EP. 46 - Defending Biotech Corn on the International Stage: An Update On the USMCA Dispute Over Mexico’s Ban

 Print

Industry experts are trying to return to science in the conversation around biotech corn.

Ever since Mexico issued a decree that banned genetically modified corn, there's been confusion and concerns from growers and policymakers alike here in the United States.

Mexico is the number one market for U.S. corn growers by a wide margin, and over 90% of the corn that's planted in the United States is biotech. Accordingly, Mexico's decree threatens market access and adds a great deal of legal uncertainty for our corn growers.

And ever since the decree was announced, organizations like the National Corn Growers Association, the Corn Refiners Association and the U.S. Grains Council have been leveraging every opportunity to push back.

Recently, those efforts resulted in a trade dispute settlement hearing under the USMCA, which represents the best opportunity to reverse this destructive trade policy.

So in this episode, we're going to revisit the history of the ban, explore the arguments that were made in the dispute settlement hearing, and discuss what it all means for farmers. Our guests include:

• Andrew Brandt, the director of trade policy for the U.S. Grains Council
• Heidi Bringenberg, the U.S. Grains Council's country director for Mexico
• Kristy Goodfellow, the vice president of trade and industry affairs for the Corn Refiners Association
• Nancy Martinez, the National Corn Growers Association's director of public policy, trade and biotechnology

We'll also hear about the U.S. Grains Council's work to maintain relations in Mexico, in a segment that is sponsored by Corteva Agriscience.

https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/ncga?selected=PDM5478394820

Andrew Brandt

Biotech is used around the world. There are certain regions that have always been a little hesitant about it. That has no basis in science.

Kristy Goodfellow

This is a huge setback for science, and it's coming at a time when we really need innovation and new technologies.

Dusty Weis

Hello and welcome to the Cobcast: Inside the Grind with the National Corn Growers Association. This is where leaders, growers and stakeholders in the corn industry can turn for big picture conversations about the state of the industry and its future.

From the fields of the Corn Belt to the DC Beltway, we're making sure the growers who feed America have a say in the issues that are important to them with key leaders who are shaping the future of agriculture.

So make sure you're following this show on your favorite podcast app, and sign up for the National Corn Growers Association newsletter ncga.com.

I'm Dusty Weis, and today we're going to be talking about a topic that has been in the news quite a bit recently: trade with Mexico.

Ever since Mexico issued a decree that banned genetically modified corn, there's been confusion and concerns from growers and policymakers alike here in the United States.

And in this episode, we're going to talk about the ban, as well as the dispute settlement process that was initiated by the US. We'll hear from experts on the issue about the steps being taken to reverse this measure, and break down what this could mean for farmers.

We'll also hear about the U.S. Grains Council's work to maintain relations in Mexico, and a segment that is sponsored by Corteva today.

But to start this conversation about trade, we are joined by Andrew Brandt, the director of trade policy for the US Grains Council. Andrew, could you tell us a little bit about why USGC is invested so much in this issue?

Andrew Brandt

Certainly. Well, thank you, Dusty. Thank you for having me on. This is my first time on the Cobcast, actually. So Mexico is our number one market year in, year out for the last probably two decades, almost, Mexico's been the number one market for U.S. corn. Certainly this decree as originally written and the updated version that came out in February of 2023, both give us significant pause and concern about what Mexico is trying to do to U.S. farmers ability to utilize the latest and greatest technologies available in the toolbox.

So if this decree were fully implemented, and they did a ban on the importation of biotech corn, that would be very disruptive to the trade relationship and very concerning to us.

Dusty Weis

Certainly a lot of things that are worth keeping track of there. And so we've got a big panel of people that we're talking to today. We're also joined by Kristy Goodfellow, the vice president of trade and industry affairs for the Corn Refiners Association. Kristy, same question to you. Why is CRA involved at this point?

Kristy Goodfellow

Well, let me start by just thanking you for the opportunity to be here talking about this issue. It's really important. It's a timely discussion, and I'm grateful to be here. The Corn Refiners Association represents all of the seven companies who are operating wet mills in the United States. Those wet mills are refining about 15 to 20% of all of the U.S. corn production, and that production that's being made into food and industrial products that are sent throughout the United States and throughout the world.

