Grocery Update #66: Why Mexico Banned GMO Corn Cultivation.
Also: Why No-Till Is Not Regenerative.
Discontents: 1. Four Questions With Bola Pizza. 2. Why Mexico Banned GMO Corn Cultivation. 3. Why No-Till Is Not Regenerative.
1. Four Questions With Jamie Lee Kinney of Bola Pizza.
What inspired you to start Bola Pizza?
Bola Pizza started as a private event caterer. We also worked a popular downtown farmers market. One of our market regulars had a job change where he could not come to the market anymore and asked us to do a frozen pizza. I thought it was a brilliant idea! After a few months of trial and testing we launched in a few local stores. Gathering customer feedback was key. Quality control on a handmade product is not the easiest. When we felt like we had the right practices in place, we approached Central Market. The business manager there gave us some more feedback. We worked her constructive criticism into our processes and launched into all of the Central Market stores at the end of August 2012. We made it into HEB a couple of years later. Truly, I just want people to have a great pizza they can eat at home.
What are some of the unexpected business practices you have experienced from wholesalers and retailers?
We were very lucky to start with Central Market and have their full support on day one. Connecting with and building a relationship with your business/category manager is invaluable and should not be underestimated. I have had some rough transitions when a manager retired. Naively, I thought the incoming person would have the same focus and interest in relationship building. This is not always the case. Some managers are more focused on penny profits and you have to adjust based on who you’re working with. As a person who likes collaboration and communication, I find the dollars and cents relationships challenging.
I was surprised that the brand gets charged back for any damage that occurs outside of its handling. For example, a frozen stocker can forget a case of pizza on the grocery floor, it goes out of temp and the people who made it get charged back.
Being forced to do promos, aka discount your product for a period of time, is a practice I loathe. We price our pizza as low as we are able, to provide what’s known as an “everyday low price.” The margins for pricing like this are not high. Promos are usually a breakeven scenario for us. You could argue that we should charge more, but it doesn’t make sense to me to charge our customers more to give them a sale later. Seasonal or expected promos also lead to bulk buying and waiting for another promo. If this is the case, the promo has already become your everyday low price.
If by wholesaler you mean a distributor like KeHE or UNFI, we don’t use them. We can’t afford to tack 20% onto the cost of our product and spend even more time getting invoicing, chargebacks, lost inventory and out of stocks managed. It’s too much. I understand their overhead is high. They have huge DCs and hundreds if not thousands of drivers, and many more in support and sales staff. However, the time it takes to manage an account like that plus the deductions you have to find justification for is too costly for us. We are LTL, less than truckload, to a DC through a freight broker or we deliver ourselves. We’ve found this distribution model to be the best for our business. We are grateful to work with HEB this way. I would love to find other regional grocers and co-ops to work with, like Publix and Wakefern.
What would you change about these practices?
Communication and transparency are my cornerstones in business. I conduct my business relationships in an open and honest manner. It's how I conduct my personal relationships. I don’t see why business should be different. Supportive relationships will lift everyone in them, whereas negative ones bring everyone down.
What advice would you give other emerging, better for you brands?
Don’t listen to the hype and the yassifiers. If you don’t truly love this incredibly difficult, always changing business that makes you question why you’ve put your heart and soul into a fickle being that shakes to your core, and at fewer times lifts you to places you never thought you’d be, don’t do it. This is not sexy no matter what the social feeds tell you. I’ve seen billboards and marketing ads proclaiming: Launch Your Brand, Skyrocket Your Sales! There is no easy route here. You have to love the challenge as much as you love your product.
I don’t say this to discourage you, but to give perspective. Bola Pizza is 12 years old. Building a business consumes you. Your friends and family will ask: what’s new? And you’ll respond with the only things you are thinking about: is corrugate going up again, will we have another shortage, the dairy market, how hard it is to find in store brand reps, how do you keep your margins healthy when costs consistently go up?
You need a strong support system because you never know what life will throw at you. I instituted a no crying policy in our kitchen. It wasn’t for my team; it was for me. I took over managing the kitchen while running the rest of the business three years after we started. I had never managed people before. I didn’t want my team worrying about me or my leadership skills when they have families to manage. A few years later, I broke this rule while I was going through a divorce during the pandemic. We were at maximum capacity trying to fill orders. We were socially isolated outside of work, wearing masks constantly and navigating a world change. That May, I had to put my sweet cat Macio to sleep because he was dying of cancer. I nearly broke. The business part is hard enough. The personal can crush you. I was lucky to have incredible, empathetic, clever and funny people in my life. These people are not just friends and family. Some of my team have become friends and family. If not for them, I wouldn’t have found the resilience.
