Genetic modification involves altering a plant’s makeup by transferring DNA from one organism to another and is common in crops such as corn, used for livestock feed. Some consumer groups oppose genetic modification of wheat over concerns about human health since it is widely used to make bread and pasta, and therefore consumed directly by humans.

“Wherever wheat is grown in the world, drought takes its toll on yields and quality, so an innovation like HB4 holds a lot of interest for growers like me,” said Michael Peters, an Oklahoma wheat grower and past chairman of U.S. Wheat Associates.

—Reporting for Reuters by Tom Polansek and Julie Ingwersen in Chicago and Maximilian Heath in Buenos Aires.

The post US says Bioceres genetically modified wheat can be grown safely appeared first on Country Guide.

After years of tests followed by planting under pilot agreements between Bioceres and a small number of farmers, the company has started distributing seeds to agricultural input retail companies in the South American country, Trucco told Reuters on the sidelines of the BMO Global Farm to Market conference in New York.

“Hopefully we can have it available in Brazil as well, in one or two seasons,” Trucco said.

Genetic modification involves altering a plant’s makeup by transferring DNA from one organism to another and is common in crops such as corn and canola. This differs from gene editing technology like CRISPR, which typically modify a plant’s existing DNA.

Some consumer groups oppose genetic modification of wheat over concerns about human health since it is a widely used ingredient in bread and pasta.

Trucco said that with more approvals from governments and industry groups, GM wheat is becoming more accepted.

Bioceres developed HB4 GM wheat to resist drought, a recurring problem in Argentina in the last decade.

The company said the seed yields around 20 per cent more crop than a conventional seed during droughts.

“It is almost like an insurance policy,” Trucco said, adding that the product’s market share in Argentina is a single-digit percentage in its first season of sales.

He expects sales to improve once the company gains scale, allowing Bioceres to price the seed more competitively.

Bioceres’ GM wheat is approved for planting in Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay so far. Processing and use of the grain is approved in more countries, Trucco said, including the United States.

The post Argentina’s Bioceres makes world’s first sales of genetically modified wheat seeds appeared first on Country Guide.

Today, the Canola Council of Canada, the Canada Grains Council and Cereals Canada “applauded” the CFIA for its new guidance on gene editing.

“This is a ground-breaking day for Canadian agriculture as the (CFIA) confirms its livestock feed guidance, marking the final piece in a series of vital policy updates that began in 2018,” said Krista Thomas, vice-president for trade policy and seed innovation with the Canada Grains Council.

“With this final piece in place, Health Canada and the CFIA have now answered longstanding calls from the seed and grain sectors for predictable, clear and consistent policies for gene edited crops.”

Krista Zuzak, director of crop protection and production at Cereals Canada, made a similar comment.

“Cereals Canada views the final piece of updated Canadian policy clarifying the regulatory pathway for gene edited plants as a positive advancement in plant breeding innovation,” she said.

“The finalized CFIA guidance on livestock feed will support research and development of new varieties that use gene editing to enhance traits such as drought, pest and disease resistance and input use efficiency, among others.”

The CFIA decision can be found online at the Government of Canada website.

The key wording is in Section 1.9 of the document, in which the CFIA states that crops developed with gene editing technology are safe for livestock.

“The CFIA’s opinion of the scientific literature is that gene editing technologies do not pose unique risks of harm to human or animal health or the environment compared to other plant breeding technologies,” the document says.

“As a result, feed ingredients derived from gene-edited plants are regulated like all other products of plant breeding under the Feeds Act and Feeds Regulations, with regulation based on the traits or characteristics of the product, regardless of its development method.”

That paragraph will help clear the way for public and private plant breeders to use gene editing in their crop and trait development programs.

Genome editing, or gene editing, involves changing the genetic code of a plant with technology such as CRISPR-Cas9, a technique used to cut sections of DNA. Scientists from California and France won the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their discovery of CRISPR.

It allows scientists to precisely change a plant’s DNA to achieved desired traits, such as improved disease resistance or healthier oils in the kernel.

