Specialist opinion on the release of transgenic crops in Mexico.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22231/asyd.v22i3.1601Keywords:
corn (maize), indigenous, peasant agricultureAbstract
Mexican scientists specializing in food security, plant breeding and agrobiotechnology manifest different opinions, regarding the adoption of transgenic crops. We need to comprehend their criteria in order to strengthen impact studies and risk analysis, as well as to promote decision-making regarding the use of this technology, which is still being debated in Mexico. This study took place in 2015, intending to analyze the opinions of scientists who research agrobiotechnology, comparing the concerns of those specializing in biological issues to those specializing in social issues, in order to determine the main risks that they perceive for indigenous communities, regarding the introduction of transgenic crops. To do this, a questionnaire was applied to a select group of experts in transgenic crops, plant breeding and food sovereignty. We found that 70.6% oppose the release of transgenic crops during the commercial phase and that this figure increases to 94.1%, in the case of corn (maize); 96% think that it is possible that these will enter indigenous territory, to the advantage of the seed companies’ business. We conclude that in Mexico, the release of transgenic crops does not take into account the viewpoint of national researchers, who for the most part, believe that this technology will have negative effects, mainly, on the diet and economy of peasants, so that from this perspective, they represent a threat to Mexico and in particular, to indigenous communities, as their community capital, self-determination regarding the use of seeds and genetic diversity are put at risk.
References
Agapito-Tenfen SZ, Wickson F. 2018. Challenges for transgene detection in landraces and wild relatives: learning from 15 years of debate over GM maize in Mexico. Biodiversity and Conservation. 27(3). 539-566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1471-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1471-0
Aleksejeva I. 2014. EU Experts’ Attitude Towards Use of GMO in Food and Feed and Other Industries. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 110: 494-501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.893. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.893
Bevanda L, Žilić M, Ećimović B, Matković V. 2017. Public opinion toward GMOs and biotechnology in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In: Badnjevic, A. (eds) CMBEBIH 2017. IFMBE Proceedings, vol 62. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4166-2_70 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4166-2_70
Bogert JM, Ellers J, Lewandowsky S, Balgopal MM, Harvey JA. 2022. Reviewing the relationship between neoliberal societies and nature: implications of the industrialized dominant social paradigm for a sustainable future. Ecology and Society. 27(2). 7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13134-270207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13134-270207
Brookes G, Barfoot P. 2018. GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996- 2018. PG Economics Ltd. https://agrobio.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/globalimpactfinalreportJuly2020.pdf.
Castellanos E, Bergstresser S. 2016. The Mexican and Transnational Lives of Corn: Technological, Political, Edible Object. In: Edible identities: Food as Cultural Heritage; Brulotte RL & Di Giovine MA (eds). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315578781. pp: 201-218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315578781-14
Chauvet M, Lazos E. 2014. El maíz transgénico en Sinaloa: ¿tecnología inapropiada, obsoleta o de vanguardia? Implicaciones socioeconómicas de la posible siembra comercial. Sociológica (México). 29(82). 7–44.
CNDH, González-Pérez LR. 2015. Recomendación sobre el caso de vulneración al derecho a una consulta libre, previa e informada, en perjuicio de diversas comunidades indígenas. http://www.conacyt.mx/cibiogem/images/cibiogem/comunicacion/prensa/comunicados/RESUMEN-RECOMENDACION-23.pdf.
Colmenares C, Ortiz S. 2015. Report on Section II. D “Policies and Regulations in Mexico with Regard to Genetic Technology and Food Security”: Country Report: Mexico. In: Norer R (eds). Genetic Technology and Food Safety. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-23995-8_11. pp: 355-376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23995-8_11
Daniell H, Kumar S, Dufourmantel N. 2005. Breakthrough in chloroplast genetic engineering of agronomically important crops. Trends in biotechnology. 23(5). 238–245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2005.03.008
Desaint N, Varbanova M. 2013. The use and value of polling to determine public opinion on GMOs in Europe. GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain. 4(3). 183-194. http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.26776. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.26776
DOF (Diario Oficial de la Federación). 1995. NOM-056-FITO-1995. Norma Oficial Mexicana, por la que se establecen los requisitos fitosanitarios para la movilización nacional, importación y establecimiento de pruebas de campo de organismos manipulados mediante la aplicación de ingeniería genética. 20 de diciembre de 1995.
DOF (Diario Oficial de la Federación). 2005. Ley de Bioseguridad de Organismos Genéticamente Modificados - LBOGM. http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LBOGM.pdf.
Duncan B, Leyva-Guerrero E, Werk T, Stojsin D, Baltazar BM, García-Lara S, Zavala-López M, de la Fuente-Martínez JM, Meng Ch. 2019. Assessment of potential impacts associated with gene flow from transgenic hybrids to Mexican maize landraces. Transgenic Research. 28. 509-523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-019-00160-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-019-00160-3
Ekborg M. 2008. Opinion building on a socio-scientific issue: the case of genetically modified plants. Journal of Biological Education. 42(2). 60-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2008.9656112 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2008.9656112
Fernandez-Cornejo J, Wechsler S, Livingston M, Mitchell L. 2014. Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. USDA-ERS Economic Research Report (162). Available at SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2503388. 60 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2503388
Fischer K, Ekener-Petersen E, Rydhmer L, Björnberg KE. 2015. Social impacts of GM crops in agriculture: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 7(7). 8598-8620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078598
Foyer J, Bonneuil C. 2014. Mexican Biosafety as a “performance of seriousness”: Distancing and the Transgenic “contamination” of Mexican Maize. HALSHS-01092208f. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01092208.