2. Mexico’s Constitutional Ban On Cultivation Of GMO Corn
April 30, 2025
On March 17, Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum Pardo signed into law a constitutional reform banning the cultivation of genetically modified corn. The action followed a December ruling by a trade tribunal, under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement, in favor of a U.S. complaint that Mexico's 2023 presidential decree, with broader restrictions on the consumption of GM corn, constituted an unfair trade practice by prohibiting the use of GM corn in tortillas.
The Mexican government publicly disagreed with the ruling, claiming that the three arbitrators had failed to consider the scientific evidence Mexico presented in the yearlong case. But the government chose to comply, rescinding the three specific parts of the decree deemed by the panel to limit future GM corn imports. Still, the government left intact the decree's measures phasing out the use of the herbicide glyphosate, establishing a protocol for tracking GM corn imports into the country, and banning the cultivation of GM corn in the country.
The constitutional amendment enshrines that last measure in a more permanent manner. While GM corn has faced planting restrictions for more than a decade, the constitutional ban represents an important act of resistance and sovereignty, particularly in light of the flawed decision by the tribunal.
Corn is central to Mexico's agriculture, cuisine, nutrition, and culture. Mexico is the center of origin for corn, where the crop was domesticated thousands of years ago. It remains at the core of the country’s farming, diet, and culture. As President Sheinbaum acknowledged in approving the constitutional ban on GM corn cultivation, “Sin maiz no hay pais” – without corn there is no country.
Mexico presented strong evidence that GM corn has cross-pollinated native corn varieties, gene flow that threatens to undermine the genetic integrity of the country's 64 “landraces” and more than 22,000 varieties adapted by farmers over millennia to different soils, altitudes, climates, foods, and customs.
In defense of Mexico’s 2023 decree, the panel acknowledged that the government presented scientific evidence from qualified and reputable sources of “risks to human health arising from the direct consumption of GM corn grain in Mexico, and risks to native corn of transgenic contamination arising from the unintentional, unauthorized, and uncontrolled spread of GM corn in Mexico.” (That evidence is summarized in an extensive publication from Mexico’s national science agency, CONAHCYT.)
The trade tribunal dismissed concerns about such risks in its ruling, in the process repeating several fallacies about the robust scientific evidence presented by the Mexican government. In effect, the tribunal gave itself a pass on reviewing the scientific evidence of risks to human health by ruling that Mexico had not conducted an approved risk assessment “based on relevant scientific principles”.
The panel also failed to evaluate the evidence of risks to native corn. The tribunal argued that no special protection from GM corn was needed because gene flow already takes place from non-GM hybrid varieties of corn, and GM contamination is no different from non-GM gene flow. “Mexico has not demonstrated how the threat to the traditions and livelihoods of indigenous and farming communities from GM corn is greater than the threat posed by non-native, non-GM corn,” the panel wrote.
This lazy logic flows easily from biotech industry talking points, and makes no sense at all in the birthplace of corn. In effect, the tribunal claimed that cross-pollination from hybrid corn, “could equally threaten the genetic integrity of native corn.” The discredited notion of “substantial equivalence” between GM crops and their conventionally bred hybrid counterparts has been further undermined by new research techniques that show distinct gene expressions in the cells of GM plants. Those techniques were explained in some detail in expert testimony submitted by molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, but the panel never got his testimony translated, nor those of three other experts. Not surprisingly, the ruling had no mention of Dr. Antoniou’s contribution.
Equating contamination from GM corn with that of hybrid corn is a serious misreading of the science and of Mexico’s culture. GM by definition - and by explicit definitions in the constitutional amendment - involves crossing species boundaries, introducing, for example, a gene from a bacterium into a corn plant to repel insects. In contrast, hybrid corn is produced by cross-breeding different corn varieties. The resulting hybridized offspring remains pure corn, with no non-corn genes in its DNA.
Mexican farmers have a long history of developing some of their own cross-pollinated varieties, intentionally combining a native variety with a hybrid that has properties the farmer desires. Mexican agronomists sometimes call these criollo varieties, which continue to be open-pollinating so farmers can propagate them themselves.
Such cross-pollination has nothing in common with unwanted contamination from GM corn. Gene-flow from GM corn, imposed on farmers without their informed consent, is an entirely undesired outcome offering no benefits for the farmer. They call it “genetic pollution.” It can pose a long-term risk to native landraces. Transgenic traits do not necessarily reveal themselves after contamination. That means farmers can unknowingly spread such contamination from their pollen to other corn plants.