It is also being employed in medicine.

In December the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved gene editing to treat sickle cell disease, a rare, genetic mutation that causes red blood cells to develop a crescent or “sickle” shape.

The misshapen cells restrict flow in blood vessels and limit oxygen delivery to the body’s tissues, causing severe pain and damage to organs.

“Gene therapy holds the promise of delivering more targeted and effective treatments, especially for individuals with rare diseases where the current treatment options are limited,” Nicole Verdun of the FDA said in a news release.

Most plant breeders and plant scientists say that gene editing is a new tool in the toolbox, which could lead to faster development of new crops and traits.

Health Canada decided a couple of years ago that gene edited crops are safe. So, in most cases they will be treated the same as crops developed through traditional plant breeding methods. The exception is when foreign DNA is introduced using gene editing. In those cases, gene edited crops would be regulated more like transgenic plants.

Commodity groups and value chain organizations in Canada’s grain industry have been waiting for the CFIA to make its final ruling on livestock feed and gene editing crops.

“In recent years, the grain sector has faced punishing drought conditions and we have too many examples of crop diseases that lack adequate control. Gene editing can help develop solutions faster and more efficiently than traditional plant breeding methods allow,” said Thomas of the Canada Grains Council.

“This news opens up incredible opportunities for innovation within the grain sector…. (It) directly translates to stability in food supply and prices, which is crucial for both our economy and food security.”

– Robert Arnason is a reporter with the Western Producer.

The post CFIA declares gene editing safe for livestock feed appeared first on Country Guide.

The agriculture ministry approved the domestic production of six more varieties of genetically modified corn, two of soybeans and one of cotton, and another two of gene-edited soybeans, a notice on the ministry’s website said.

The planting zones for most of the varieties were expanded from “ecologically suitable” areas to the whole country, according to the notice. Previously, some corn varieties were restricted to the Northern or Southern producing areas.

For imports, the ministry approved gene-modified insect- and herbicide-resistant soybean variety, DBN8002, developed by Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co Ltd 002385.SZ, which had been licensed for planting in Argentina since 2022.

China also approved a Corteva Inc CTVA.N herbicide-tolerant corn variety DP202216.

The new approvals extend for five years, effective from Jan. 2, 2024.

As the world’s largest importer of soybeans and corn, which GM varieties China approves can have huge implications on the planting size beyond its borders, Even Pay, agriculture analyst at Trivium China, said. “Farmers don’t want to plant varieties if China can’t buy them.”

With Chinese firms now allowed to develop and sell GM seeds, it is likely that Beijing will be a lot more forthcoming with import approvals, making GM seeds more attractive and creating a significant advantage for Chinese seed companies overseas, Pay said.

China, the world’s second largest corn grower, has moved cautiously on deployment of technology for genetically modified organisms (GMO), but is steadily opening up to the cultivation of GMO crops.

In December, China issued licenses for a first batch of 26 companies to breed and sell GM corn and soybean seeds domestically after years of pilot testing.

“We can expect the scope of planting to increase over the next few years and eventually become very significant,” Pay said.

For now, these crops have yet to enter the industrialization phase as it still needs to go through variety validation, production, operation and other processes which involves government licenses, Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co Ltd 600596.SS, which received approvals for four varieties, said in a stock filing.

Market penetration of gene-modified crops could reach 85% in three to five years once the industry is fully commercialized, GMO developer Beijing Dabeinong Technology 002385.SZ said in a filing this month.

China is pushing for higher domestic crop yields this year to ensure food security and wants to reduce its reliance on soybean and grain imports, now at more than 100 million tonnes a year.

–Additional reporting for Reuters by Liz Lee and Beijing newsroom.

The post China’s embrace of GMO crops gains momentum with new import, planting approvals appeared first on Country Guide.

Rob Stewart, Canada’s deputy minister for international trade, wrote Friday to U.S. and Mexican trade officials, formally announcing Canada’s intent to take part in the CUSMA dispute settlement consultations U.S. officials requested earlier this month.