The export markets are really important to our members. From the United States, they export about $3 billion annually. So that's a lot. And about a third of that production ends up in Mexico. So it's our largest export market, we're sending about $1.2 billion in refined corn products to Mexico annually. So there's a lot at stake here.

On a more personal note, I had the opportunity to work on the USMCA negotiation from my position at USDA, and I think it's a great agreement.

And I think its predecessor, NAFTA, was a great agreement. I think it served us well, and it will continue to serve us well if we continue to live by the agreement. There are also just good economic principles here that are pretty compelling. There are things that we can make and grow in the United States and do very well, including corn. And there are things that Mexico produces very well, and we can benefit from that. We have this great proximity to each other and we can be great neighbors. So that's why we're here and engaged in this conversation. And it's very important.

Dusty Weis

And of course, a lot of that is going to hinge on how this dispute turns out here. And so a lot of attention will be paid to that going forward. But the last person I want to introduce here is Nancy Martinez, the National Corn Growers Association's director of public policy, trade and biotechnology. Now Nancy, NCGA has been active on this issue, including a roundtable discussion on Capitol Hill more than a year ago that we covered on episode 41 of this podcast.

But what is at stake for our members here would you say?

Nancy Martinez

This is NCGA's top trade issue. Mexico is the number one market for U.S. corn growers by a wide margin. So Mexico's decree threatens market access and adds a great deal of legal uncertainty for our corn growers. Over 90% of the corn that's planted in the United States is biotech. So we're very concerned about policies that serve as a trade barrier.

NCGA is the largest and loudest voice for corn growers in the United States, with almost 40,000 members representing 300,000 farmers. So this is a top issue that's on our growers' minds that we really need to seek a resolution for.

Dusty Weis

Well, thank you all once again for joining us today. A lot of expertise, a lot of brainpower here to parse this really kind of difficult but important issue. And I want to kick off the discussion just with a little bit of background on the topic for those of us who don't follow it every day like you folks do. Nancy, can you tell us a little bit about what sparked this issue and how we got to the point that we're at?

Nancy Martinez

Absolutely. So starting back in 2020, Mexico's president, referred to as AMLO, published a presidential decree that phased out biotech corn for human consumption by 2024. And this version of the decree was later modified in February 2023 and replaced all of the previous decrees, but it was effective immediately. So this February 2023 decree restricted biotech corn use for human consumption and also included a part two to phase out GM yellow corn used in animal feed.

So these actions violated USMCA, which is the trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada. The restrictions caused major concerns for our corn growers. Mexico is traditionally the largest market for U.S. corn, has been for a very long time. So white corn exports have taken the largest hit because the current ban is on certain uses, including for human consumption.

But in the second part of the decree is the phase out for biotech corn use in animal feed, which is also very concerning. So Mexico's incoming administration recently made some comments to walk back part of the decree on part of this phase out for the use in animal feed. But the decree is still in place, as well as several other measures, which is very concerning for our growers.

Dusty Weis

This is something that we've all been following for almost four years now, with the U.S. and Canada pursuing actions to overturn the ban. How has that process, as it's set out under the US Mexico Canada Agreement looked so far?

Nancy Martinez

Yeah. So with pressure and support from NCGA, USTR announced formal dispute settlement consultations with Mexico, as outlined under the USMCA. And then after those consultations completed without a resolution, USTR requested that a panel be established to address Mexico's actions here. So the panel consists of a chair and two members, each selected by the US and Mexico from a predetermined list.

So US selects the Mexican citizen and Mexico selects the US citizen. The panel follows a set timeline. So recently the public hearing occurred on June 26th and 27th. An initial report is slated to be completed in September, with a final report publicly available in late November. As submissions are uploaded online, it gives the chance for the public to review them and kind of know where the arguments are falling.

But we had a lot of visibility into the best arguments from the US side, as well as the Mexican government in that public hearing that was just completed.

Dusty Weis

Now, the USMCA, of course, replaced NAFTA as a free trade agreement in North America. And so in a lot of ways, this is one of the first, one of the most high-profile processes that has played out under the new agreement so far here. But it's safe to say that NCGA, the Corn Refiners Association, everybody who's got a dog in this fight is working all the levers that are available to them and taking this process as far as they can.

