Grocery Update #43: Mexico Vs. GMO Corn
Also: Why Eggs Are So Pricey. And What Whole Foods Can Learn From Heinen's.
1. Re-sharing SoCal Wildfire Resources.
The Checkout Grocery Update stands in solidarity with the communities in California impacted by catastrophic wildfires. It is becoming more and more common to experience climate catastrophes, from deadly freezes in Texas, to hurricanes and flooding in North Carolina and Florida, to “bomb cyclones” in the Northeast, and other extreme weather patterns. Having compassion and empathy for the folks in harms way should be our natural response, because next time it may be you, me, any of us. Leveraging such crises for political or financial gain is just plain evil. This is a time for solidarity.
Our friends at UFCW 770 in Southern California have put together a comprehensive list of resources for the tens of thousands of people impacted, in both English and Spanish. Please share, donate, support and do whatever you can. We are all in this together.
2. Why Is Biden USDA Forcing GMO Corn on Mexico?
It’s safe to say that the recent ruling of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (UCMCA) tribunal against Mexico in the dispute over genetically engineered (GMO) corn undermines Mexico’s food sovereignty. The ruling is one of the biggest failures of the Biden-era USDA to support diversified food systems and has been celebrated as a huge win by the biotechnology and agribusiness sectors.
Mexico, like any sovereign nation, should have the right to take measures to protect its people, local farmers, economic development, and the environment from the risks posed by GMO corn imported from the United States. Millions of U.S. consumers already do so, with huge growth in Non-GMO Verified and certified organic products. As we wrote last week, products with both USDA Organic and Non-GMO Project Verified saw sales of $7.04 billion in 2023, growing 13.7%. The vast majority of U.S. GMO acreage are crops engineered for pesticide resistance and herbicide tolerance, over 100 million acres of corn, soy, plus sugar beets, canola and alfalfa that form the foundation of the industrial and ultraprocessed food supply, with 85-95% of acreage of these commodity crops genetically modified. The USMCA trade agreement should not be weaponized to undermine other countries’ domestic food policies, especially when they have little impact on trade and run counter to massive, generational shifts in consumer preferences.
By ruling in favor of the U.S., the panel ignored the extensive evidence presented by Mexico and others of the risks to public health, the environment, and indigenous cultures posed by GMO corn:
The pesticide residues and genetically engineered insecticidal compounds in GMO corn have been linked to a wide range of serious health impacts, including damage to the human GI tract, alteration of kidney function, triggering of immune responses and possibly new food allergies, and acceleration of already worrisome trends in the frequency of overweight, obesity, kidney disease, and diabetes;
The U.S. and Canada provided no evidence that the GMO corn the U.S. exports to Mexico is safe to eat at high levels;
Exposure levels for the Mexican population would be orders of magnitude higher than the U.S. given that corn-based foods make up about 60% of daily caloric intake in Mexico;
Genetically modified corn could contaminate the rich store of native corn varieties central to Mexicans' diets, cultures, landscapes, and worldviews.
By ruling in favor of the U.S., the trade dispute panel highlights the illegitimacy of the trade agreement itself.
As the Mexican coalition Sin Maiz No Hay Pais (Without Corn There is No Country) states:
“A trade panel has neither the legitimacy nor the capacity to evaluate the measures adopted by a country to protect the health of its population, preserve its biocultural wealth, and safeguard the genetic reservoir of a crop that, due to its production volume and diversity of uses, is the most important in the world. Therefore, under no circumstances can a trade agreement be above Mexico's sovereignty.”
Please sign onto this public letter if you agree.
We spoke with food systems scholar Timothy Wise about the ruling. He has written extensively about the case on his blog and recently concluded:
“The tribunal’s ruling will not undo the fact that Mexico's precautionary policies are indeed justified by a wealth of scientific evidence. By allowing the trade agreement to undermine a domestic policy that barely affects trade, it will further tarnish the legitimacy of an agreement already seen as favoring multinational corporations over public health and the environment.”
We asked Wise what the implications for food sovereignty in Mexico will now be, and he was surprisingly positive:
“There is a truly limited scope and impact of the USMCA GM corn ruling, in contrast to the triumphalist pronouncements from the US government and industry. I would be shocked if US corn exporters showed any measurable increase in sales to Mexico as a result of the decision. So the "huge win" is ideological, as Mexico argued all along, a line in the sand on questioning GM crops. The headlines were just off on that one too, proclaiming that Mexico's policies "weren't based on science." That's not what the panel said.
“The one striking thing about the ruling is that the panel completely sidestepped the question of actual risks based on scientific evidence. They simply said Mexico failed to do a proper risk assessment, not that the evidence they presented was somehow invalid. So it settled nothing except the hard-and-fast protocols for doing risk assessments before enacting policies.