“Canada shares the concerns of the U.S. that Mexico’s measures are not scientifically supported and have the potential to unnecessarily disrupt trade in the North American market,” federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau and Trade Minister Mary Ng said in a joint statement Friday.

U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack and Trade Representative Katherine Tai on June 2 announced that Washington would seek dispute settlement consultations, following a round of technical consultations with Mexico in March under the sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) chapter of the CUSMA pact.

Those technical consultations “did not resolve the matter,” Tai said in a statement June 2.

Bibeau and Ng said the dispute settlement consultations cover measures laid out in a presidential decree published by Mexico in February — “namely the ban on use of biotechnology corn in tortillas and dough, the intention to gradually substitute the use of biotechnology corn in all products for human consumption and animal feed.”

The consultations are also meant to address Mexico’s plans for “rejection of applications for authorizations covering the importation and sale of certain biotechnology products,” the ministers said.

Mexico has been discussing such a ban since 2020, citing sustainability, self-sufficiency and the protection of native corn varieties, with the stated aim of ultimately replacing its imports of U.S. yellow corn with domestic non-GMO production and halting the use of glyphosate herbicide.

“We have always been clear that Canada expects our partners to uphold their commitments under CUSMA — including sanitary and phytosanitary measures,” the Canadian ministers said in Friday’s statement.

The federal government, they said, is “committed to science-based decision-making and keeping food, feed and the environment safe, while supporting the ability of our farmers, workers and exporters to succeed in an innovative and sustainable agricultural sector.”

In these consultations, they said, Canada will work toward “an outcome that preserves trade predictability and market access for our farmers and exporters.”

“When a key trading partner such as Mexico does not authorize biotechnology applications for Canadian agricultural exports, this creates an asymmetry in North American regulatory conditions that can lead to trade disruptions,” Stewart said in Friday’s letter to U.S. and Mexican officials.

Mexico’s approach in its decisions “may have a significant economic impact on Canadian producers, developers of innovative agricultural technologies, as well as consequences for trade flows into and out of Canada,” he wrote.

Canada, he added, has “an important systemic interest in ensuring the correct interpretation of the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) obligations of CUSMA, namely that SPS measures are based on scientific principles, relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations, or appropriate risk assessments.”

Also, he wrote, Canada maintains that “SPS measures shall not be more trade-restrictive than required to achieve a party’s appropriate level of protection and shall be applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health.”

The Canada Grains Council, in a separate release Friday, hailed Ottawa’s decision, saying “Mexico’s decision to ban products with a proven record of safety has far-reaching consequences.”

The introduction of Mexico’s decree has “injected uncertainty into North American markets,” CGC vice-president Krista Thomas said, and if the measure is not withdrawn, “it has the potential to trigger food price inflation and undermine food security within the intricate supply chains of North America.”

There have been “some positive signals from Mexico recently” on the matter, the Canola Council of Canada said Friday in a separate statement, but “more formal and substantive assurance is required to provide clarity and certainty about the regulatory approach moving forward.

“Without that, there is concern that similar issues could arise in the future and precedence established for approaches not based on science.”

For its part, the U.S. government “has been clear that it would consider all options, including further steps to enforce U.S. rights under (CUSMA), if Mexico did not return to science- and risk-based biotechnology policies that are in compliance with (CUSMA) commitments,” the USTR said June 2. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Canada gets in on U.S. trade challenge of Mexico’s GM corn ban appeared first on Country Guide.

The North American neighbours are inching closer to a full-blown trade dispute under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) on trade over Mexico’s policies to limit the use of GM corn, which it imports from the U.S.

If the consultations announced on Friday fail to resolve disagreements within 75 days, Washington can request a dispute settlement panel to decide the case.

Asked if Canada would take similar action to the U.S., a spokesperson for the trade ministry said Canada is “considering its next steps” and would be “guided by what is in the best interest of our farmers and the Canadian agriculture sector.”