Now, Kristy, I know that this hearing took place a few weeks ago at the end of June. Can you recap for us what happened and what was said?

Kristy Goodfellow

Sure. Happy to do that and kind of building off what you were saying before about the sequencing of NAFTA in place before this. A lot of the legal arguments that we're talking about are not new to USMCA at all. They go back to NAFTA and beyond that, they go back to the World Trade Organization. So these aren't little nuanced and bilateral agreements that are in place.

These are really fundamentals of our international trading system that are under discussion in this dispute. So that's something to keep in mind as you hear me summarize the legal arguments that are being made.

The hearing process at this point, as Nancy was saying, the United States and Mexico have provided written submissions. They responded to that in rebuttals. There have been a few non-government organizations that were granted permission to make submissions, and they have made submissions.

So the hearing process is really opportunity for the parties to kind of walk through verbally the arguments that they presented in writing and to continue to respond to the comments of the opposing party. The hearing is also an opportunity for the panelists to ask questions and to gather information that wasn't necessarily provided by the party. And of course, people listening carefully to the questions that the panelists ask to try to infer what they might be thinking. So that's something that people talk about and speculate in news reporting on the hearing.

Not to bore everyone and muddle this down, but let's stop and kind of clarify what exactly is being disputed in this case, because I think it's important.

There are two aspects of the decree that the United States has chosen to challenge. The first is what is called the corn tortilla ban. And that effectively, as Nancy was saying, bans white corn that's imported to make doughs and tortillas.

The second aspect of this is what is called the substitution instruction, and that in the decree is very vague instructions that over time, Mexico is to replace GE corn that used for animal feed and for human consumption. There aren't really a lot of details in the decree about exactly how that will be done.

The primary argument of the United States really relates to the USMCA agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. So the United States points out that Mexico has not followed international standards, and there are international standards in place that relate to this measure. And countries don't necessarily have to follow the international standard. They can say, we want a different level of protection for whatever reason they come up with, and then they can move forward with doing a risk assessment that supports that new level of protection.

But the United States argues that Mexico did not do any of those things to support this policy.

Throughout and in several different ways, the United States also argued that the measure in place, which again is banning certain uses for GE products for human consumption, don't effectively respond to the goals that Mexico is trying to achieve or articulates that they're trying to achieve with it.

And those goals are protecting native corn varieties, ensuring the livelihood of indigenous persons, encouraging biodiversity and some others. But again, the United States says these trade measures aren't going to help you achieve those outcomes. And there's some discussion about what would better serve Mexico if they were, in fact, trying to achieve those outcomes.

In response to the US argument, Mexico brought a whole cadre of "scientific information." It's really quite all over the place. But just to name a few areas that they brought in research, scientific information on trans-genetic proteins, antibiotic resistance, unintended gene expression, nutritional deficiencies, biodiversity.

So in some cases, the United States challenged the science itself and the finding in those research. In some cases, the United States said that research wasn't really relevant to the dispute. In some cases they said, yeah, that's interesting and great. And had you done a risk assessment that would have been taken into consideration.

To give you, you know, just one example of that. Mexico argue that Mexicans eat more corn than anybody else in the world, and that has to be taken into consideration. And the United States says, yes, in fact, that was and would be taken into consideration as part of the normal risk assessment.

So that's just kind of a flavor of the discussions that are going on back and forth in these hearings. Nancy, I'd be interested to hear if you have any additional thoughts or if any of the lines of questioning from the panelists stuck out to you. I know some that were reported on and might be interesting. There were questions related to the sequencing of events in Mexico, you know, when the actual policies came about and trying to figure out maybe, you know, which came first, the policy or the science.

There was also some questioning that might give the United States a little bit of heartburn, because they were arguing that these issues weren't related to the dispute, like U.S. corn consumption. And so those were just a few of the questions that people are discussing related to that panelist questions. But interested Nancy, if you have any other thoughts?

Nancy Martinez

Yeah, that was a great run down and summary, Kristy.

