The group of plaintiffs against genetically modified corn seeds celebrates their victory against Monsanto.
The vote against the decision of an Amparo trial in favor of the Bayer-Monsanto group against the presidential decree on the gradual replacement of the use of glyphosate and the ban on transgenic corn, presented by Judge Ricardo Gallardo Vara, who insists on establishing the facts That with transgenic There is no danger associated with corn means a lot to the discerning community.
During the discussion, which took place on January 4, 2024, judges Patricio Gonzalez Loyola and Jean Claude Tron Petit recalled the arguments that the community has put forward during the ten years of this judicial process and that they agree with the defense of the right current and future generations for the biodiversity of our country's native corn.
Judge Jean-Claude Tron Petit highlighted aspects of the draft resolution that need to be reconsidered, such as the fact that glyphosate is a deep-acting herbicide that kills the plants it comes into contact with and therefore genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are developed must. who are resistant to its consequences.
He stressed that the decree refers not only to the restriction or management of glyphosate, but also to biodiversity, recalling the ruling of the country's Supreme Court of October 13, 2021, which recognized consequences for biodiversity.
The judge also emphasized that there is scientific evidence that contradicts Judge Gallardo Var's statements, such as that of the US Environmental Protection Agency, which decided in 2023 that glyphosate does not pose a serious risk in terms of cancer-causing diseases. This situation has been strongly questioned in Mexico by the affected sectors and led to a ruling by that country's Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ordering the US Environmental Protection Agency to correct its considerations on the grounds that it had failed to take it into account every single one of the elements involved. He also referred to the German Bundestag's restriction on the use of glyphosate in 2023.
He mentioned the numerous lawsuits filed against Bayer-Monsanto by people suffering from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a type of cancer caused by the use of herbicides, such as the case of Edwin Hardeman, who filed a lawsuit for $25 million. Dollar won.
He referred to the European Commission's decision to allow the use of glyphosate for another ten years, which was the result of a controversial vote, and explained that the use of glyphosate was banned in public places and that its use for drying crops, especially for food purposes, is not permitted.
On the other hand, he mentioned studies that confirm the presence of glyphosate in people, especially girls and boys, in the states of Jalisco and Campeche, and commented on the cases of 10 to 15 countries that have restricted, limited or even banned the use of glyphosate.
Finally, he drew attention to the problems of glyphosate and the damage to domestic corn, pointing out that in situations of uncertainty or doubt like the current one, it is better to apply the principles of prevention and precaution.
For his part, Judge Patricio González Loyola focused his attention on the environmental and health implications of the draft resolution, since the precautionary principle he mentioned is reasonable since it forces us to be cautious in situations where risk could be a factor in the judgment. In this case, Judge Gallardo Vara repeatedly tried to question him.
This is because they argue that the order is not a ban but a restriction intended to limit its use as a preventive measure against the potential effects of glyphosate on human health and biodiversity.
It is important to take into account that what applies in other countries is different in Mexico, since in this country there is a very strong association with corn and other traditional crops associated with the milpa, which can affect each crop differently.
In Mexico, the consumption of tortillas and other corn products is very high, so the possible effects of glyphosate on humans deserve special consideration based on factors that correspond to socioeconomic and cultural realities.
It is important to return to Judge González Lozoya's statement that the issue is controversial, but the status of glyphosate as a carcinogen by the World Health Organization (WHO) means that certainty cannot be required in cases of presumption of irreversible harm.
Therefore, the Fourth Circuit decided to withdraw the proposed order and reconsider it, taking into account some of the arguments presented by Judges Tron Petit and González Loyola, despite the objections of Judge Gallardo, who was forced to review the order.
Right to health, nutrition and a healthy environment
As a plaintiff community, we believe this resolution is a major victory for millions of corn consumers in Mexico, Central America and around the world because it puts human rights above health, a healthy environment and adequate and safe nutrition.
Unfortunately, the community as an interested third party has not been taken into account in the debate on transgenic maize, but we will continue to protect the great diversity of indigenous maize in our country from the large economic interests of multinational companies that do not take into account the harmful effects of transgenics. about corn and living organisms.
We will pay particular attention to Judge Gallardo Vara's new project so that it does not follow the logic that favors companies that exploit life, the environment and biodiversity solely for profit, as the Bayer-Monsanto association does.
collectivedemandmaiz.mx
“We are corn kernels from the same cob,
“We are one root, from the same path.”
Otomi poem