The U.S. requested formal trade consultations in March over objections to Mexico’s plans to limit imports of GM corn and other agricultural biotechnology products. Those consultations took place, but failed to resolve the matter, the senior USTR officials said.

A spokesperson for Mexico’s economy ministry did not immediately comment on the move. The agriculture ministry declined to comment.

Earlier this week, Mexico’s agriculture minister expressed confidence in an interview that the dispute with the U.S. would not escalate to a dispute settlement panel.

The conflict comes amid other disagreements between the U.S. and Mexico, most notably over energy in which the U.S. has argued that Mexico’s nationalist policy prejudices foreign companies.

Despite changes to Mexico’s decree on GM corn, which it modified in February, the U.S. said the Latin American country’s policies are not based on science and appear inconsistent with its commitment under CUSMA.

The new decree eliminated the deadline to ban GM corn for animal feed and industrial use, by far the bulk of its US$5 billion worth of U.S. corn imports, but maintained a ban on GM corn used in dough or tortillas.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has said GM seeds can contaminate Mexico’s age-old native varieties and has questioned their impact on human health.

“They did make some modifications such as removing the specific timeline for banning biotech products, but the decree does call for a gradual substitution and eventual banning of biotech corn, and this part of the measure itself is not science-based,” said a senior USTR official.

The consultations will also address Mexico’s rejection of new biotech seeds for products like soybeans, cotton and canola, U.S. officials said.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement, “We fundamentally disagree with the position Mexico has taken on the issue of biotechnology, which has been proven to be safe for decades.”

The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), which represents U.S. farmers, praised the U.S. move.

“Mexico’s actions, which are not based on sound science, have threatened the financial wellbeing of corn growers and our nation’s rural communities,” said NCGA President Tom Haag in a statement

— Reporting for Reuters by Cassandra Garrison; additonal reporting by Adriana Barrera in Mexico City and Ismail Shakil in Ottawa.

The post U.S. escalates dispute with Mexico over GM corn appeared first on Country Guide.

Federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau on Wednesday announced updated guidance from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that sets gene-edited seeds on the same regulatory level as conventionally-bred seed varieties.

Taken with last year’s related updates by the federal health department to Canada’s Novel Food Regulations, CFIA’s new opinion opens the door for gene-edited seeds’ unregulated use in Canadian fields.

Grower groups whose members have waited years for gene-edited seed to come to Canada lined up Wednesday to hail CFIA’s decision as a potential watershed moment for the domestic ag industry.

But advocates for Canadian organic growers, whose buyers consider gene-edited to also be genetically modified, say the decision will leave the organic sector dependent on seed and biotech firms’ willingness to disclose their handiwork.

Risks not ‘unique or identifiable’

In its updated directive, CFIA said it’s the “scientific opinion of (the agency) that gene-editing technologies do not present any unique or specifically identifiable environmental or human health safety concerns as compared to other technologies of plant development.”

With that in mind, CFIA said it “does not foresee an outcome of conventional breeding where an authorization for environmental release would be required, other than in the case of herbicide-tolerant plants.”

In other words, a company wanting to release a plant with novel traits (PNT) will still need to apply for, and receive, CFIA authorization before that plant is released into the environment — that is, if the PNT still has any DNA from foreign organisms, and/or a new commercially-viable herbicide tolerance trait.

That would also apply to any gene-edited PNT in which any foreign DNA used to encode “gene-editing machinery” — such as in the CRISPR process — remains in the final product and hasn’t been removed through rounds of breeding and selection.

In cases where a plant isn’t a PNT, CFIA said, a plant’s proponents are “expected to fully participate in mechanisms that provide transparency about non-novel products” — such as the Health Canada Transparency Initiative and the Canadian Variety Transparency Database.

It also “remains the proponent’s responsibility to notify the CFIA if the plant could have significant negative environmental impacts and be considered a PNT.”

CFIA said its decision follows consultations with plant breeding, industry and regulatory experts and stakeholders, as well as a public consultation that ran from May through September 2021.