You know, I do want to go back to something that you said about Mexico's recurrent argument that they consume more corn than anywhere else in the world, and therefore they're at a higher risk of exposure. And as Kristy said, and I'll just, you know, say it again, that that is a part of a risk assessment to factor in that consumption and that exposure amount.

So that's already a part of the international standards and would have been a part of Mexico's risk assessment if they had done one. Another thing that stood out to me in the hearing is Mexico makes an argument about protecting their native corn varieties. Then the U.S. responded, I thought very appropriately, to highlight the fact that Mexico has not been taking measures to protect those native corn varieties, such as putting in spatial regulations or physical barriers or public awareness campaigns.

And instead they've taken a trade restrictive measure. So I thought that was an argument that the US really stood out on. And just to go back to it was something that Kristy said, too, about the sequencing of events the panelists were asking specifically from the Mexican lawyers, were there are several drafts of the decree. Was there an agency that was tasked with writing the decree? Was it shared with other agencies?

And the Mexican lawyers were not really able to answer with a lot of detail about the origin of the decree, which I felt was very indicative. And just as a reminder, the U.S. government has made several good arguments showing that Mexico's own regulatory agencies had approved a lot of biotech traits, especially from the corn side, only to reverse those policies immediately.

So Mexico is acting kind of against their own regulatory system. So those are just a few things too that I saw from my lens, from the hearing.

Dusty Weis

So I think to summarize here, it seems fair to say that a lot of this particular effort originated with one person, Mexican President Lopez-Obrador, who issued the decree. And then everything that has just kind of followed that is kind of the tail wagging the dog, essentially. The arguments, the quote-unquote "science" are just trying to backfill and support that decree, and they're just throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it to try to do that.

But I know Nancy touched on this a little bit earlier. Mexico now has a new presidential administration coming in. President Lopez-Obrador is on the way out. President Claudia Sheinbaum is on her way in. So I wanted to jump back to you, Kristy.

President-elect Sheinbaum's administration has made comments saying that they would drop their plan to phase out GM corn in animal feed, but keep up their efforts to ban GM corn in food products for human consumption.

Now, given that Corn Refiners Association's products are in the human consumption category, how are you feeling about this new tack from the incoming presidential administration? I can't imagine that this feels like much of a win from your perspective.

Kristy Goodfellow

Yeah, it's been interesting to see how quickly and specifically the new administration has come out with a policy on corn and corn trade. I can't say I understand the strategy behind that. But, you know, in the last couple of weeks, shortly after the new Secretary of Agriculture was named, he's conducted several interviews or talked very specifically about corn policy.

You also had a tweet that had five very specific points on their corn policy. So that's been interesting.

Specifically on the animal feed. I don't know if it actually constitutes a huge shift. I think it constitutes an acceptance of the reality that Mexico can't actually replace all of the imported corn without completely decimating their livestock sector, which is really reliant on that.

What's in the decree is there's instructions to substitute over time. Effectively, the new secretary of agriculture is talking about continuing to develop production in Mexico, and they will continue importing and replace imports as they are able to with their own domestic production.

It is reassuring that they don't envision doing something radical here, but...

Dusty Weis

Well, radical… or destructive.

Kristy Goodfellow

Destructive. Yeah, exactly. What is more concerning and seems like a bigger shift, is some statements that they've made alluding to continue to ban GM products for human consumption. And some of those comments have alluded to going beyond the current scope, which is pretty narrowly on dough and tortillas.

As I said before, we're exporting a lot of refined corn products there. So expanding the scope of products could very quickly implicate a huge amount of trade.

So it's something we are watching very closely. It's bringing a lot of uncertainty to companies producing not just in the United States, but in Mexico too. These are very integrated markets that depend on each other. So it's just introducing a lot of uncertainty right now.

Dusty Weis

Suffices to say, problem not solved. And there's even more riding on the results of this dispute hearing that took place in Mexico City here. But I want to go to Andrew next because the US Grains Council keeps up with the ag and trade policy all around the globe. Andrew, is there a concern that this could become trendy and could be something that we see other countries pursuing, trying to do something similar?

Andrew Brandt

Well thank you for that question, Dusty. That certainly is a concern.