“Practically, the "huge win" is ephemeral. Mexican can and will keep important parts of its decree, unchallenged by the US: ban on cultivation, phaseout of glyphosate, establishment of traceability protocols (i.e. labeling). They can afford to lose the substitution issue because it never had any teeth and it's less of a priority for Mexican President Sheinbaum anyway.
“Mexicans are not going to eat GM-tainted tortillas, all the more so now because of this controversy. That market has left the station. There will either be voluntary labeling of tortillas - and no company wants a "may contain GMOs" label - or a national labeling regimen already approved by the legislature as part of its Right to Food Law. The latter will be far more sweeping, affecting all foods and all GM ingredients, not just corn. And it will no doubt be accelerated by the tribunal's decision.
“Biotech can crow about its "huge win," but if I farmed white corn and wanted to export to Mexico, I'd still switch to non-GM varieties. Current premiums are $.55-$1.00/bushel, and Mexican tortilla companies are not going to want anything else.”
Timothy A. Wise is a researcher and writer whose three decades of work have focused on agriculture, the environment, international trade, and the right to food. He is an Investigative Journalist with U.S. Right to Know and a Senior Research Fellow at Tufts University’s Global Development and Environment Institute. He is also a Senior Advisor with the Small Planet Institute. He was a Senior Advisor on the Future of Food at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy from 2000-2024. He is the author of Confronting Globalization: Economic Integration and Popular Resistance in Mexico, in addition to Eating Tomorrow.
3. Eggs, Bird Flu, and You: Why Are Eggs Still Expensive?
There is simply no ignoring it — eggs are far more expensive than ever before. Currently, the wholesale cost of a dozen conventionally produced eggs is as high as $9 in California, and just above $6 in New York, which means yet higher prices at the cash register nationwide.
So what exactly is going on?
In brief, the country is undergoing an egg shortage, caused by an ongoing outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza(sometimes more commonly known as bird flu). An ever-high demand for this staple food against a now short supply means more expensive eggs — but the causes of this shortage and the trend toward higher prices are more complex than that.
Practices in egg production across the country leave egg-laying hens vulnerable to infection. Cal-Maine, which far and away owns more egg-laying hens than any other producer, has long been at the center of controversy for alleged mistreatment and poor housing for hens. Beyond humanitarian concerns for the welfare of these animals, the confined spaces in which they live can serve as a breeding ground for diseases like avian influenza, which then entails the deliberate culling of flocks, resulting in egg shortages.
Just last year, Cal-Maine committed $40 million to expanding cage-free housing for egg-laying hens, and cage-free hens comprised 40 percent of the egg-laying population in March 2024, largely in anticipation of upcoming regulatory changes. However, these adjustments have not done much to curtail the spread of avian influenza, given the fact that “cage free” does not necessarily mean unconfined, well-ventilated spaces for chickens.
With all the above considered, the need becomes clear for at-once diversified and localized supplies of egg-laying hens, prioritizing pasture-raised chickens
Our reliance on large-scale, enclosed facilities that house thousands of chickens leave the supply chain too dependent on single locations serving millions of consumers. When one such facility must shut its doors, consumers bear the brunt of the resulting costs.
While hens raised outdoors are not immune to avian influenza, and, in fact, its transmission occurs via exposure to wild waterfowl, confinement is most often the factor that leads to large-scale infections and the decision to destroy flocks en masse. With the proper biosecurity measures in place, pastured chickens fare better than those kept indoors.
In addition, corporate consolidation across the agricultural industry encourages sometimes illegal anticompetitive market practices that keep both wholesale and retail prices high, even when the food supply is normalized. In 2023, for example, a federal price-fixing case found Cal-Maine, Rose Acre Farms, and other industry groups that are among the nation’s largest egg producers guilty of intentionally reducing their supply to artificially raise the price of eggs for other food manufacturers.
While Congress continues to work on a new Farm Bill, the rising cost of eggs, and the cost of food in general, should move us to find policy solutions that encourage locally based, responsible, and resilient agricultural practices. State and federal support for a diversified food economy could not only help keep prices low in times of crisis, but also help avoid these crises altogether.
Casey Dalrymple is Communications & Operations Manager at Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center, as well as a Site Lead at GrowNYC's Union Square Greenmarket. He has previously worked as a cook at a number of establishments across New York City, and can occasionally be found playing folk music around Queens, where he currently resides.
4. Philly Whole Foods Workers Rally In Support of Right to Unionize.
Workers at the Amazon-owned Whole Foods in Center City, Philadelphia and members of UFCW Local 1776 joined with elected officials outside the store to support workers’ right to unionize.
“We have countless stories of unfair treatment of my coworkers, unrealistic expectations by management and being pushed harder and harder every day. But we will NOT let Whole Foods discourage us,” stated Piper, who’s worked for Whole Foods for three years.