In its release Wednesday, the federal ag department noted the U.S., Japan, Australia, Argentina and Brazil have already “clarified the pathway” for gene-edited products, while New Zealand, the U.K. and the European Union (EU) “are in the process of doing so.”

‘Trusted and safe’

Canada’s competitiveness in world ag markets — and its crops’ resilience against environmental and climate stresses — were common themes among the groups hailing CFIA’s decision Wednesday.

“The CFIA’s updated guidance helps Canada stay competitive on the global stage,” Krista Thomas, vice-president of seed innovation for the Canada Grains Council, said in a separate release.

“Many of our trading partners have already adopted similar science-based policies, and farmers outside of Canada have been growing gene edited crops since 2015. When we let the science be the core of regulatory decision making, we know that the end result can be trusted and is safe.”

Keith Currie, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, said in the government’s release that CFIA’s new guidance “will ultimately help Canadian farmers access new plant varieties that are more resilient to pests and extreme weather events and support our food security and sustainability objectives.”

Greg Sears of the Alberta Wheat Commission said seeds gene-edited for efficient use of resources give farmers “another opportunity to manage inputs more effectively, while sustaining ecosystems and reducing greenhouse gas” — an important development after another year in which Alberta growers “seeded the most expensive crop in recent history.”

Canola Council of Canada president Jim Everson said the guidance will also “encourage new and additional research and development investment in Canada.”

Soy Canada, in a separate statement, noted the country’s soy industry has “excelled at meeting diverse customer needs” including organic, non-genetically modified, genetically modified and identity-preserved soybeans — and meeting any such specific needs “remains an important priority for the industry.”

“Our customers know that we excel at providing a diverse range of products,” Soy Canada’s executive director Brian Innes said in a release. “We’re committed to continue providing customers what they want once we commercialize soybeans created using gene editing.”

‘Shocking’

Other groups, however, don’t expect the new guidance will assure buyers looking for non-GMO or organic crops from Canadian growers.

In a joint release Wednesday, several such groups said CFIA’s guidance means gene-edited crops that have no foreign DNA — and any foods produced from those crops — “will not go through any government approval process at Health Canada or the CFIA, but can be released onto the market by companies without any safety data submitted to the government.”

Given that organic standards allow only for conventionally-bred crops and not for gene-edited or genetically modified plants, the result will be “unknown (genetically modified) foods and seeds on the market that have not been subject to any independent safety assessment,” they said.

Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, called CFIA’s guidance “a shocking abdication of responsibility by our regulators” that “asks Canadian farmers and consumers to trust unseen corporate science.”

Allowing gene-edited seed to enter Canadian agriculture unchallenged could “ultimately destroy the systems that farmers and many food companies have set up to deliver non-GM choices to consumers,” National Farmers Union president Jenn Pfenning said in the same release.

“This decision needs to be reversed, or over time, it will eliminate our ability to offer reliable non-GM food choices, including organic food.”

Garry Johnson, president of SaskOrganics, said “not ensuring full disclosure of all GM seeds through a mandatory public registry, will make it challenging for organic farmers to meet the requirements of the Canadian Organic Standards.”

‘Informed decisions’

In her release Wednesday, Bibeau said that “in light of discussions with the government-industry committee, we will protect the integrity of organic certification.”

Her announcement Wednesday included plans for creation of a “government-industry steering committee on plant breeding innovations transparency, to facilitate ongoing discussions as gene-edited products are introduced in the marketplace.”

Bibeau also said an expansion of the Seeds Canada Canadian Variety Transparency Database will provide transparency around individual seed varieties — and new federal oversight of that database “will ensure (its) completeness and robustness.”

Bibeau also committed Ottawa to “again provide funding to support the review of Canada’s organic standards.” Those standards, updated every five years, are next due for renewal in 2025.

CFA’s Currie, in the government’s release, said those commitments “will help ensure farmers can continue to make informed decisions on what they produce.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Gene-edited crops clear CFIA’s regulatory bar appeared first on Country Guide.