Gressel J. 2014. Dealing with transgene flow of crop protection traits from crops to their relatives. Pest Management Science. 71(5). 658-667. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3850. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3850
Hofmann F, Otto M, Wosniok W. 2014. Maize pollen deposition in relation to distance from the nearest pollen source under common cultivation - results of 10 years of monitoring (2001 to 2010). Environmental Science Europe. 26. 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0024-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0024-3
Hulse JH. 2004. Biotechnologies: past history, present state and future prospects. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 15(1). 3–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(03)00157-2
ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications). 2014. Q and A About Genetically Modified Crops-Pocket K. https://isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/1/default.asp.
Kranthi KR, Stone GD. 2020. Long-term impacts of Bt cotton in India. Nature plants, 6. 188-196. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-020-0615-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-0615-5
Kumar K, Gambhir G, Dass A, Tripathi AK, Singh A, Jha AK, Yadava P, Choudhary M, Rakshit, S. 2020. Genetically modified crops: current status and future prospects. Planta, 251. 1-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-020-03372-8
Lazos E. 2014. Consideraciones socioeconómicas y culturales en la controvertida introducción del maíz transgénico: el caso de Tlaxcala. Sociológica (México). 29(83). 201–240.
Lucht JM. 2015. Public Acceptance of Plant Biotechnology and GM Crops. Viruses. 7(8). 4254– 4281. https://doi.org/10.3390/v7082819. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v7082819
Martínez JL. 2011. Avances en la experimentación de cultivos transgénicos. In: Memorias del Foro de Consulta sobre Ingeniería Genéticas de Organismos Genéticamente Modificables, Palacio Legislativo de San Lázaro 12 de mayo 2010. 98 – 104, México DF. CEDRSSA.
Massieu-Trigo YC. 2009. Cultivos y alimentos transgénicos en México: El debate, los actores y las fuerzas sociopolíticas. Argumentos. 22(59). 217-243. http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0187-57952009000100008&lng=es&tlng=es
Meillet A, Angevin F, Bensadoun A, Huby G, Monod H and Messéan A. 2015. Design of a decision support tool for managing coexistence between genetically modified and conventional maize at farm and regional levels. Ecological Informatics. 30. 379-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.09.014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.09.014
Morales MA. 2015. ¿Es posible reducir la desconfianza política en México? El caso mexicano (1996-2004). Revista Mexicana de Opinión Pública. 18. 52–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1870-7300(15)71360-8
Motta R. 2014. Social Disputes over GMOs: An Overview. Sociology Compass. 8(12). 1360-1376. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12229
Mullaney EG. 2014. Geopolitical Maize: Peasant Seeds, Everyday Practices, and Food Security in Mexico. Geopolitics. 19(2). 406-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2014.920232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2014.920232
Mullins E., Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Crawford I, Epstein M, George L, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Naegeli H, Nogué F, Rostoks N. 2022. Updated scientific opinion on plants developed throughcisgenesis and intragenesis. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Journal. 20(10). 1-33. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7621. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7621
Naegeli H, Birch AN, Casacuberta J, De Schrijver A, Guerche P, Jones H, Manachini B, Messéan A, Ebbesen E, Nogué F, Robaglia C, Rostoks N, Sweet J, Paraskevopoulos K. 2017. Scientific Opinion on application EFSA-GMO-BE-2013-118 for authorisation of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and subcombinations independently of their origin, for food and feed uses, import and processing submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 by Monsanto Company. EFSA Journal. 15(8). 1-32. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4921.
Palmieri N, Simeone M, Russo C, Perito MA. 2020. Profiling young consumers’ perceptions of GMO products: A case study on Italian undergraduate students. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science. 21: 100224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2020.100224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2020.100224
Qaim M. 2016. The Complex Public Debate. In: Genetically Modified Crops and Agricultural Development. Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy. Palgrave Macmillan: New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137405722_7. pp: 135-163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137405722_7
SENASICA (Servicio Nacional de Sanidad, Inocuidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria). 2015. Estatus de solicitudes de permisos de liberación al ambiente de OGM. http://www.senasica.gob.mx/?id=5586.
Stone GD. 2011. Field versus farm in Warangal: Bt cotton, higher yields, and larger questions. World Development. 39(3). 387–398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.09.008
Vallaeys V, Tyson R, Lane WD, Deleersnijder E, Hanert E. 2017. A Lévy-flight diffusion model to predict transgenic pollen dispersal. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 14. 20160889. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2016.0889. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2016.0889
Wilson A. 2015. Contesting the Future of the Campo Mexicano: Food Sovereignty and the Cultural Politics of Transgenic Corn. Thesis Doctor of Philosophy. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Graduate School. https://doi.org/10.17615/bjz1-c103.
Wunderlich S, Gatto KA. 2015. Consumer Perception of Genetically Modified Organisms and Sources of Information. Advances in Nutrition 6(6). 842-851. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.115.008870. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3945/an.115.008870
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Angela Isabel Guardado Gutiérrez, Higinio López Sánchez, Benito Ramírez Valverde, Pedro Antonio López, Jesús Mario Siqueiros García, Yolanda Castañeda Zavala
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal accept the following conditions:
- The authors retain the copyright and transfer to the magazine the right of the first publication, with the work registered with the Creative Commons attribution license, which allows third parties to use what is published as long as they mention the authorship of the work and the first publication in this magazine.
- Authors may make other independent and additional contractual arrangements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the article published in this journal (e.g., including it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book) as long as they clearly indicate that the work It was first published in this magazine.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to publish their work on the Internet (for example on institutional or personal pages) before and during the review and publication process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and greater and faster dissemination of the work. published (see The Effect of Open Access).