You know, we see biotech is used around the world. There are certain regions that have always been a little hesitant about it. But if Mexico is allowed to keep this policy or some version or some piece of it, I think it is very likely the activists who are running this, you know, anti-biotech playbook in Mexico will move on to another country within the region or, you know, go somewhere else like Africa and keep trying to chip away without using sound science at the use of, unfortunately, biotechnology.

And that's very unfortunate. I mean, in the United States and Europe, we have very wealthy consumers, but that's not the case everywhere in the world. We see in Africa, people don't have the disposable income levels that wealthier parts of the world do. They would certainly benefit from access to biotech corn and some of these policies, the poorest among us, when you're trying to access protein for yourself, for your family, having access to biotech corn, which is typically the cheapest price corn you can get on the world market is very important.

You know, if your food cost is lower, that frees up your income to, you know, put your kids in schools or invest in infrastructure or other assets, etc..

And so, yes, we definitely think they will try and run this playbook in other countries. And, there's an unfortunate downside if they would be successful, there's certainly an unfortunate downside in our opinion, that has no basis in science, if they are going to unjustly attack biotechnology, which has been deemed safe and been safe in us for 30 years.

Dusty Weis

Well, and, Andrew, certainly the spread of this kind of protectionism is exactly what you don't want to see at the U.S. Grains Council. And in fact, the U.S Grains Council works around the world to maintain access to trade opportunities through a variety of international programs that they work on. And so thanks to a sponsorship by Corteva Agriscience, a member of the US Grains Council and a provider of seeds and crop protection, we're going to explore a little bit more about how USGC's programs play out on the ground in Mexico, and we're joined now by Heidi Bringenberg, the USGC's Country Director for Mexico. Heidi, welcome.

Heidi Bringenberg

Thank you so much, Dusty. I would also like to thank Corteva and National Corn Growers Association for the invitation and the sponsorship today to talk about the council's work in Mexico.

As you mentioned, Mexico is one of the council's 11 offices around the world, and we opened our doors actually back in 1982. So with that, we have decades of experience promoting U.S. agriculture, in particular the promotion of our products, which is U.S corn, sorghum and barley, and their co-products, including ethanol, into Mexico.

Dusty Weis

So tell us a little bit more than about the programs that you have at U.S. Grains Council and how you use those to support relations with Mexico and those particular grains.

Heidi Bringenberg

So our work over decades is heavily based on trust and deep relationships that we have established over these years of work. So the council has worked hand-in-hand with Mexican importers in the feed and livestock industry since well before NAFTA was even in place. And at that time we were doing primarily technology transfer work in the field with livestock and feed producers.

From there, we worked with them through a free trading agreement when NAFTA came into place and through the implementation phases, and our work sort of shifted more to market education and importing quality standards of our products. And then today, we're operating in a very sophisticated trading environment, with USMCA fully in place.

Mexico has been the largest market for our products for several years, and this year for corn in particular, we are on track for a record importing year of close to 22 million metric tons.

So that's incredible. With NAFTA, just to give a little bit of comparison, that consumption didn't reach 2 million tons!

So the council programs and work with importers has served not only to really accelerate the complementary relationship that we see with our end users around corn, but also it's been a celebration of livestock producer growth.

And of course, Mexico's specialization in horticulture has also been able to thrive under NAFTA and now USMCA conditions.

So we celebrate Mexico as a leader in food production. I think they rank 12th in the world now.

And we recognize that this relationship is really a win win. North America trading bloc needs to continue cooperating together to maintain our reputation as one of the best agricultural trading blocs in the world, and of course, the guarantee of safe and economic food for our global customers.

Dusty Weis

When it comes to fostering trade relationships, I know a lot of that is the kind of behind the scenes work that doesn't necessarily get a lot of headlines or a lot of parades. So much of it is just showing up. It's being present, it's building relationships, it's finding ways to make things work for other people. But I'd love to hear some stories from your perspective about what it's like to do that kind of work, what it's like being on a trade mission and what you feel some of the really big notable wins have been.

Heidi Bringenberg

We at the council love to say that boots on the ground is why we're here, why we have these offices and physical presence, because the relationships are extremely important. And for a market like Mexico, where face to face still very much matters, you know, showing up, being there and representing our products physically is extremely important to our mission and why we're here.