Farmers have for decades planted GM corn, which protects against insects and herbicides, with seeds sold by companies such as Bayer, Corteva and ChemChina’s Syngenta.

But as believers in a free market, some say the U.S. should agree to sell Mexico non-GM corn, rather than deepen a trade dispute over the proposal, and note they could earn a premium for growing more conventional corn.

“I’m all for free and fair trade,” said Fred Huddlestun, who grows GM corn and soybeans at Yale, Illinois. “When they get to the point they’re pushing somebody to buy something they don’t want, then I have concerns about that.”

Mexico is the largest buyer of U.S. corn and the proposed restrictions threaten to disrupt some of the nearly $5 billion of corn the U.S. ships to Mexico annually, or 95 per cent of Mexico’s total corn imports (all figures US$).

Mexico said in February it would ban GM corn for consumption by people, backpedaling from previous plans that clouded the future of imports for livestock feed, the destination of the vast majority of its imported corn.

Supporters of the policy say GM corn can contaminate Mexico’s age-old native varieties and have questioned its impact on human health.

The Biden administration says restrictions would violate the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) and last month requested trade consultations with Mexico in the first formal step toward a request for a dispute settlement panel under the pact. U.S. officials met with counterparts in Mexico last week.

Mexico’s proposed restriction on corn for human consumption is expected to affect white corn imports, used primarily for tortillas, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on March 30 that he expects the administration will “ultimately compel” Mexico to reverse its policy. The restrictions are not supported by science and fail to adhere to a rules-based trading relationship, he has said.

Industry groups including the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), which represents biotech companies, and the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) have lobbied U.S. officials to oppose Mexico’s proposals.

Mexico is drawing a “safety distinction” between corn used for food and animal feed without material scientific justification, the groups told Biden in a letter praising Washington’s step toward a settlement panel.

On Tuesday, BIO said the U.S. should launch the formal dispute process “without delay” if consultations do not produce a science-based outcome.

But some U.S. farmers say the U.S. should back off.

NCGA has appeared intent on “ramming potential unwanted grain down our trade partners (sic) throats,” Matt Swanson, a farmer who grows non-GM corn, wrote on Twitter.

Companies like Bayer have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing GM crops and defending the safety of GM foods. Four companies sell more than 75 per cent of corn and soybean seeds, according to data cited by USDA.

‘Worth my while’

U.S. farmers have long had a conflicted relationship with seed companies. Growers benefit from yield-improving and pest-killing agricultural technology, but some are unhappy with consolidation in the sector and the amount of sway the companies have over U.S. agriculture.

“It seems to me like the secretary and this administration are not standing up for all farmers,” said Greg Gunthorp, an Indiana pork and poultry farmer who feeds non-GM corn to livestock to produce premium meat products. “What they’re really standing up for is the big companies.”

Bayer said it works with BIO, NCGA and other groups to promote the need for a science-based regulatory system. NCGA said GM corn is safe and it will fight all illegal trade barriers for farmers.

Some sector experts have warned Mexico’s restrictions, if implemented, could prompt other countries to seek bans.

Though there is no hard data on U.S. farmers’ opinions, Reuters spoke to about 10 growers and grain traders who said the U.S. should not require Mexico to continue importing GM corn.

Other growers worry about the extra work required to grow non-GM crops, instead of GM grain, and the potential for a new government in Mexico to eventually change the policy again. But many would consider growing more non-GM corn, if the price were right.

“You need to make it worth my while,” said Illinois farmer Dave Kestel, who grows GM corn and sells seed for Corteva. “Twenty per cent premium would probably be the minimum.”

— Reporting for Reuters by Tom Polansek; additional reporting by Leah Douglas in Washington and Cassandra Garrison in Manhattan, Illinois.

The post After growing GM corn for decades, some U.S. farmers open to Mexican restrictions appeared first on Country Guide.

The move, approved in a government decree, eliminates January 2024 as the date for the country to forbid GM corn for animal feed and industrial use, a statement by the economy ministry said.