Mexican researchers discovered such contamination in their 2013 survey of native corn varieties. Biotechnologist Antonio Serratos contributed to that survey, discovering an impressive number of native corn varieties growing in the small plots of agricultural land within the sprawl of Mexico City. While he was encouraged by the corn diversity he found, he reported that some of the native varieties he tested had transgenic traits in their DNA.
The tribunal’s misguided reasoning has particular importance for indigenous communities that value the integrity of native corn as part of their cultural heritage. In fact, Mexico argued in the dispute with the U.S. that respect for indigenous cultural rights, guaranteed in the USMCA, should include protection from contamination of both crops and foods. The panel gave itself a pass on that one as well, ruling that if Mexico wasn’t going to protect native corn from hybrids its measures would not serve to protect native corn from GMOs.
Seed-sharing under threat
Calling Mexico’s GM corn restrictions excessive and ineffective in protecting native varieties, the tribunal's alternative recommendation for controlling such unwanted gene flow was even more misguided. It suggested that “the informal seed exchange practices of indigenous and farming communities” were among the “underlying issues” Mexico should address to prevent contamination.
Limiting seed-sharing is entirely at odds with the science of seed diversity and evolution, says researcher Erica Hagman, who helped prepare Mexico’s defense in the USMCA dispute. Mexico’s rich corn diversity is the direct result of millennia of adaptive practices by farmers in their fields. That is how Mexico produced the 22,000-plus distinct varieties of native corn identified in the 2013 survey: Farmers saved, exchanged, and experimented with different varieties to create corn better adapted to the local environment and the nutritional and cultural preferences of their communities. The tribunal’s suggestion that Mexico should limit such seed-sharing to prevent GM corn contamination runs completely counter to the practices of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity.
“The attempt to limit the free exchange of seeds is dangerous for the processes of constant diversification that indigenous peoples have carried out,” says Erica Hagman. ”The approach also shows a serious lack of commitment to respect and protect human rights, particularly those of indigenous peoples and peasant communities. This is rooted in free trade agreements, which subordinate public to private interests.”
Mexico's constitutional ban on GM corn cultivation ensures that such misguided reasoning will not guide public policy. The amendment was strengthened by proposals from civil society that extended the ban to new genetically engineered seeds by banning any crops “produced with techniques that overcome the natural barriers of reproduction or recombination, such as transgenics.” This limits some of the new generations of genetically engineered crops, putting Mexico ahead of Europe in its limits on such technologies.
While the constitutional reform does not include some of the original language restricting GM corn consumption, no doubt in deference to the trade ruling, the final version shows a clear preference for non-GM crops, leaving the door open to tighter regulation.
On the risks of GM corn and its associated herbicides to public health, the panel was equally sloppy, ignoring the reams of scientific evidence Mexico presented in its defense. The tribunal rejected Mexico’s argument that existing risk-assessment procedures failed to meet Mexico’s own standard of zero-tolerance for GM corn in tortillas, given Mexicans’ exponentially higher exposure due to their corn-based diets.
The tribunal declined to address disturbing evidence, for example:
That GM corn varieties, particularly insecticidal Bt corn, are associated with a range of health effects including effects on male fertility, immunological alterations, kidney and liver toxicity, and damage to the digestive system, liver and pancreas;
The prevalence of multiple genetic modifications for both insects and herbicide-tolerance, which have dramatically increased the toxic load of the average exported corn kernel, as explained in expert comments from Friends of the Earth;
The failure of U.S. regulatory authorities to test for the combined toxicity of these so-called stacked-trait varieties, despite clear evidence that the combination of such genetic modifications poses greater risks than any one of the U.S.-approved;
That new research tools show that U.S. and industry assertions of “substantial equivalence” between GM crops and their conventionally bred counterparts are false, ignoring evidence of unintended expressions in the genomes of GM crops;
Residues from glyphosate-based herbicides remain in substantial quantities on GM corn and other food crops, and studies link higher exposure to glyphosate in early life to cancer, adverse early neurodevelopment, lower birth weight, and reproductive birth effects – effects that also show up in lab animals exposed to glyphosate.
At no point did the tribunal demand that the U.S. demonstrate that its GM corn is safe for Mexicans to eat.
It is no wonder the Mexican government proceeded with its constitutional amendment to ban the cultivation of GM corn.
3. Why No-Till Is Not Regenerative.
By Friends Of The Earth.