And I would say our membership of the US Grain Council plays a critical role in showing up. So it's not just me speaking for our products, but it's our members speaking for their products face to face now.

So with that, our trade missions, I would say, are probably one of the most important components of of the work that I facilitate here. They can involve everything from meetings with major importers, with the feed and livestock associations, but also sometimes with government officials to provide education on how trade works, how it has typically worked, how it should work, and why it is so important for our economies and for our food security.

For example, our MAIZALL mission to Mexico brought together corn producers from Brazil, Argentina and the United States. This group of producers together represents over 80% of corn exports, and the vast majority of those exports are GM product. And so having the producer voice is always extremely critical, especially when we're having meetings with folks in government or from organizations that potentially don't understand agriculture because their voice is the trusted voice.

It was in this case during our MAIZALL mission, very important that Mexican government was able to hear from this coalition of producers on why they choose to plant GM corn, the benefits that they see on their operational level, and their commitment and the safety of these products, why they feed these products to their children, and why our countries are so committed to promoting science-based decision making for their customers.

And they, during this meeting, were also able to offer straight away any research or data that Mexico would need to consider as they proceed with their policies.

Dusty Weis

Well, like you said, there's nothing like a boots on the ground perspective, and certainly that's what you're able to offer us from Mexico City here today. So we really appreciate your taking the time to share your perspective. Heidi Bringenberg, the USGS's country Director for Mexico. Thank you to Corteva for inviting Heidi and for sponsoring this episode.

Dusty Weis

This is the Cobcast: Inside the Grind with the National Corn Growers Association, and I'm Dusty Weis.

We've discussed the Mexican decrees to ban GMO corn. The history how all these very capable and dedicated organizations are working to do something about it. But back to Nancy Martinez now, from the National Corn Growers Association.

Nancy, what's at stake here? What would it mean if this ban did go into place? And what would the outcomes be for our farmers?

Nancy Martinez

Yeah. So if we look at the decree as it was originally written in February, and if all the elements were to be fully implemented, it would be detrimental for American corn growers.

First, it would undermine the validated scientific studies that go back decades on the safety of biotech for human consumption. Farmers would lose market access to our top customer of U.S. corn, the white corn side.

On the yellow corn side, if the administration would shift their view on that as well, it would be detrimental for us, as Andrew addressed already, you know, it would cause a ripple effect among other countries that could adopt policies against biotech for non-science based reasons. Right? So it'd be essentially a form of protectionism.

This also impacts technology advancements. Innovators aren't going to put forward new technologies on the market if they are concerned about market access.

So there's really just a broad side fold of effects here if the ban would be implemented as was specified in that 2023 decree.

Dusty Weis

I think while this topic has certainly gotten a lot of news coverage lately, something that we see getting even more coverage right now is climate change and is environmental impacts and concerns that are raised. Nancy, I know you touched on the agronomic impacts that bans like this could have, but I think it's probably not going to shock anybody if I say right now that outside the agriculture community, most people aren't really well informed about what GMOs are or why they're important from an agronomic perspective. Can you recap that for us? How did genetic modification become such an essential part of agriculture?

Nancy Martinez

Yeah. Great question. Biotechnology is rife with benefits. That's why it's so widely adopted.

So first, it makes crops more sustainable because it requires less inputs and less tillage. Reducing tillage improves soil health. So that is a huge win for sustainability.

Biotech also makes crops more resilient to weather challenges and improves ability to withstand drought. So as there is uncertainty with precipitation, flooding, drought biotech can really be a way to address those issues.

Biotech crops are also more cost effective and boost farmers' yields, so they're designed to also maximize the presence of the desired nutrient and to put it in a final sort of summary, biotech has made our crops healthier, more sustainable and more resilient, and that's why they're so widely adopted in the United States.

Dusty Weis

Of course, you can point to the science all day, but if somebody read something on the internet last week that said differently, they might have a different opinion about it. The concerns about safety are still out there, and ultimately that's what's adding fuel to the fire on these restrictions. How do you reassure people that these products are safe?