“These Whole Foods workers have united together to unionize, seeking fair wages, improved benefits, and a safer, more supportive workplace,” said UFCW Local 1776 President Wendell Young IV. “Amazon’s recent use of intimidation tactics at Whole Foods won’t deter these workers from exercising their right to unionize. UFCW Local 1776, our labor partners, and community allies stand firmly behind them. Monday’s event will showcase the strength of our solidarity and our commitment to their cause.”
“A union will help us bring to the bargaining table what is necessary, like raises to a livable wage; good health care for all; removal of the wage cap for long-time team members; staffing that allows a reasonable workload; and protection from at-will firing,” said Kyhania “Kyh” Adams, who works in the prepared food department. “We come from a long line of folks who have worked tirelessly to get us what we have, and we will continue to ask for what we deserve.”
Whole Foods workers want to form a union to bargain for a living wage; healthcare for all employees; removal of the wage cap for long-time team members, staffing that allows a reasonable workload; and protection from at-will firing.
Philly Whole Foods Workers can be found on Instagram at @phillywholefoodsworkers.
5. Whole Foods Can Learn Better Labor Relations From Heinen’s and Giant Eagle.
Over 8,000 grocery workers at Giant Eagle and Heinen’s approved new four-year contracts recently. These agreements include:
The largest wage increases in decades.
Higher starting pay and increased premium wage rates.
Broader access to affordable health insurance for families.
Expanded preventive healthcare services for both children and adults.
Improved paid time off benefits.
The workers are represented by UFCW Local 880 in Northeast Ohio. “This contract isn’t just about wages, it sets the standard for how America’s essential workers deserve to be treated,” said Miles Anderson, President of UFCW Local 880. “With these new agreements, Giant Eagle and Heinen’s are acknowledging the critical role their workers play in their success and the communities they serve.”
Both Giant Eagle CEO Bill Artman and Heinen’s Co-President Tom Heinen expressed hopes that the new contracts would demonstrate appreciation and recognition for the employees’ contributions. “By renewing this agreement, we ensure fair and deserving compensation for the vital work our employees do across Northeast Ohio,” said Heinen.
Giant Eagle operates over 470 stores in Western Pennsylvania, North Central Ohio, Northern West Virginia, Maryland, and Indiana. Heinen’s has 23 locations, with 19 in the Cleveland area.
6. NLRB Rules Captive Audience Meetings An Illegal Abuse Of Employer Power.
This article was originally published by the Economic Policy Institute in November 2024 but we thought it was really cool and important.
U.S. employers have tremendous power over worker conduct. For decades, federal law has allowed employers to require workers to attend “captive audience” meetings—and force employees to listen to political, religious, or anti-union employer views—on work time.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that anti-union captive audience meetings are illegal because they interfere with workers’ right to freely choose whether to form or join a union.
The NLRB ruling is game changing because while workers’ right to organize without employer interference is spelled out clearly in federal labor law, employers have long used captive audience meetings and other tactics to violate these rights in practice.
Analysis of NLRB elections documents shows that 89% of all employers conduct captive audience meetings in response to unionization efforts. Employers spend over $400 million per year on “union-avoidance” consultants, who specialize in using captive audience meetings to intimidate, threaten, and instill fear in workers for the purpose of coercing them to oppose unionization.
The NLRB ruling makes these egregious, widespread abuses of employer power illegal in the context of worker organizing.
Meanwhile, a growing number of states have enacted legislation to protect workers broadly from the overarching threat of employer coercion, banning mandatory captive audience meetings on political or religious matters (including, but not limited to, employer opinions on unionization). Importantly, these state policies (like the NLRB ruling) do not limit employer rights to express opinions or even to invite employees to political or religious meetings during work time. Instead, this legislation is designed to prohibit employers from threatening, disciplining, firing, or retaliating against workers who choose to not attend mandatory workplace meetings focused on political or religious matters that are unrelated to an employee’s job duties.
Legislation in 12 states now protects 45.9 million workers’ freedom of thought and association. So far, 12 states—Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington—have enacted laws designed to protect employees’ dignity and freedom of thought and association, protecting 45.9 million workers from some or all forms of captive audience meetings. Most recently, Alaska voters approved a ballot measure to ban mandatory captive audience meetings. Colorado passed similar legislation in 2024, only to have it vetoed by the governor.
Legislation is also under consideration in five more states, which would protect another 18 million workers, meaning that a total of 63.9 million workers in 17 states could stand to benefit.
7. Seen In The Wild.
Epic citrus display at Wheatsville Co-op in South Austin.
8. Tunes.
This week’s tune is dedicated to all the professional, volunteer and incarcerated firefighters putting their lives on the line to protect Los Angeles.
peace.
(Perspectives are 100% our own and do not reflect those of our sponsors).