A new report from Friends of the Earth refutes the widely-held assumption that conventional no-till agriculture is “regenerative.” The report finds that most no-till systems are so heavily dependent on toxic herbicides to manage weeds that a staggering one-third of the U.S.’s total annual pesticide use (a term that includes herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) can be attributed to no- and minimum-till corn and soy production alone.
Chemical-intensive agriculture predominates in the U.S. not through the fault of farmers, but because that is what public policies and markets support. Farmers have widely adopted no-till to minimize soil erosion and now must be supported to reduce agrochemical inputs.
The report finds that the vast majority (93%) of acreage of the top two no- and minimum-till crops, corn and soy, use toxic herbicides that have devastating consequences for soil life and human health. These chemicals, being broadcast across nearly 100 million acres nationwide, predominantly in the Heartland and Great Plains, have been linked to cancer, birth defects, infertility, neurotoxicity, disruption of the gut microbiome, endocrine disruption, and more. The majority (61%) of use is chemicals that are classified as highly hazardous. Glyphosate, the cancer-linked main ingredient in the widely criticized weedkiller Roundup, is the most widely used herbicide in no-till corn and soy.
The cost of chemical-intensive no-till goes beyond impacts on our health: It is also destroying the soil that grows our food. The pesticides widely used in conventional no-till devastate soil health, harming the soil microbiome and invertebrates like worms and beetles, as well as essential pollinators and other wildlife. Healthy, living soil improves farmers’ resilience to droughts and floods, conserves water, and draws more carbon down from the atmosphere. Soil ravaged by toxic pesticides threatens resources needed for a healthy food system.
The report debunks the faulty assumption that conventional no-till is a climate solution, summarizing extensive scientific research showing there is no clear relationship between no-till and soil carbon sequestration. And the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the fossil-fuel-based synthetic pesticides and fertilizers used in no- and minimum-till corn and soy are equivalent to that of 11.4 million cars on the road over an entire year — about the number of cars in the top 9 no-till states combined.
“As regenerative agriculture takes center stage in national conversations about how to make America healthy, it’s crucial that we advance truly regenerative agriculture,” said Dr. Kendra Klein, Deputy Director of Science at Friends of the Earth.
The ascendance of no-till is linked to the chemical industry’s attempt to deepen farmers’ dependence on their toxic products. Chemical companies such as Imperial Chemical Industries and Chevron conducted no-till experiments and helped spread the concept of industrial no-till in the 1970s, recognizing it as an opportunity to increase the market for their herbicides. Currently, pesticide giant Bayer is offering to pay farmers to practice no-till as part of their “regenerative agriculture” program.
“Food companies investing in regenerative agriculture need to avoid greenwashed conventional no-till and instead support the transition to legitimately regenerative agriculture ,” said Sarah Starman, Senior Campaigner of Food & Agriculture.
Truly regenerative agriculture cannot be boiled down to single practices, it works with the farming system as a whole. Research shows that careful tillage can achieve better soil outcomes than chemical-intensive no-till agriculture.
A central tenet of truly regenerative agriculture is dramatic reduction of harmful agrochemicals. Research shows that reducing use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers in conventional agriculture is not only possible, it can increase yields by fostering beneficial insects and healthy soil and can increase profitability by reducing farmers’ input costs.
A leading form of truly regenerative agriculture is organic farming. And unlike the term ‘regenerative,’ the USDA organic seal is enforced through a rigorous legal standard. Decades of research shows that organic farms, on average, improve soil health, climate resilience, and soil carbon sequestration; reduce emissions; and protect biodiversity, human health, and community wellbeing.
Key findings
At least 93% of no-till and minimum-till corn and soy acreage in the U.S. uses synthetic herbicides, an area the size of California (99.5 million acres).
Herbicide use in no-till corn and soy can be associated with 33% of total annual pesticide use in the U.S. — 285 million pounds of pesticides.
The majority of use (61%) is herbicides classified as highly hazardous to human health and/or the environment — 173 million pounds.
Glyphosate accounts for 40% of the total use of herbicides in no-till corn and soy and at least 26 million pounds of additional herbicides are used annually.
At least 89% of conventional no- and minimum-till corn and soy acres rely on seeds genetically engineered to be herbicide tolerant.
Neonicotinoid seed coatings are used on 100% of conventional no-till corn.
Fossil-fuel-based inputs to no- and minimum-till corn and soy can be associated with ~49.3 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent emissions.
Conventional no-till production does not increase soil carbon and in some cases has been found to reduce it.
Tillage is not universally detrimental to soil health and can be incorporated into regenerative farming systems.
peace.