Nancy Martinez

Yeah, there's overwhelming consensus from scientific experts and scientific authorities from around the world, not just from the United States, that GMOs and biotechnology is safe. There's been more than 1700 studies on GMO safety and hundreds that have been independently funded with zero incidences of harm to human health.

But I think it's important to also note that the Mexican population has been consuming GM corn for decades, and only now has decided that it is not safe for consumption.

So in the US as well, we have a rigorous and thorough regulatory review system designed with consumer safety in mind. So, you know, all of these factors together really just hammer home the message that the science is on our side with GMO safety.

Dusty Weis

So at this point, we're all looking ahead to the next step in the trade dispute process. And that's the final public report that'll be published in November. I know it's sort of anybody's guess as to what's going to happen, but if you had a magic eight ball, what do you think that we're going to see in that report, starting with you, Nancy?

Nancy Martinez

First, I would say that the science is on our side for the corn industry and for GM corn.

So, you know, we are confident and supportive of the US positions. And we thought that they really made the best case possible evident in the public hearing. We're hopeful going into that final report and we look forward to it hopefully being on time, and we want the decision to be respected and we want action to happen after that decision.

Dusty Weis

Kristy, we'll give you and the Corn Refiners last word on this one. What do you think happens when we see the report in November, and where do we go from there?

Kristy Goodfellow

I think these reports can be anyone's guess. You just don't know what's in these panelists' heads, it's kind of a wild card and it's hard to make any specific predictions.

I do agree with Nancy that the US argument seems very compelling here.

My larger fear, and maybe suspicion is that this could very easily become a chronic bilateral issue that we have to deal with. And you've seen some of those other play out, like our issues with Canada Dairy or Mexico and Canada's issues with US country of origin labeling on beef. These issues get litigated, but they don't go away. They just manifest in different ways. And there's just continue engagement for decades on these issues. And that's why I think it's really important that we try to fix this issue now so it doesn't become one of those issues.

It has not been, Mexico has had policies in place for decades that have allowed these products. So we want to get back to that. We don't want to start down this path and making this a chronic issue that we have to deal with, an issue that adds this ongoing uncertainty to our businesses operating in North America.

These kinds of disputes really influence people's perspective on trade. People aren't sitting around drinking their coffee and talking about the benefits of integrated markets and the wider benefits of trade. They're talking about these disputes because that's what's in the news, and that's what they're hearing tidbits from. And that doesn't help create the narrative that is true, that we benefit from these trade agreements.

That's something I'm concerned about and a reason that we need to deal with this issue now and get it implemented in a way that it doesn't reappear in different versions.

And as Nancy says, this is a huge setback for science, and that's coming at a time that we really need innovation and new technologies to help deal with these new issues that we're dealing with now related to supply chain resilience and climate change and other environmental problems that we're having.

So it's really a setback for science. So I hope we can overcome this in the context of the dispute and move on in a positive and constructive way.

Dusty Weis

Right. At the end of the day, we've got a world to feed and we've got a climate to protect and growers the world over, not just here in America, but they want to use the best tools that are available to them. And these are the tools that are at the top of the toolbox, and they're going to need them to be able to continue to feed, fuel, produce fiber for the world.

So I want to thank each one of you for taking the time to speak with us here. It's been a really informative discussion and we appreciate your making the time. I'm sure we'll have an update for more news coming up in November here. But just to recap once again, everybody that we've had in this episode, it has been an all-hands effort.

Andrew Brandt, the director of trade policy for the U.S. Grains Council, Kristy Goodfellow, the vice president of trade and industry affairs for the Corn Refiners Association. And Nancy Martinez, NCGA's director of public policy, trade and biotechnology. Thank you all so much for joining us here on the Cobcast.

And thank you for listening. We hope you'll join us again next month for another episode of the Cobcast: Inside the Grind with the National Corn Growers Association.

If you're on Twitter, you can follow @NationalCorn for more news and updates from the NCGA. Visit NCGA.com to sign up to the association's email newsletter and make sure you're following the show in your favorite podcast app.

The Cobcast is brought to you by the National Corn Growers Association with editing by Emily Kaysinger.

And it's produced by Podcamp Media, branded podcast production for businesses. Podcampmedia.com

For the National Corn Growers Association, I'm Dusty Weis.

Back to In The News