“There is not a single evidence of harm from the use of transgenic organisms and their products.” Francisco Bolivar Zapata
for years Elena Álvarez-Buylla became known for her criticism of transgenic crops. “We are not gene sacks where we can change one gene for another and have a different organism that will behave as we want as a result”he stated in an interview. His ideas, however, contrast with those of specialists, such as Francisco Bolivar Zapata, winner of Prince of Asturias Awards in scientific research, who has pointed out that there is no scientific evidence that genetically modified organisms “are harmful to human or animal health, or to biodiversity”.
When Álvarez-Buylla was appointed director of Conacyt, the National Council of Science and Technology, it was clear that it would seek to promote its ideas, but no one expected prohibitions based on dogma. In December 2020, however, he promoted the import ban transgenic corn and glyphosatehe herbicide most used in the world.
The government of The United States warned that it would sue Mexico in a dispute panel for the damage caused to its producers. After previous negotiations, the date of February 15, 2023 was set for the Mexican government to present scientific tests about the alleged damage to the health of the prohibited products. Two days before the deadline, however, the president Lopez Obrador he preferred to issue a new decree that softens the prohibition.
In the case of transgenic cornthe new decree already only prohibits importation for direct human consumption. Its importation for animal feed and for the food industry will continue to be allowed, which also ends up in human consumption. The president had said that this was his intention, that he only wanted to prohibit imports for human consumption, but that was not what his decree said. Hiring officials with 90 percent loyalty and only 10 percent capacity has costs.
There is no certainty that the new decree will satisfy the producers of USA. Washington can insist that Mexico Present unobtainable evidence. The new decree, on the other hand, indicates that the Mexican government will continue to carry out “The actions leading to the effect of carrying out the gradual substitution of genetically modified corn for animal feed and industrial use for human food.”
Even the remaining ban will hurt Mexican consumers. Although most of the White corn that is consumed in Mexico is produced domestically, a significant amount is imported from other countries, not just from USA, but also of South Africaand almost everything is transgenic. The ban can cause shortages and price increases.
As for the glyphosatethe new decree extends the term so that the product can continue to be imported, but only until March 2024. Glyphosate is a herbicide, and its use involves risks, but it is the most widely used in the world. The product is legal in the United States and most countries. The ban on Mexico It will generate serious problems for national farmers. the president himself Lopez Obrador recognizes in his new decree that it has not been possible to find “viable alternatives, of proven effectiveness and with the potential to do without glyphosate”.
Bans always cause problems, especially when they have no technical support. Now the prohibitions are relaxed transgenic and glyphosate, but they are still harmful. I would be better to live in a nation where it was forbidden to forbid.
neoliberal science. The doctor Alvarez-Buylla has criticized on countless occasions “neoliberal science“so the sociologist Juan Pablo Pardo Guerra submitted a request for transparency to conacyt to know what the expression means. The answer was: “No information was found that could meet this requirement.
#ban #dogma