Amid a brewing dispute over the possible disruption of billions of dollars worth of corn trade, U.S. officials and farmers had called for clarity on the ban from Mexico. The latter buys about 17 million tonnes of mostly GM yellow corn from the U.S. annually, most of which is used for animal feed.

Mexico said it still plans to revoke and refrain from granting new authorizations for GM corn for human consumption, which the decree defined as flour, dough or tortilla made from the grain. The ban does not apply to GM corn used in the industrial manufacturing of products like cosmetics, textiles and paper, the decree said.

About 18-20 per cent of the corn Mexico imports from the U.S. is white corn, used in food products like tortillas, according to sector experts.

Under the decree, the new measures were to take effect Tuesday. A spokeswoman for the economy ministry did not immediately respond to a question about whether Mexico would begin revoking authorizations of GM corn for human consumption on Tuesday.

The decree also said Mexico will revoke authorizations and permits to import, produce, distribute and use the herbicide glyphosate, a plan it has had since late 2020. A transition period would be in effect until March 31, 2024.

Health authority COFEPRIS will be responsible for authorizations of GM corn to be used as animal feed or in industrial manufacturing processes, subject to supply availability. It will also conduct scientific studies with counterparts from other countries to investigate the health impacts of consuming GM corn, Mexico’s decree added.

Mexico and the U.S. have been at loggerheads over an original decree issued by Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in 2020 that sought to phase out imports of GM corn and glyphosate by January 2024.

U.S. officials have threatened to take action under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) over the potential disruption of the corn trade.

The new U.S. agriculture trade chief last week told Reuters that he had given Mexico until Feb. 14 to respond to a request to explain the science behind Mexico’s planned bans.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Tuesday the U.S. is “disappointed” in Monday’s announcement from Mexico. “The U.S. believes in and adheres to a science-based, rules-based trading system and remains committed to preventing disruptions to bilateral agricultural trade and economic harm to U.S. and Mexican producers.”

The National Corn Growers Association, a U.S. industry group, also expressed concern over Monday’s decree.

“Singling out corn — our No. 1 ag export to Mexico — and hastening an import ban on numerous food-grade uses makes (CUSMA) a dead letter unless it’s enforced,” said the group’s president, Tom Haag.

— Reporting for Reuters by Cassandra Garrison and Adriana Barrera in Mexico City, Leah Douglas and David Lawder in Washington and Julie Ingwersen in Chicago; writing by Valentine Hilaire.

The post Mexico opens door for GM corn in feed, industrial uses appeared first on Country Guide.

In a statement, the ministry said talks would continue in the meantime as the two sides worked to reach a “mutual understanding” that gives “legal certainty to all parties.”

Mexico has a controversial presidential decree that is set to ban GM corn and the herbicide glyphosate in 2024.

U.S. officials have threatened to take action under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), arguing that the decree will harm U.S. farmers.

“The Mexican delegation presented some potential amendments to the decree in an effort to address our concerns,” U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said in a joint statement released on Friday afternoon.

“We agreed to review their proposal closely and follow up with questions or concerns in short order,” they said.

Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard told reporters the two sides were aiming to reach an agreement by the end of January.

Mexico, which imports about 17 million tonnes of U.S. corn a year, has said the decree focuses on corn for human consumption and that GM yellow corn for animal feed would be permitted.

Mexican officials, however, have yet to announce formal modifications to the decree.

Mexico’s health regulator COFEPRIS has not authorized new strains of glyphosate-resistant GM corn seeds for import since 2018.

Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), an industry group representing biotech companies including Bayer, said Friday it would urge the U.S. government to begin taking enforcement action over Mexico’s treatment of agricultural biotechnology should the country fall short of meeting “the commitments under (CUSMA).”

— Reporting for Reuters by Valentine Hilaire; additional reporting by Tom Polansek and Kylie Madry; writing by Cassandra Garrison and P.J. Huffstutter.

The post Mexico says it aims for agreement with U.S. on GM corn in January appeared first on Country Guide.